Sunil Ambwani, Actg. C.J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants -appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 -Bhanwar Lal, who was petitioner in the writ petition.
(2.) BY this Special Appeal, the applicants -appellants, who were declared successful in the written examination of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Examination -2012 and for which the interviews have not been held so far, have challenged the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 26.11.2014, rendered on remand by the Division Bench vide order dated 28.7.2014 disposing of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 513/2014 Rajasthan Public Service Commission V/s Bhanwarlal & anr. It is stated that though the results of the written examination were declared, none of the selected candidates were made party -respondents to the writ petition and thus, the Judgment suffers from fatal defect. Some of the successful candidates, namely, Manvender and Raja Bissa made an application to be impleaded as party -respondents. They were neither impleaded nor were allowed to intervene as intervenors in the matter. It is alleged by respondent that their counsel argued the matter, but there is no mention of their intervention in the Judgment passed by learned Single Judge.
(3.) THE respondent -petitioner had challenged the results of the written examination of Rajasthan Administrative Service Examination -2012 on the ground that scaling system has been wrongly made applicable in the main written examination. A learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) could not have adopted the scaling system in the written examination. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 513/2014, which was allowed and the matter was remanded for examining the possible pitfalls or discrepancies of the scaling method or moderation technique applied by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in RAS (Main) Examination -2012. The Division Bench observed in the operative portion of the judgment as follows: - "A close scrutiny of the matter, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has not examined some of the distinguishing features in the judicial services examinations and the examinations conducted for State services, and have applied ratio decidendi of Sanjay Singh's case in abstract sense which has finally culminated into some caustic remarks against the functioning of the Commission. While recording its indignation about the procedure adopted by the Commission, the learned Single Judge has not recorded cogent finding that the same is arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play. Certain stray examples of apparent disparity in the raw -marks and the scale marks on which learned counsel for the respondent has harped and feel exasperated, in our considered opinion, cannot ipso facto embrace the entire exercise of scaling of marks by the Commission under cloud. That apart, there is no finding worth the name in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge for completely repudiating scaling method pressed into service by the Commission. The method of scaling and moderation of marks for achieving common standard of assessment of marks when applied uniformly, per -se cannot be categorized as infirm. Well it is true that issue relating to adoption of scaling and moderation technique is contentious and there are certain question marks about its efficacy but then there is no common (equalized) standard of paper evaluation. It is really beyond comprehension to have a full -proof common standard of assessment of marks, which can be equated as fool -proof with a "Midas Touch". Need of the hour is to achieve inter and intra subject parity via proper efficient and transparent mechanism, which can remove ambiguity and prevent the merit to be sacrificed at the altar of randomness and subjectivity. The issues which have cropped up in this appeal having ramification on the scaling method and moderation technique, which has resulted in apparent disparity, arbitrariness, or inequality in common assessment of marks amongst candidates, have not been addressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, the respondent writ -petitioner has not laid foundation in this behalf in the main petition although had made an attempt to buttress his grievances in this behalf in the rejoinder. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned Single Judge has not examined the matter in that background and has essentially recorded his conclusions by applying ratio decidendi in Sanjay Singh's case; we are not persuaded to examine these contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent. A conjoint reading of the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh's case and decision of the Coordinate Bench in Jai Singh's case, has made us to believe that verdict of the learned Single Judge in repudiating the scaling method and moderation technique whole -hog cannot be sustained and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed to that extent and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for examining the possible pitfalls or discrepancies of the scaling method and moderation technique applied by the Commission in RAS (Main) Examination 2012. The upshot of the above discussion is that this intra -Court appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded back for reconsideration on the issue enumerated in the penultimate paragraph of the verdict.";