Supreme Court Upholds Normalization of Marks for UP Police Sub-Inspector Exam: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi (2022) INSC 24 (7 January 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 7 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 24

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Vineet Saran, J.

Can a selection board use normalized scores to determine if a candidate is eligible for recruitment, or should raw scores be the only criteria? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case concerning the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in the Uttar Pradesh Police. The court had to decide whether the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board was right in applying a normalization process to the marks obtained by candidates in a written exam to determine eligibility for further stages of the selection process. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the rules of the game in the recruitment process.

Case Background

In 2016, the State of Uttar Pradesh announced the recruitment of 2400 Sub-Inspectors of Police, 210 Platoon Commanders, and 97 Fire Officers. The recruitment process included an online written exam, a physical standard test, and a physical fitness test. Due to the large number of applicants (6,30,926), the written exam was conducted in 29 different sessions between 12th and 23rd December 2017, each with different question papers. The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board decided to use a normalization method, specifically the “Standardized Equi-percentile method,” to adjust the scores of candidates across different sessions. This method was previously used in the MAH-MBA/MMS CET 2015.

After the written exam, 11,741 candidates were called for further stages. This included 5,461 candidates who scored over 50% in raw marks and 5,713 who crossed the 50% mark after normalization. Some candidates who had secured more than 50% raw marks challenged the normalization process, arguing that only candidates who scored 50% or more raw marks should be considered eligible.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in its judgment dated 11.09.2019, set aside the select list prepared by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. The High Court held that the Board had exceeded its authority by applying normalized scores to determine the eligibility of candidates, instead of using raw marks. The High Court stated that the rule mandated a minimum of 50% marks in each subject for eligibility, which should be based on raw marks. The court concluded that normalization could only be used to prepare the final merit list, not to disqualify candidates who had secured 50% raw marks.

The High Court also noted that the Board had the power to determine the procedure of written examination, but not to alter the eligibility criteria mandated by the rules. The High Court directed the Board to prepare a fresh select list based on normalized scores, but only after excluding candidates who did not obtain 50% raw marks in each subject.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Rule 15 of the U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015. This rule outlines the procedure for direct recruitment of Sub-Inspectors. Specifically, Rule 15(b) states that candidates must appear for a written test of 400 marks, with 100 marks allocated to each of the four subjects. It also specifies that “candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment.”

Rule 15(e) states that the Board shall prepare a select list of each category of candidates “on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in written examination under clause (b).” The key point of contention was the interpretation of the word “marks” in both clauses: whether it refers to raw marks or normalized scores.

Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board argued that:

• ✓ The term “marks” should have the same meaning throughout Rule 15.
• ✓ Normalization was necessary to ensure fairness because the written exam was conducted in 29 sessions with varying difficulty levels.
• ✓ The Board had the power to determine the procedure for the written examination, and normalization was part of that procedure.
• ✓ If normalization was not applied at the initial stage, some deserving candidates would be unfairly excluded.
• ✓ The equality doctrine under Article 14 of the Constitution requires that unequals should not be treated equally, and candidates who answered tougher question papers should not be disadvantaged.

The writ petitioners, who were candidates who had secured 50% or more raw marks but were disqualified due to the normalization process, contended that:

• ✓ Candidates should be aware of the minimum percentage required for eligibility, which should be based on the written exam they took.
• ✓ Rule 15(b) requires a minimum of 50% marks, not a 50th percentile score.
• ✓ At the eligibility stage, candidates should be competing against themselves, not against others.
• ✓ The “normalized score” should only be used to determine the inter-se merit of candidates, not to disqualify those who had secured 50% raw marks.
• ✓ The Board, as a sub-delegate, could not modify the eligibility criteria set by the rule-making authority.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the Selection Board was within its power and authority in applying the normalized percentile score to determine the eligibility of the candidates, or whether the Selection Board transgressed its authority to alter/substitute the eligibility criteria (50% marks) mandated in Sub-clause (b) of Rule 15 by normalized score.
2. The scope of judicial review of the Standardized Equitable Percentile Method adopted by the Selection Board.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities in its judgment:

On the interpretation of the term “marks”:

• Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. [1999] 3 SCC 632 – Supreme Court of India: The court held that the same word could have different meanings in different contexts within the same statute.
• Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. The District Magistrate, Thana [1956] SCR 644 – Supreme Court of India: The court highlighted that the same expression in a statute may receive different constructions depending on the context.

On the adoption of scaling or normalization methods:

• U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit [2003] 12 SCC 701 – Supreme Court of India: The court upheld the scaling system adopted by the Public Service Commission.
• Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. [2007] 3 SCC 720 – Supreme Court of India: The court found that scaling was inappropriate for compulsory subjects and suggested moderation.
• Mahinder Kumar and Ors. v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [2013] 11 SCC 87 – Supreme Court of India: The court accepted the High Court’s use of normalization to equalize marks.
• Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others [2016] 2 SCC 495 – Supreme Court of India: The court clarified that the decision in Sanjay Singh did not lay down an inflexible rule against scaling.
• Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav and another [2018] 3 SCC 706 – Supreme Court of India: The court applied the law laid down in Sanjay Singh and found that scaling method could not have been adopted for compulsory subjects.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 15 of the U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. [1999] 3 SCC 632 – Supreme Court of India: The Court used this case to support its view that the same word could have different meanings in different contexts within the same statute.
• Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. The District Magistrate, Thana [1956] SCR 644 – Supreme Court of India: The Court used this case to highlight that the same expression in a statute may receive different constructions depending on the context.
• U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit [2003] 12 SCC 701 – Supreme Court of India: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it had upheld scaling in a different context.
• Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. [2007] 3 SCC 720 – Supreme Court of India: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was about compulsory subjects and not about multiple sessions.
• Mahinder Kumar and Ors. v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [2013] 11 SCC 87 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to support the view that normalization was acceptable.
• Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others [2016] 2 SCC 495 – Supreme Court of India: The Court relied on this case to support the view that Sanjay Singh did not lay down an inflexible rule against scaling.
• Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav and another [2018] 3 SCC 706 – Supreme Court of India: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was about compulsory subjects and not about multiple sessions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure fairness and equality among all candidates who appeared for the Sub-Inspector exam. The Court emphasized that the normalization process was necessary due to the multiple sessions and varying difficulty levels of the question papers. The Court also highlighted the importance of maintaining a consistent interpretation of the term “marks” throughout the recruitment process.

The Court’s reasoning was also based on the premise that the Board, as an expert body, should be given the leeway to determine the appropriate procedure for conducting the exam, provided it is fair and transparent. The Court’s analysis was guided by the principle that unequals should not be treated equally, and that candidates who answered tougher question papers should not be disadvantaged.

The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, noting that the State had already allowed candidates from both categories (those who had secured more than 50% raw marks and those who had secured more than 50% normalized scores) to participate in further stages of the selection process.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the Selection Board was within its power to apply normalized scores for eligibility.

Issue 2: The scope of judicial review of the Standardized Equitable Percentile Method.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was multi-faceted. Firstly, the Court emphasized the need for a consistent interpretation of the term “marks” in Rule 15(b) and 15(e) of the Recruitment Rules. The Court noted that if “marks” were interpreted as “raw marks” in Rule 15(b) and “normalized scores” in Rule 15(e), it would lead to incongruities.

Secondly, the Court highlighted the need for normalization due to the multiple sessions and varying difficulty levels of the question papers. The Court observed that if raw marks were the sole criteria for eligibility, candidates who appeared for tougher question papers would be unfairly disadvantaged.

Thirdly, the Court emphasized that the Board had the power to determine the procedure for written examination, and that this power included the use of normalization methods. The Court stated that:

“The exercise of issuing said notification and declaring the intent as stated above, were well within the powers of the Board in terms of Rule 15(b) as amended by the rule making authority.”

The Court also rejected the argument that normalization should only be applied at the stage of preparing the final merit list, stating that:

“If the intent is to see that every candidate must have obtained minimum 50% marks and those ‘candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment’ as mandated by Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules or by paragraph 9 of the notification dated 28.6.2017, even going by the context and purposive interpretation, the expression ‘marks’ must be given the same meaning at both the stages; and the only possible meaning that can be ascribed is ‘normalized score’.”

The Court further stated that:

“Adopting different standards as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents would result in anomalous situations. Such anomaly will however stand removed if the expression ‘marks’ appearing in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) stages is construed in the same light and as ‘normalized score’.”

The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, noting that the State had already allowed candidates from both categories (those who had secured more than 50% raw marks and those who had secured more than 50% normalized scores) to participate in further stages of the selection process.

Key Takeaways

✓ The Supreme Court upheld the normalization of marks at the eligibility stage for the UP Police Sub-Inspector exam.

✓ The Court clarified that the term “marks” in Rule 15 of the Recruitment Rules should be interpreted as “normalized scores” to ensure fairness and consistency.

✓ The judgment reaffirms the power of expert bodies, like the Public Service Commissions, to determine the appropriate procedure for conducting exams.

✓ The Court emphasized that judicial review in such matters should be limited unless there is evidence of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power.

✓ The State may consider providing some allowance to candidates who were disqualified due to the normalization process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State and the Board to give effect to the results declared on 28th February 2019 as early as possible. The Court also suggested that the State may consider making some allowance in favor of those candidates who were subsequently disqualified due to the normalization process, either by granting some weightage and/or age relaxation in the next selection.

Specific Amendments Analysis

(Omitted as the judgment does not discuss any specific amendment)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a recruitment examination is conducted in multiple sessions with different question papers, the normalization of marks should be applied at the eligibility stage itself to ensure fairness and equality among all candidates. The Court clarified that the term “marks” should be interpreted consistently as “normalized scores” in both the eligibility and merit list preparation stages. This judgment clarifies the position of law and provides a clear guideline for future recruitment processes involving multi-session examinations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi upholds the normalization of marks at the eligibility stage for the UP Police Sub-Inspector exam. The Court held that the Board was within its power to use normalized scores to determine eligibility, and that this was necessary to ensure fairness due to the multiple sessions and varying difficulty levels of the question papers. The Court’s decision provides clarity on the interpretation of the term “marks” in the Recruitment Rules and reaffirms the authority of expert bodies to determine the appropriate procedures for conducting exams.