2007 (1) TMI 596 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability Of Petition - Validity of scaling system adopted by the Commission - recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) - 'scaled marks' in the written (Main) examination and the marks awarded in the interview - valuation of the answer- scripts by 'scaled marks' - meritorious students being ignored, and less meritorious students being awarded higher marks and selected - violating the fundamental rights of the candidates - HELD THAT - When the issue is re-examined and a view is taken different from the one taken earlier, a new ratio is laid down. When the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision undergoes such change, the final order of the earlier decision as applicable to the parties to the earlier decision, is in no way altered or disturbed. Therefore, the contention that a writ petition under Article 32 is barred or not maintainable with reference to an issue which is the subject-matter of an earlier decision, is rejected. It is no doubt true that Judicial Service Rules govern the recruitment to Judicial Service, having been made in exercise of power under Article 234, in consultation with both the commission and the High Court. It also provides what examinations should be conducted and the maximum marks for each subject in the examination. But the Judicial Service Rules entrust the function of conducting examinations to the Commission. The Judicial Service Rules do not prescribe the manner and procedure for holding the examination and valuation of answer-scripts and award of the final marks and declaration of the results. Therefore, it is for the Commission to regulate the manner in which it will conduct the examination and value the answer scripts, subject, however, to the provisions of the Judicial Service Rules. If the Commission has made Rules to regulate the procedure and conduct of the examination, they will naturally apply to any examination conducted by it for recruitment to any service, including the judicial service. But where the Judicial Service Rules make a specific provision in regard to any aspect of examination, such provision will prevail, and the provision of PSC Procedure Rules, to the extent it is inconsistent with the Judicial Service Rules, will be inapplicable. Further, if both the Rules have made provision in regard to a particular matter, the PSC Procedure Rules will yield to the Judicial Service Rules. We cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the words marks awarded or marks obtained in the written papers refers only to the actual marks awarded by the examiner. 'Valuation' is a process which does not end on marks being awarded by an Examiner. Award of marks by the Examiner is only one stage of the process of valuation. Moderation when employed by the examining authority, becomes part of the process of valuation and the marks awarded on moderation become the final marks of the candidate. In fact Rule 20(3) specifically refers to the 'marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination', thereby implying that the marks awarded by the examiner can be altered by moderation. Rule 20 of Judicial Service Rules requires the Commission to call for interview such number of candidates, who in its opinion have secured the minimum marks fixed by it. Because of application of scaling system by the Commission, it has not been possible for the Commission to fix such minimum marks either for individual subjects or for the aggregate. In the absence of minimum marks, several candidates who secured less than 30% in a subject have been selected. Thus scaling system adopted by the Commission, contravenes Rule 20(1) also. The material placed does not disclose that the Commission or its expert committee have kept these factors in view in determining the system of scaling. We have already demonstrated the anomalies/absurdities arising from the scaling system used. The Commission will have to identify a suitable system of evaluation, if necessary by appointing another Committee of Experts. Till such new system is in place, the Commission may follow the moderation system set out with appropriate modifications. The selected candidates have also been appointed and functioning as Judicial Officers. Further as noticed, the scaling system adopted by the Commission has led to irrational and arbitrary results only in cases falling at the ends of the spectrum, and by and large did not affect the major portion of the selection. We, therefore, direct that our decision holding that the scaling system adopted by the Commission is unsuited in regard to Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination and directing moderation, will be prospective in its application and will not affect the selections and appointments already made in pursuance of the 2003 Examination. So far as the petitioners are concerned, we deem it proper to issue the following directions to do complete justice on the facts of the case a) If the aggregate of raw marks in the written examination and the marks in the interview of any petitioner is less than that of the last selected candidate in the respective category, he will not be entitled to any relief (for example, the petitioners in WP(C) belonging to the Category 'BC' have secured raw marks of 361 and 377 respectively in the written examinations, whereas the last five of the selected candidates in that category have secured raw marks of 390, 391, 397, 438 and 428 respectively. Even after adding the interview marks, the marks of the petitioners in W.P. C is less than the marks of the selected candidates). b) Where the aggregate of raw marks in the written examination and the interview marks of any petitioner, is more than the aggregate of the raw marks in the written examination and interview marks of the last selected candidate in his category, he shall be considered for appointment in the respective category by counting his appointment against future vacancies. This relief will be available only to such of the petitioners who have approached this Court and the High Court before 31st August, 2005. The petitions are allowed in part accordingly.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petitions.
2. Legality of the 'scaling' of marks under the relevant rules.
3. Arbitrary and irrational nature of the 'scaling system' and the need for reconsideration of the decision in S.C. Dixit.
4. Impact on selections already made if the statistical scaling system is found to be illegal or irrational.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re: Question (i): Maintainability of the Writ Petitions
The court examined whether the writ petitions under Article 32 were maintainable. It was argued that the petitions sought to challenge the ratio decidendi of the decision in S.C. Dixit, not the final order. The court clarified that the bar referred to in Rupa Ashok Hurra does not apply here since the petitions do not seek to upset the final order in S.C. Dixit but rather challenge its ratio decidendi. The court held that a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable when it raises a legal issue covered by an earlier decision, provided the issue requires reconsideration.

Re: Question (ii): Legality of 'Scaling' of Marks
The court analyzed the relevant rules governing the recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) under the UP Judicial Service Rules, 2001. It was noted that the Judicial Service Rules do not provide for substituting actual marks with scaled marks. The court held that the marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination and interview should be based on actual marks, not scaled marks. The proviso to Rule 51 of the PSC Procedure Rules, which allows for scaling, does not apply to the Judicial Service Rules. Therefore, the court concluded that the scaling system violates Rule 20(3) and Note (i) of Appendix-II of the Judicial Service Rules.

Re: Question (iii): Arbitrary and Irrational Nature of the 'Scaling System'
The court examined the rationale behind the adoption of the scaling system by the Commission. It was found that the scaling system, particularly the linear standard score method, was inappropriate for addressing examiner variability. The court noted several anomalies and absurdities arising from the application of scaling, such as awarding high scaled marks to candidates who secured zero marks and equalizing marks of candidates with different raw scores. The court held that the scaling system adopted by the Commission was arbitrary and irrational, leading to unjust results. The court concluded that the approval of the scaling system in S.C. Dixit was no longer valid.

Re: Question (iv): Impact on Selections Already Made
The court considered whether the selections already made should be interfered with if the scaling system is found to be illegal or irrational. It was noted that the Commission acted bona fide in proceeding with the selection and that the scaling system had the seal of approval of the court in S.C. Dixit. The court directed that the decision holding the scaling system as unsuited for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination would be prospective and not affect the selections and appointments already made. However, the court issued specific directions for petitioners who had approached the court before 31st August 2005, allowing them to be considered for appointment against future vacancies if their aggregate raw marks and interview marks were higher than those of the last selected candidate in their category.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions in part, holding that the scaling system adopted by the Commission was unsuited for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination and directing moderation for future evaluations. The decision was made prospective, ensuring that the existing selections and appointments were not disturbed. Specific relief was granted to petitioners who had higher aggregate raw marks and interview marks than the last selected candidate in their category.