1994 Supreme(Raj) 870

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.C.Mital, R.S.Verma, JJ.
Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2685, 2115, 1153 of 1994.
Decided On : 19-08-1994

The Court held that the moderation of marks was a valid technique to ensure comparability of marks across different optional subjects because the candidates had a choice of 22 optional subjects and it was necessary to bring uniformity in evaluation.

Headnote:

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) conducted a combined competitive examination for recruitment to various State and Subordinate Services. The petitioners, who were among the candidates who took the preliminary examination, challenged the scheme of examination, the introduction of an additional optional paper, the moderation of marks, the preparation of a common list of successful candidates from SC/ST and general categories, and the non-publication of marks and cut-off percentage. The Court upheld the scheme of examination, finding that it was not retrospective and that the introduction of an additional optional paper was not arbitrary or unreasonable. It also held that the moderation of marks was a valid technique to ensure comparability of marks across different optional subjects and that the preparation of a common list of successful candidates from SC/ST and general categories was not violative of the reservation policy. However, the Court directed the RPSC to publish the results of the preliminary examination, including the formula of moderation, the cut-off percentage, and the raw and scaled marks of each candidate.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were candidates who took the preliminary examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for recruitment to various State and Subordinate Services. They challenged the scheme of examination, the introduction of an additional optional paper, the moderation of marks, the preparation of a common list of successful candidates from SC/ST and general categories, and the non-publication of marks and cut-off percentage.

Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the scheme of examination, finding that it was not retrospective and that the introduction of an additional optional paper was not arbitrary or unreasonable. It also held that the moderation of marks was a valid technique to ensure comparability of marks across different optional subjects and that the preparation of a common list of successful candidates from SC/ST and general categories was not violative of the reservation policy.

Issues: 1. Whether the scheme of examination was retrospective and violative of the rights of the petitioners. 2. Whether the introduction of an additional optional paper was arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. Whether the moderation of marks was a valid technique to ensure comparability of marks across different optional subjects. 4. Whether the preparation of a common list of successful candidates from SC/ST and general categories was violative of the reservation policy. 5. Whether the non-publication of marks and cut-off percentage was violative of the rights of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the scheme of examination was not retrospective and did not violate the rights of the petitioners because it was notified well in advance and the petitioners had sufficient time to prepare for the examination. 2. The Court held that the introduction of an additional optional paper was not arbitrary or unreasonable because it was a well-established pattern followed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and it did not have any nexus with the object of the preliminary examination, which was to serve as a screening test. 3. The Court held that the moderation of marks was a valid technique to ensure comparability of marks across different optional subjects because the candidates had a choice of 22 optional subjects and it was necessary to bring uniformity in evaluation. 4. The Court held that the preparation of a common list of successful candidates from SC/ST and general categories was not violative of the reservation policy because the RPSC had made a provision for a relaxation of 5% in the cut-off percentage of marks for SC/ST candidates. 5. The Court held that the non-publication of marks and cut-off percentage was violative of the rights of the petitioners because it prevented them from knowing their performance and from challenging the evaluation of their marks.

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petitions with directions to the RPSC to publish the results of the preliminary examination, including the formula of moderation, the cut-off percentage, and the raw and scaled marks of each candidate. The Court also directed the RPSC to provide mark sheets to the candidates who applied for them upon payment of a reasonable fee.