The Allahabad High Court has issued notice to selected candidates of PCS Special Recruitment 2018 on a petition challenging the validity of main examination result and selection, and has sought their response to the plea within six weeks.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra passed this order on September 23, while hearing a petition filed by Akhand Pratap Singh.
The petitioner was an applicant for appointment pursuant to advertisement dated July 6, 2018, published by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for Combined/Upper Subordinate Services (PCS) (General Recruitment/Physically Handicapped Backlog/Special Recruitment) Examination, 2018 and other Allied Examinations. He qualified preliminary examination and also the mains examination.
He was thereafter called to face personality test/interview but has not been able to secure his selection on the basis of his merit. Final result/select list has been published by the Commission on September 11, 2020.
Thus aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the result of mains examination declared on June 23, 2020, as also the final select list published on September 11, 2020, by filing the writ petition.
A prayer is made to quash the result declared on March 26, 2020 of mains examination as also the select list published on September 11, 2020, and to direct the Commission to draw the select list afresh, after adopting scaling system in the optional subjects as per sub-clause (15) of clause 13 of the advertisement dated July 06, 2018.
A further prayer is made to command the Commission to disclose the marks awarded to selected and non-selected candidates by showing their actual marks and also the scaled marks.
The grievance of petitioner is founded on the premise that Commission has not followed scaling system while declaring result of mains examination and the consequential select list.
It is urged that advertisement contained clause 13 titled as ‘Important Instructions for Candidates’ and sub-clause (15) thereof mentions that ‘scaling system will remain applicable in the optional subjects of the Main (Written) Examination’.
According to petitioner, the Commission has arbitrarily departed from the professed norms for recruitment and has declared mains (written) results on the basis of raw marks without subjecting it to the process of scaling.
The Petitioner said that this has vitiated the result published by the Commission.
The Court noted, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Commission in which reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh and others vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and another, (2007) 3 SCC 720 to contend that only certain situations warrant adoption of scaling techniques and that an Expert Committee constituted by the Commission submitted its report on February 26, 2020 which was also approved by the Commission on February 29, 2020 regarding adoption of scaling system in optional subjects.
It is further urged that based upon the report of the Expert Committee the Commission has conducted the examination by applying the process of scaling/moderation.
The Commission has also produced for perusal of Court the subsequent report of the Expert Committee which opined that no abnormal higher or lower marks in any of the optional subject is seen for majority of candidates and, therefore, no further statistical intervention is required. The Expert Committee has also opined that the present system of scaling is liable to be discontinued.
The Court observed that, it seems that result of mains examination in optional papers is declared on the raw marks scored by the candidates without resort to scaling.
The Court said that, upon consideration of arguments advanced with reference to materials placed on record, as also the judgements cited, following issues arise for consideration in the facts of the case:-
(i) Whether it was open for the Commission not to adopt scaling of raw marks secured by a candidate in (mains) optional subjects, in view of the report submitted by the Expert Committee, despite categorical stipulation about scaling in the advertisement
(ii) Whether linear method of scaling applied by the Commission (also known as standard deviation method) vests discretion in the Commission not to apply scaling technique where abnormal variation are not observed in any optional descriptive subject for majority of candidates?
(iii) Whether result of main examination declared by the Commission requires interference for the grounds urged in the petition.
The Court said that,
As select list has already been published and rights of selected candidates have also intervened, therefore, it would not be appropriate by the Court to proceed with adjudication of matter in their absence.
Although State and Commission are represented but notices have not been issued to any of the private respondents, who have been arrayed in representative capacity. Without notice to him it would not be appropriate for the Court to proceed with adjudication of issues that arise for consideration in the matter.
“Accordingly, it is directed that notices be issued to all private respondents nos.3 to 19 for which petitioner shall take steps to effect service of notice by registered speed post within a week. Private respondents may file counter affidavit within six weeks,” the Court ordered.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on November 30, 2021.