Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ. - (1.) -In these writ petitions a common question has been raised as to whether the Rajasthan Public Service Commission could have resorted to the method of scaling of the marks in Combined Competitive Examination for State and Subordinate Service, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Combined Competitive Examination, 2007') which has been held under the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1999')?
(2.) ON 1.6.2007, advertisement was issued for 155 posts of seven State Services and 526 posts of Subordinate Services. Posts have been increased subsequently to 713 in total. ON 23.12.2007, preliminary examination was conducted in which approximately 3 lacs candidates appeared. Result of the preliminary examination was declared on 13.3.2008. After declaration of the result, 15 times to the number of vacancies i.e.11,726 candidates were allowed to appear in the main examination. It is not in dispute that there were 37 optional subjects and 4 compulsory papers. There were 74 question papers in optional subjects and 4 compulsory papers. Thus, there were 78 papers in total. From 30.7.2008 to 25.8.2008, the main examination was conducted in the aforesaid subjects. Before declaration of the final result on 17.3.2009, the Commission held meeting of various experts whether it was proper to apply the scaling system. Experts had reviewed the method of scaling of score/marks obtained by examinees and discussed Ad longtum as also perused the proceedings of Standing Committee held on 2.2.2009 and resolved to implement the scaling method to remove variation in examiners as well as subjects. Subject-wise scaling has been resorted to in the optional subjects, whereas in four compulsory papers and 33 optional subjects only examiner-wise scaling has been adopted. There were 385 examiners in all. After scaling, result of the main examination was declared and 2679 candidates were called for interview. The excess number of candidates were called for interview to bring Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates at par with the General Category candidates as per the decision of this Court in Bhawani Singh Kaviya & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.2307/2008, decided on 13.5.2008 = 2008(4) RLW 3138 (Raj.). In the main examination, last cut-off marks of the OBC was more than the General Category, hence to bring the candidates of OBC Category at par with the General Category, those OBC candidates who had obtained the marks equivalent to cut-off marks of General Category candidates were also called for interview. With effect from 1.6.2009 to 9.9.2009, interviews of 2678 candidates was conducted. Thereafter, final result was declared on 9.9.2009. Names were recommended to the State Government, as per choice, on 20.10.2009. The petitioners have canvassed that one Ms. Mamta Tiwari Was at rank No.1 with raw marks 849 and on scaling, her marks were reduced by 15. Thus, by applying the method of scaling she has been placed at Serial No.9 in the merit. Another shocking example is of a candidate who secured 838 raw marks and was 3rd in ranking as per raw marks but her marks were reduced by 71 and placed at general ranking at No.194. Ranking of a person as per raw marks at No.13 has been reduced to 283 after scaling. A person who had 52 ranking on the basis of raw marks, after scaling was placed at No.5 and so on. Thus, absurd results have occurred due to the application of scaling method. Petitioners have submitted certain data in the petition indicating as to how scaling of marks caused anomalous results. It is also averred that in the case of one Ms. Sunita Meena, who is perhaps the relative of Shri H.L. Meena, Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, wrongful scaling was done. The children of close friends and relatives have been given benefit not only in scaling but at the level of interview too. One Narendra Choudhary, relative of Shri C.R. Choudhary, Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission has also been given benefit of increase of marks from 726 to 792. Thus, the examination conducted by the Commission is in a cloud of doubt. It is further submitted by the petitioners that the scaling system is wholly defective and illegal. Scaling of marks is required to be done only when there are large number of candidates appearing in the examination. The combined mean of all examiners and combined mean of all subjects are two different variants. Standard deviation of the examiners would be different in different subjects. It is not known as to which formula was applied causing shocking results. Rules of 1999 do not allow any kind of scaling. Rule 15 lays down the Scheme of Examination, Personality and Viva-Voce Test. There are certain combination of subjects which cannot be opted together such as Mathematics and Statistics; Agriculture and Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science. Even it was not permissible to go for scaling in the aforesaid subjects and then apply the mean of the subjects. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh & Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr., (2007) 3 SCC 720. In compulsory papers, examiner-wise scaling could not have been resorted to; in case of difference, moderation is the answer. When under the Rules of 1999, no provision has been made to apply scaling, it could not have been resorted to and thus the action of applying scaling is beyond the powers of the Commission. Scaling technique could not have been applied even in optional subjects as scaling has created anomalous results, and thus, the final result so declared by the Commission be quashed and the Commission be directed to declare the result on the basis of raw marks obtained by the candidates without taking into consideration the scaled and interview marks.
(3.) THE respondents, in their reply, have contended that the recommendation of the Commission is based on aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate as per the scheme of examination provided under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999. Scaling system has been approved by the Apex court in Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal & 16 Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1994 (1) RLR 533; Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Ramesh Chandra Pilwal, RLW 1997(2) Raj.1348 and in the matter of Manish Sinsinwar & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.368/2004 decided on 14.6.2004). In scaling system, many examiners are involved in marking the answering scripts relating to a subject; in different languages the answers are given i.e. English and Hindi. Seven areas have been specified where scaling can be applied. Decision has been taken in consonance with those principles. After completion of main examination of 37 heterogeneous subjects -having first and second papers, the evaluation was done with the help of several examiners as per the number of answer scripts, therefore, examiner code had been separately awarded. THE subject mean and standard deviation are having much deviation, hence, to bring common mean and common standard deviation adoption of scaling system was necessary as held in the meeting dated 2.2.2009 and thereafter meeting of Experts was held on 13.3.2009 for application of the scaling technique. A chart was placed before the Experts relating to variant subjects mean and standard deviation etc. Unanimous recommendation was made to apply the scaling principles as enumerated by V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran in their book. Considering the large number of examiners and subject variation, scaling was found to be appropriate mode to arrive at a just result. The combined mean of all examiners, the examiner subject mean, pooled standard deviation of all examiners and standard deviation of the subjects concerned had been applied as per formula. Formula has been approved by this Court in Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994(1) RLR 533 against which SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court. It is further contended that Ms.Sunita Meena is not at all in relation of Shri H.L. Meena, Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission nor Shri H.L. Meena had participated in the interview; even Shri Meena was not a member of the Interview Board. Other averments have also been denied. Allegations levelled are baseless. No nepotism or favouritism has been done. Even as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra), scaling is permitted in such exigencies. Examination in Sanjay Singh (supra) was for judicial service where the question papers were common, thus the facts of the instant case are different. No case for interference is made out. ;