Supreme Court clarifies the use of scaling method in civil service examinations: U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav (2018)

Date of the Judgment: February 16, 2018
Citation: U.P. Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Yadav & Anr. (2018) INSC 114
Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Can a public service commission use the scaling method for compulsory subjects in civil service examinations? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (UPPSC) examination process. The court examined whether the UPPSC’s method of scaling marks in both compulsory and optional subjects was valid. The bench consisted of Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with the judgment authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

In 2004, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) conducted two main examinations: the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (Backlog/Special Recruitment) Examination, 2004 (Backlog Examination, 2004) and the Provincial Civil Service (P.C.S.) Examination, 2004. The UPPSC issued an advertisement in February 2004 for the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services, with the preliminary examination held on December 19, 2004, and results declared on June 30, 2005. The main written examination took place between December 19, 2005, and January 3, 2006, with results announced on October 6, 2006. This examination included two 200-mark papers in General Studies, one 150-mark paper in Hindi, and another 150-mark paper in English Essay, all compulsory. Additionally, candidates had to choose two optional subjects, each with two papers. Oral interviews were conducted between November 9 and 16, 2006.

Separately, in May 2004, the UPPSC advertised the Backlog Examination, 2004, specifically for reserved category candidates. The preliminary examination was held on February 27, 2005, with results in September 2005. The main written examination occurred between May 19 and June 3, 2006, and the results were declared on March 24, 2007.

The results of both examinations were challenged in the High Court. The primary contention was that the UPPSC’s scaling method for awarding marks was arbitrary and irrational, leading to a reduction in the actual marks of candidates.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court addressed the writ petitions challenging the results of the Backlog Examination, 2004, and the P.C.S. Examination, 2004. The primary ground of challenge was the UPPSC’s use of the scaling method, which the petitioners argued was arbitrary and irrational, leading to a reduction in their actual marks. The High Court, in its judgment dated May 25, 2007, quashed the results of the main written examination of the Backlog Examination, 2004, and directed the UPPSC to declare the results afresh, aligning with the observations made in the judgment and the directions issued in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission [(2007) 3 SCC 720]. The High Court noted that the UPPSC applied the scaling method to both compulsory and optional subjects, which it deemed contrary to the Sanjay Singh judgment. Subsequently, on June 15, 2007, the High Court followed its May 25, 2007, judgment to allow the writ petition challenging the P.C.S. Examination, 2004.

The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment on August 20, 2007, and allowed the UPPSC to make appointments based on the interim order.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the application of the scaling method in competitive examinations. The Supreme Court referred to the judgment in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission [(2007) 3 SCC 720], which discussed the concepts of examiner variability and subject variability. The Court in Sanjay Singh held that moderation is the appropriate method to offset examiner variability, while scaling can be used when candidates take different optional subjects.

The Court also considered the proviso to Rule 50 of the U.P. Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1976, which allows the Commission to adopt any method to eliminate variation in marks.

The Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh observed that:

“When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer-scripts… When more than one examiners evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by him to the answer-scripts allotted to him for valuation…The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation.”

Further, the Court in Sanjay Singh observed that:

“To solve the problem of inter se merit across different subjects, statistical experts have evolved a method known as scaling, that is creation of scaled score. Scaling places the scores from different tests or test forms on to a common scale.”

Arguments

The Appellant, UPPSC, argued that the High Court did not properly understand the ratio of the judgment in Sanjay Singh’s case. They contended that while moderation is suitable for examiner variability, scaling is appropriate when candidates take different subjects. They emphasized that in the present case, candidates chose two optional subjects from a list of 33, making scaling necessary. The UPPSC also stated that they adopted the scaling method based on expert advice for all examinations. Additionally, they argued that since the selected candidates had been working for ten years and were not parties to the case, the court should not interfere.

The Respondents argued that the UPPSC used the scaling method due to examiner variability. They highlighted that the UPPSC admitted to using the scaling method for both compulsory subjects (English and Hindi) and optional subjects. The Respondents asserted that the scaling method reduced their actual scores, preventing them from being selected. They maintained that the UPPSC should not have applied scaling to the compulsory subjects.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the scaling method adopted by the UPPSC for both compulsory and optional subjects in the P.C.S. Examination, 2004, and the Backlog Examination, 2004, was valid, particularly in light of the judgment in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission [(2007) 3 SCC 720].

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the High Court was correct in directing the UPPSC to declare the results of the said examinations afresh.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment that the UPPSC’s adoption of the scaling method for compulsory subjects was arbitrary. However, the Court set aside the High Court’s direction to declare the results afresh.

The Court reasoned that while the High Court was correct in identifying the error in applying the scaling method to compulsory subjects, the direction to re-evaluate the results would cause significant disruption. The Court noted that the selected candidates had been working for ten years based on an interim order and that there were no allegations of irregularities in the examinations.

The Court also noted that at the time when the examinations were conducted, a judgment of this Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit [(2003) 12 SCC 701] approving the scaling method adopted by the Commission held the field.

The Court observed that:

“It is settled law that in certain situations, on account of subsequent events, the final relief granted by this Court may not be the natural consequence of the ratio decidendi of its judgment. In such situations, the relief can be moulded by the Court in order to do complete justice in the matter.”

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court treated the submissions made by the parties:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court viewed the authorities:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the correct application of the law with the practical consequences of its judgment. While the Court acknowledged that the UPPSC had erred in applying the scaling method to compulsory subjects, it was also mindful of the fact that the selected candidates had been working for ten years and were not parties to the case. The Court emphasized the principle that relief can be moulded to ensure complete justice, considering the unique circumstances of the case. The Court also took into account that the UPPSC had been following the same method since 1996 and that a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit [(2003) 12 SCC 701] had approved the scaling method adopted by the Commission.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is shown in the following table:

The ratio of fact to law is shown in the following table:

The court’s logical reasoning for the issue of validity of scaling method is as follows:

The court’s logical reasoning for the issue of direction to declare results afresh is as follows:

The Court observed that:

“Though we are in agreement with the view of the High Court that the examinations were not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in Sanjay Singh’s case, we do not approve the directions given in the judgment to finalise the results afresh in accordance with the observations made therein.”

The Court also observed that:

“The exercise to be undertaken as per the said directions would result in displacement of a number of selected candidates not before this Court and alteration of the merit list causing serious prejudice to those appointed and working for the last ten years.”

The Court further observed that:

“Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appointments made pursuant to the advertisements of 2004 for the `P .C.S.’ and `Backlog’ posts should not be disturbed.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Scaling method should only be applied to optional subjects in competitive examinations, not to compulsory subjects.
• ✓ Moderation is the appropriate method to address examiner variability.
• ✓ Courts can mould relief to ensure complete justice, considering the specific circumstances of a case.
• ✓ Appointments made based on interim orders should not be disturbed if candidates have been working for a long time.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction to the UPPSC to declare the results of the examinations afresh.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the scaling method should not be applied to compulsory subjects in competitive examinations. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Sanjay Singh’s case. This judgment clarifies that while scaling is suitable for addressing subject variability in optional subjects, moderation is the appropriate method for compulsory subjects where all candidates take the same papers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the UPPSC’s use of the scaling method for compulsory subjects was arbitrary. However, the Court set aside the High Court’s direction to re-evaluate the results, protecting the appointments of candidates who had been working for ten years. This judgment reinforces the principle that scaling is appropriate only for optional subjects and that courts can mould relief to achieve complete justice.