Service Law: Recruitment/Selection – Process of ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’ adopted in selection of candidates for the State Police Force – Correctness of – Appropriate stage for application of normalization – Held: On facts, more than 6.3 lakh applicants had submitted online application forms whose candidature was tested in written examinations held in 29 different batches over 12 days – There was variability on account of the fact that the candidates were tested on different dates over 12 days through different sets of question papers – The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board could not possibly have gone ahead with examination for 29 different batches with the same type of questions as the subsequent batches would then have had advantage of having seen the pattern of questions put to the earlier batches – Thus, though the subjects were same, the question papers would necessarily be different in terms of quality and approach – In a situation such as that the “Scaling of Marks” had to be adopted and that would always be the correct approach – Exercise undertaken by the Board in adopting the process of normalization at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law – Power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at any juncture of the process – Also, decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out – The U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015 – Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 – Rule 15(b) and 15(e) – Police Act, 1861. Service Law: Recruitment/Selection – Adoption of process of ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’ – When appropriate – Discussed.
Administrative Law: Expert body – Held: Decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out.
Interpretation of Statutes: Same expression appearing at different places in a statute – Rule of construction – Held: It is the context which must determine whether the same expression occurring at two different places must be considered differently or in the same light.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Cases of single examination where there are multiple number of examiners may call for moderation to be adopted by the examiner-in-chief or such body constituted for the purposes. On the contrary, scaling of marks has been accepted to be an appropriate method where candidates are tested in different subjects. As against examiner variability in the same or compulsory examination, subject variability has been found to be a good ground to adopt “Scaling of Marks” as a method to put all the candidates on an even keel. [Para 40][96-H; 97-A-B]
1.2. In the instant matters more than 6.3 lakh applicants had submitted online application forms whose candidature was tested in written examinations held in 29 different batches over
12 days. There was variability on account of the fact that the candidates were tested on different dates over 12 days through different sets of question papers. The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board could not possibly have gone ahead with examination for 29 different batches with the same type of questions as the subsequent batches would then have had advantage of having seen the pattern of questions put to the earlier batches. Thus, though the subjects were same, the question papers would necessarily be different in terms of quality and approach. In a situation such as that the “Scaling of Marks” had to be adopted and that would always be the correct approach. [Paras 39, 41][96-F; 97-C-D]
1.3. As a matter of fact, though, in an earlier decision, a Bench of three Judges of this Court found the approach of “Scaling of Marks” even in the same examination to be appropriate so as to eliminate every scope for variation in the assessment of answers and award of marks valued by different valuers. [Para 42][97-E-F]
2. In the instant case, the clause “Detailed procedure for written examination shall be determined by the Board and will be displayed on its own website” as appearing in Rule 15(b) of the Recruitment Rules [U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015], specifically empowered the Board to devise or determine the procedure. With deletion of Appendix-3 and specific empowerment in Rule 15(b), the Board could have multiple examinations instead of one single examination. By very nature of such empowerment and in the backdrop of conducting an examination for more than 6 lakh candidates, the Board was entitled to adopt the process of ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’. Given the facts and circumstances, the process of ‘scaling of marks’ or normalization was inevitable in the instant matter and was necessarily required to be undertaken. [Para 43][97-G-H; 98-A-B]
3.1. Going by the plain language of the concerned provisions, what is clear is both provisions i.e. Rule 15(b) and 15(e) of the Recruitment Rules refer to the expression ‘marks’. Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules requires every candidate to obtain minimum 50% marks in each of the subjects and states, “candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment”. Rule 15(e) requires the Board to prepare a select list of each category of candidates, “on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in written examination under clause (b)”. The provisions do not, on the plain language employed, demand different yardstick or principle to be adopted. [Para 45][98-F-H]
3.2. If one construes the expression ‘marks’ in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) to be ‘raw marks’ at both the stages that will go against the very basic idea which calls for applicability of ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’ because of the variability arising from multiple examinations. Thus, if ‘raw marks’ is to be the basis at both the stages, the candidates would never be tested on an equal footing or basis. This would, therefore, call for either of the following two alternatives:- Either to consider expressions ‘marks’ in both these provisions to be marks after the adoption of normalization, or ‘normalized score’, or to accept the course suggested by the respondents and construe expression ‘marks’ in Rule 15(b) to be ‘raw marks’ and apply normalization at Rule 15(e) stage only to consider inter se merit position. [Para 46][99-A-C]
3.3. However, if the submission advanced by the respondents is accepted, it will lead to incongruities on three counts. It may, as well, lead to a situation where a person, in the final analysis i.e. after the ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’ is adopted, may have failed to secure more than 50% “normalized score” in a subject or subjects and yet he will be part of the Select List. Secondly, those who may have secured more than 50% ‘normalized score’ but less than 50% ‘raw marks’ will be out of reckoning as they would not be allowed to go beyond Rule 15(b) stage. Lastly, such a course will necessarily imply that the expression “Candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above subject shall not be eligible for recruitment” [as appearing in Rule 15(b)] will have to be treated differently as against the preparation of a select list [in terms of Rule 15(e)] “on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in written examination under clause (b)”. [Para 47][99-C-F]
3.4. It is relevant to note that the ineligibility referred to in Rule 15(b) is as against ‘recruitment’. The criteria for eligibility is not just confined to the stages upto 15(c) and 15(d) but must be fulfilled all through i.e. upto recruitment. Rule 15(e) makes specific and clear reference to- marks obtained by each candidate in written examination under clause (b). The verb used is ‘obtain’ at both the places i.e. in Rule 15(b) and in Rule 15(e). At both the stages the marks ‘obtained’ in written examinations referable to clause (b), are the relevant criteria for (i) being eligible for recruitment in terms of Rule 15(b) and for (ii) preparing the select list under Rule 15(e). Adopting a different yardstick as suggested by the respondents will certainly lead to incongruent situations as stated. [Para 48][99-G-H; 100-A]
4. It is true that the same expression appearing at different places in a statute has, on some occasions, been construed by this Court differently, depending upon the context in which such expressions appear. Thus, it is the context which must determine whether the same expression occurring at two different places must be considered differently or in the same light. [Paras 49, 50][100-A-B; 102-E-F]
5. If one accepts the interpretation sought to be placed by the respondents it would result in a situation where a person having ‘normalized score’ of 50% marks or above may be out of reckoning because his raw marks were less than 50%; and, there are sizable number of such persons. At the same time, someone whose ‘normalized score’ was well below 50% may still be part of the Select List because his “raw marks” were above 50%. [Para 51][102-F-G]
6. If the intent is to see that every candidate must have obtained minimum 50% marks and those ‘candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment’ as mandated by Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules or by paragraph 9 of the notification dated 28.6.2017, even going by the context and purposive interpretation, the expression ‘marks’ must be given the same meaning at both the stages; and the only possible meaning that can be ascribed is ‘normalized score’. Adopting different standards as suggested by the respondents would result in anomalous situations. Such anomaly will however stand removed if the expression ‘marks’ appearing in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) stages is construed in the same light and as ‘normalized score’. [Para 52][102-G-H; 103-A-C]
7. In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board in adopting the process of normalization at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by the High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at any juncture of the process. Further, decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out. [Para 53][103-C-E]
8. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the results declared by the Board on 28th February 2019 shall now be given effect as early as possible. However, the State and the Board had permitted candidates from both the categories i.e. who had secured more than 50% ‘raw marks’ as well as those who had secured more than 50% ‘normalized score’. Such candidates had participated in all the further stages, namely, in physical standard test, physical efficiency test, though some of them from the first category were finally disqualified on the ground that they had secured less than 50% ‘normalized score’. The State may consider making some allowance in favor of such subsequently disqualified candidates either by granting some weightage and/or age relaxation in the next selection. [Paras 54, 55][103-F-H; 104-A]
Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr.(2007) 3 SCC 720 : [2007] 1
SCR 235; Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others (2016) 2 SCC 495; Mahinder Kumar and Ors. v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 87; Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 632 : [1999] 2 SCR 177; and Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. The District Magistrate, Thana [1956] SCR 644 – relied on.
P.Singaravelan and others vs. District Collector, Tiruppur and DT and others (2020) 3 SCC 133; P.C.G. Govindan v. State of Gujarat and others (1987) 7 SCC 625; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman v. Omaditya Verma and others (2005) 4 SCC 424 : [2005] 3 SCR 166; State of Orissa and another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das and others (2019)6 SCC 270 : [2019] 7 SCR 197; U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit and others (2003) 12 SCC 701 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 210; Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav and another (2018) 3 SCC 706 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.