1. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment because in both the petitions, challenge is to the selection made by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter called 'the Commission') in the Public Service Commission Examination for the year 2003 on various grounds.

2. The undisputed facts are that the Commission issued an advertisement on 04.07.2003 inviting applications for 177 posts in the said Civil Services ranging from Deputy Superintendent of Police to Sub Inspector (Excise Department). The test was to be conducted in three parts viz. preliminary examination, main examination and interview. The preliminary examination consists of two papers of objective type. The main examination consists of seven papers of conventional type questions and the interview was to carry 250 marks. The preliminary examination was conducted on 21.12.2003. Thereafter, the main examination was conducted. The Petitioners were called for interview but their names did not find place in the final merit list. They sought certain information from the Commission and thereafter filed the present writ petitions.

3. The allegations of the Petitioners in a nutshell are that the selection process of the Commission is full of irregularities, corruption and mistakes. At every stage of the examination, there has been bungling and corruption, and as such, the entire selection process needs to be quashed. The Petitioners firstly submit that the question papers of the main examination were not properly marked and they have attempted to show that the marking is highly improper. By drawing the attention of this Court to certain answer-papers, it is submitted that since the marking at this stage is improper, the answer sheets of all the candidates who appeared in the main examination should be got evaluated again.

4. The second submission is that the Commission followed a system of scaling. It outsourced scaling to some other agency namely Noybl Lab. According to the Petitioners, the scaling has not been done properly. They have pointed out various instances where the persons having the same raw marks have been given different marks after scaling. Scaling has to be done according to a mathematical formula and if the raw marks are same, the marks after scaling cannot be different.

5. The next submission is that the scaling was also improper because if a particular paper was attempted by a candidate as a first option and he got 'x' number of marks before scaling, after scaling he was given 'y' number of marks. However, if any candidate attempted the same paper in the same subject not as first option but as second option and got the same marks i.e. 'x' then he was not given 'y' marks and was totally given different marks i.e. 'z' marks. This according to the Petitioners, clearly shows that scaling was improper.

6. The Petitioners also submit that in the subject of Anthropology, two different methods were followed for evaluating the same paper. The Petitioners have placed reliance on the statement of charges of misconduct Dr. B.P. Kashyap, Examination Controller of the Commission in this regard. In the paper of Anthropology, papers of some candidates were evaluated by only evaluating 4 answers with each carrying a value of 75 marks and in case of some other candidates, five answers were evaluated out of which two were evaluated against 75 marks and other three were evaluated against 50 marks. In the second paper of Anthropology, question No. 8 was found fit to be cancelled. In some cases, despite question No. 8 being found fit to be cancelled, marks were awarded against question No. 8 and in some cases, no such marks were awarded.

7. Further allegation of Ku. Varsha Dongre is that Scheduled Caste candidates who had got selected on their own merits without taking benefit of reservation were wrongly adjusted in the Scheduled