Honble SINGH, J.–The technique of scaling, normalisation and moderation, in evaluating the answer sheets in the competitive examinations, where candidates appear in mass, is an accepted procedure adopted by the Public Service Commission.

(2). The Union Public Service Commission has already adopted this technique and is applying it in the various examinations conducted by it.

(3). The Rajasthan Public Service Commission has also made the same technique applicable to the examinations conducted by it since 1993 where large number of candidates are appearing and large number of examiners are involved in evaluating the answer- sheets. A Division Bench of this Court in the case Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal vs. State of Rajasthan (1), has already accepted the application of this technique in Rajasthan as valid. The Supreme Court has also approved it.

(4). The learned Single Judge, while allowing writ petitions No. 3272/97 (Ramesh Chand Pilwal & Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission) and No. 3273/97 (Niranjan Prasad vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission), has cancelled the result of the main examination in which 3490 candidates had appeared. The result of the interview has also been cancelled. The Court observed :

``I am of the considered view even without entering into the controversy of `Bias that the application of device of moderation in the main examination is an arbitrary act on the part of the RPSC and it has affec- ted not only the merit of the candidates who have been declared failed but also the merit of those candidates who have been shown successful and have been called for interview. The merit of a candidate should be judged on the basis of marks obtained by him in the main examination. The act of increasing and decreasing his marks by resorting to device of moderation in the main examination may be termed as an act of crushing the calibre of a meritorious candidates. Element of fairness is missing from this act. We cannot achieve accurate results by applying principles of statistics in the examination covering a few thousand candidates only. Accurate results can only be achieved by resorting the device of moderation in mass conducted examination covering more than 33000 candidates....

(5). The Rajasthan Service Commission had issued an advertisement on 21st November, 1994 for holding the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services combined Competitive Examination, 1994 to fill up 310 posts.

(6). The preliminary examination was held on 10.12.1995. In all 51506 candidates appeared in this Examination. On 10.4.1996 the result was declared. 4654 candidates could qualify in the preliminary examination. They became eligible to appear in the main examination which commenced on 26.12.1996 and was to end in January 1997. In the main examination only 3490 candidates appeared. The result of the main examination was declared on 3.5.1997. In the main examination only 897 candidates could qualify for interview. Interviews were to be held from 2.6.1997 to 10.7.1997.

(7). On the 17.6.1997 an unsigned and undated letter was received by the Regi- stry of this Court in the name of the Chief Justice alleging irregularities in conducting the examination by the Commission. Allegations of favourtism and bias were made against the Chairman of the Commission, paper-setters and examiners. This was listed before the Vacation Judge on 18.6.1997. Another letter signed by about 12 persons accompanied by a paper shown as an `affidavit containing names and roll number of 23 persons, is also in the record. The said `affidavit was neither sworn before any Oath Commissioner nor before the Public Notary. In no way, it could be treated as an affidavit. At the most, this document can be accepted as giving the names and roll numbers of certain persons who associated themselves with the letter and they can be treated as petitioners.

(8). Treating these letters as writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation, the Court passed an order on 26.6.1997 :-

``The C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document