Supreme Court Upholds JPSC’s Right to Set Cut-off Marks Post-Exam: Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1234

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a Public Service Commission decide the cut-off marks for a particular paper of an eligibility test after the examination has been conducted? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET). The core issue was whether the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) could fix a minimum qualifying mark for Paper III after the examination process had begun, or whether this amounted to changing the rules of the game mid-process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued an advertisement on 19 July 2006, inviting applications for the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET). This test determines the eligibility of candidates for appointment as lecturers in universities and colleges in Jharkhand. The test consists of three papers: Papers I and II are multiple-choice questions, and Paper III is a descriptive paper on the candidate’s chosen subject. The advertisement specified minimum qualifying marks for Papers I and II but did not mention any such requirement for Paper III.

Manoj Kumar Gupta, the writ petitioner, secured 50% marks in Papers I and II, thus qualifying to have his Paper III evaluated. However, the JPSC fixed a cut-off percentage of 60% for Paper III, which the petitioner did not meet. Consequently, he was declared unsuccessful. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the JPSC’s decision to fix a cut-off for Paper III after the examination process had commenced.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Manoj Kumar Gupta, holding that the JPSC could not have fixed qualifying marks of 60% for Paper III after the advertisement had been issued and the selection process had started. The High Court opined that this amounted to changing the rules of the game mid-process. It held that once a candidate had obtained 50% marks in Papers I and II, they could not be disqualified due to Paper III marks. The High Court also stated that the JPSC was not bound by the instructions of the University Grants Commission (UGC) in this regard and directed that the petitioner’s case be considered based on his overall performance. Both the JPSC and the original writ petitioner filed appeals before the Supreme Court, which were decided by this common judgment.

Legal Framework

The Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET) is conducted according to the guidelines laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The advertisement issued by the JPSC stated that candidates who did not appear in Paper I would not be permitted to appear in Papers II and III. Paper III would only be evaluated for candidates who secured the minimum qualifying marks in Papers I and II. The advertisement specified the following minimum qualifying marks:

• General/OBC: 40 in Paper I, 40 in Paper II, and 100 (50%) in total for Papers I and II
• PH/VH: 35 in Paper I, 35 in Paper II, and 90 (45%) in total for Papers I and II
• SC/ST: 35 in Paper I, 35 in Paper II, and 80 (40%) in total for Papers I and II

The UGC scheme for the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) includes a provision for a moderation committee to decide the cut-off marks in each subject for declaring the result. The scheme states:

“Moderation Committee: The committee will help in deciding the cut-off 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 U-CAT out of two nominated by UGC.

7. Member Secretary, (UGC Official) U-CAT, UGC.”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the JPSC:

• The JPSC argued that the moderation committee, as per the UGC scheme, is responsible for deciding the cut-off marks in each subject.
• The cut-off marks for Paper III do not have to be decided at the stage of issuing the advertisement.
• The moderation committee decides the cut-off marks based on various factors, including the performance of candidates in Paper III.

Arguments on behalf of the Original Writ Petitioner:

• The advertisement did not specify any minimum cut-off marks for Paper III.
• This is only an eligibility test, and the field of choice becomes larger if more people are held eligible.
• Fixing a cut-off for Paper III after the examination process had commenced amounts to changing the rules of the game.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any specific issues. However, the implicit issue before the Court was:

✓ Whether the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) was justified in fixing minimum qualifying marks for Paper III of the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET) after the examination process had commenced.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• UGC Scheme for State Level Eligibility Test (SLET): The Court referred to the scheme’s provision for a moderation committee to decide cut-off marks in each subject.
• Advertisement issued by JPSC: The Court examined the advertisement to determine if it specified any minimum marks for Paper III.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the UGC Scheme for SLET to support the JPSC’s action of constituting a moderation committee for deciding cut-off marks.
• The Court examined the JPSC Advertisement and noted that it did not specify minimum marks for Paper III, thus allowing the JPSC to fix them later.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court emphasized the role of the moderation committee in deciding the cut-off marks for Paper III. The Court noted that the moderation committee is constituted to decide the level of competence expected from candidates. The Court also highlighted that the cut-off marks for Paper III could be fixed at a later stage, depending on the performance of the candidates. This flexibility allows the committee to adjust the standards based on the difficulty of the paper and the overall performance of the candidates.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the absence of minimum marks for Paper III in the advertisement did not preclude the JPSC from fixing them later through the moderation committee. The Court emphasized that the moderation committee is constituted to decide the level of competence expected from candidates, and this decision can be made after the examination.

The Court rejected the High Court’s view that fixing the cut-off marks for Paper III was a change of rules. The Court stated that it was an additional aspect brought in while determining the merit of the candidates. The Court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the UGC scheme and the JPSC advertisement.

The Supreme Court stated, “There were no minimum marks provided for Paper III in the advertisement. This could be done by the 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.”

Key Takeaways

• The moderation committee has the power to decide the cut-off marks for each subject in the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET).
• The cut-off marks for Paper III can be fixed after the examination process has commenced.
• The absence of minimum marks for Paper III in the advertisement does not preclude the JPSC from fixing them later.
• Fixing cut-off marks for Paper III is not considered a change in the rules of the game but an additional aspect for determining the merit of the candidates.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Public Service Commission can fix the minimum qualifying marks for a particular paper of an eligibility test after the examination has been conducted, provided that the advertisement does not specify such marks and the decision is taken by a moderation committee as per the applicable rules. This judgment clarifies that the absence of cut-off marks in the initial advertisement does not prevent the examination body from setting them later, as long as it is done to determine the merit of the candidates.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the JPSC was justified in fixing minimum qualifying marks for Paper III after the examination process had commenced. The Court emphasized the role of the moderation committee in deciding the cut-off marks and clarified that this was not a change in the rules of the game, but an additional aspect brought in while determining the merit of the candidates.