VIVEK AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Petitioners who admittedly undertook examination in terms of advertisement issued by the UP Public Service Commission on 6.7.2018 for Combined State / Upper Subordinate (PCS) Examination, 2018 and Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF)/ Range Forest Officer (RFO) Services Examination, 2018, are challenging the selection process on the ground that since scaling method has been adopted, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Singh and another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others, 2007 3 SCC 720, selection process has been vitiated. It is prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned result of PCS-2018 main examination declared on 23.6.2020 by UPPSC, be granted. It is also prayed that UPPSC be directed by issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare the result of main exam afresh and calling for records relating to scaling/moderation method applied in PCS-18 main exam. Petitioners have also prayed for the following other reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to provide the descriptions (names, roll no, marks obtained, category etc.) of the selected candidates in the selection list when the final result is declared. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to issue the marks sheets (raw marks and scaled marks both) of the petitioners who appeared in main / interview exam after declaring the result as soon as possible within a specified time-frame. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to answer any application submitted under Right to Information Act, in a manner taking into consideration practicality (to fix a reasonable date in order to allow the candidate to inspect his answer scripts of written examination), so that it may not appear that UPPSC takes RTI queries as a burden and a tool to harass candidates. (iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in addition to and in supplement to refer the above, as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that UP Public Service Commission, Prayagraj (Respondent no. 2) is a constitutional autonomous body and its main duty is to conduct examination for appointment to various services of the State.
(3.) It is submitted that the general business and functions of UPPSC are regulated by the provisions of UPPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2011) and UP State Public Service Commission (Regulation and Procedure) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1985).;