IMPORTANT POINTS
Where in an examination besides compulsory subjects a number of optional subjects are offered out of which two are to be selected and there are a large number of candidates, moderation is the best method for tackling examiner variability.
A direction to finalise results of examination/selection afresh, because PSC adopted a wrong method, after ten years would most likely disturb and adversely affect persons serving for ten years for which they were not at fault cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Civil Appeal No.2326 of 2011 and Civil Appeal Nos.2328-2330 of 2011 :

The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court by which the results of the main written examinations of Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service (Backlog/Special Recruitment) Examination, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “Backlog Examination, 2004”) and Provincial Civil Service (P.C.S.) Examination, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “P.C.S. Examination, 2004”) were quashed.

2. An advertisement was issued by the Appellant inviting applications for appointment to posts under the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services in February, 2004. The preliminary examination was conducted on 19.12.2004 and the results were declared on 30.06.2005. The preliminary examination consisted of two papers namely General Studies and one optional subject. The main written examination was held between 19.12.2005 and 03.01.2006, the results of which were announced on 06.10.2006. In the main written examination, the candidates were required to take two papers of 200 marks each in General Studies, one paper in Hindi and another in English Essay both carrying 150 marks. All these four papers were compulsory. Apart from the compulsory papers, the candidates had to take two optional subjects with two papers in each optional. Oral interviews were conducted between 09.11.2006 and 16.11.2006.

3. There was another advertisement issued by the Appellant in May, 2004 for the Backlog Examination, 2004 calling for applications from reserved category candidates for backlog posts. The preliminary examinations were conducted on 27.02.2005 and its results were announced in September, 2005. The main written examination was conducted between 19.05.2006 to 03.06.2006, the results of which were announced on 24.03.2007.

4. Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the declaration of results of the above two examinations mainly on the ground that the scaling method followed by the Appellant in awarding marks to the candidates was illegal, arbitrary and irrational. According to the Respondents their actual marks were reduced due to the scaling method adopted by the Appellant.

5. Recruitment made to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of U.P. was the subject matter of challenge in a Writ Petition filed in this Court in Sanjay Singh and Another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another (2007) 3 SCC 720. The examination was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission in 2003. The result of the examination was challenged on the ground that the adoption of the scaling method was arbitrary. The complaint was that there was reduction of actual marks to the detriment of meritorious candidates. This Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) considered the point whether the scaling method adopted by the Commission was arbitrary and irrational and held that moderation is the appropriate method to offset examiner variability and the process of scaling can be followed where the candidates take different optional subjects.

6. The High Court by its judgment dated 25.05.2007 allowed Civil Writ Petition Nos.18775 of 2007, 19089 of 2007 and 20331 of 2007 by quashing the results of the main written examination of the Backlog Examination, 2004 declared by the Commission on 24.03.2007. There was a further direction by the High Court to the Appellant to declare the results of the Backlog Examination, 2004 afresh in the light of the observations made therein and the directions issued in the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Singh’s case. The High Court referred to the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant that the subjects of General Studies, Hindi and English Essay were compulsory subjects to be taken by all the candidates. There were two optional subjects with two papers each to be taken by the candidates in the main written examinations. The candidates had to choose the two options from a choice of 33 subjects mentioned in the adv