1. Eligibility test for lecturer appointment — Qualifying marks for preliminary papers specified — Candidate failed descriptive paper due to post-advertisement cut-off — Challenge to eligibility criteria. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1400
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
Jharkhand Public Service Commission – Petitioner
Versus
Manoj Kumar Gupta And Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9441, 9442 of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31106, 14926 OF 2017)
Decided on : 18-12-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment of Lecturers – Additional aspect brought in while determining merit of candidates does not amount to change of rules of game midway.
Appointment of Lecturers – Additional aspect brought in while determining merit of candidates does not amount to change of rules of game midway.
Subject
Administrative Law - Eligibility Test
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment of Lecturers – State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) – Advertisement clearly indicates that only those candidates who obtained 50% marks in Paper I and II would be eligible to take test in Paper III – Minimum qualifying marks in case of General/OBC candidates was 50% – At this stage, there was no need to fix qualifying marks for Paper III – That need will arise only when moderation committee meets and decides what should be level of competence expected from people who are to be considered for appointment as Lecturers – It is for moderation committee to decide what should be cutoff marks – There were no minimum marks provided for Paper III in advertisement – This could be done by moderation committee even at a later stage – This is not a change brought about but an additional aspect brought in while determining merit of candidates who are found fit to be eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers – High Court erred in holding that JPSC could not fix minimum marks for Paper III – Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued an advertisement on 19.07.2006 inviting applications from candidates desirous of competing in Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET). This test is not meant for selection to any post but is conducted to determine eligibility of the candidates for appointment as lecturers in universities and colleges of the State of Jharkhand. Writ petitioner obtained 50% marks in Papers I and II but he did not do as well in Paper III. JPSC fixed a cut off percentage of 60 for Paper III which the writ petitioner did not attain and as such he was declared not successful and, therefore, ineligible to be considered for appointment as lecturer.
Findings of Court:
There were no minimum marks provided for Paper III in the advertisement. This could be done by moderation committee even at a later stage. This is not a change brought about but an additional aspect brought in while determining the merit of the candidates who are found fit to be eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Sunil Kumar, Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Jamnesh Kumar, Abhishek Vikas, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Anil K. Jha, Advocate
For the Appellant(s) :Sunil Kumar, Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Jamnesh Kumar, Abhishek Vikas, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Anil K. Jha, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Whether fixing minimum qualifying marks for a descriptive paper after the advertisement constitutes impermissible changing of the rules of the game during the selection process. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Moderation committees are specifically constituted to determine subject-specific cut-off marks based on candidate performance and expected competence levels after the examination. (Para 6 )
4. Fixing cut-off marks through a designated moderation committee after the selection process begins does not amount to changing the rules of the game. (Para 7 )
5. High Court judgment set aside — Appeal of the Public Service Commission allowed — Appeal of the candidate dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. Does fixing cut-off marks for a descriptive paper after the issuance of an advertisement amount to changing the rules of the game?
No. If a moderation committee is constituted to determine the level of competence and fix cut-off marks based on performance, it is an additional aspect of determining merit, not an impermissible change in the rules of the game. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. What is the role of a moderation committee in eligibility tests conducted per UGC guidelines?
The moderation committee helps in deciding the cut-off marks in each subject for declaring results, allowing for the adjustment of standards based on the performance of candidates in specific subjects. (Para 5 , 6 )
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued an advertisement on 19.07.2006 inviting applications from candidates desirous of competing in the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET). This test is not meant for selection to any post but is conducted to determine the eligibility of the candidates for appointment as lecturers in universities and colleges of the State of Jharkhand. This test called the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) is conducted as per the guidelines laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
2. The test consists of three papers – the first two papers are multiple choice questions to be answered on an Optical Mark Reader (OMR). One test is of a general subject and one test is of the subject for which the candidate applies. The third paper is a descriptive type question paper dealing only with the subject selected by the candidate. Relevant portion of the advertisement reads as follows:
“A candidate who does not appear in PaperI will not be permitted to appear in Paper-II and Paper-III. Paper-III will be evaluated only for those candidates who are able to secure the minimum qualifying marks in Paper-I and Paper-II as per the table given in the following:
| CATEGORY | MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS | ||
| PAPERI | PAPERII | PAPER-I + PAPERII | |
| GENERAL/OBC | 40 | 40 | 100(50%) |
| PH/VH | 35 | 35 | 90(45%) |
| SC/ST | 35 | 35 | 80(40%) |
3. The writ petitioner obtained 50% marks in Papers I and II but he did not do as well in Paper III. The JPSC fixed a cut off percentage of 60 for Paper III which the writ petitioner did not attain and as such he was declared not successful and, therefore, ineligible to be considered for appointment as lecturer.
4. Aggrieved by the said action, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court which allowed the same. The appeal filed by the JPSC before the writ court was also allowed mainly on the ground that the Public Service Commission could not have fixed qualifying marks of 60% and this amounted to changing the rules of the game after the advertisement had been issued and process of selection had started. It held that once the candidate had obtained 50% marks, the candidate could not be disqualified and the JPSC was not bound by the instructions of the UGC in this regard. The High Court also directed that the case of the writ petitioner would be considered on the basis of performance. The High Court held that no cut off marks had been provided for Paper III.
5. We have heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the JPSE who drew our attention to the scheme framed by the UGC for the SLET. The scheme has a provision for constitution of a moderation committee which will help in deciding the cut off marks in each subject for declaring the result. The relevant portion of the scheme reads as follows:
“Moderation Committee: The committee will help in deciding the cutoff marks in each subject for declaring the result. The Committee will consist of the following:
1. Chairman of Steering/Advisory Committee.
2. State Government Representatives.
3. Two Professors of the different State Universities in rotation.
4. One Professor from outside the State.
5. Member Secretary (State agency)
6. One nominee of the UCAT out of two nominated by UGC.
7. Member Secretary, (UGC Official) UCAT, UGC.”
Mr. Sunil Kumar contends that the moderation committee, keeping in view the various factors, decides what should be the cut off marks in each subject and this does not have to be decided at the stage of issuance of advertisement. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Vikas, learned counsel appearing for the original writ petitioner, submits that the advertisement does not envisage any minimum cutoff marks for Paper III. He further submits that this is only an eligibility test and the field of choice becomes larger if more people are held eligible. Both sides have challenged the judgment of the High Court and we are deciding both the appeals by th
