K. CHANNEGOWDA AND ORS. versus KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 06-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. CHANNEGOWDA AND ORS. 
v. 
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 6, 2005 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
Appointment of Gazetted Officers/Probationers-Competitive examination 
C conducted by Public Service Commission-Allegation against the Commission 
for showing favour to some candidates-Petition allowed by tribunal directing 
evaluation afresh of the answer scripts in terms of guidelines-Challenge to--
High Court modified the order of the Tribunal directing evaluation of only 
certain number of answer scripts-Appeals and cross appeals-Held: 
D Allegations relate to a stage of moderation by the Chief Examiner and confined 
to his conduct-Since the High Court examined the material on record 
meticulously, it is not necessary to undertake the exercise again-Since Courts 
below found conduct of the Chief Examiner improper and unfair, no reason 
is found to interfere with their findings. 
Evaluation of all the answer scripts-Necessity of-Held: Since sufficient 
number of answer scripts randomly evaluated and moderated and no 
conspicuous variation in the award of marks found by the Chief Examiner, 
there was no need to get all the answer scripts evaluated 
Scaling method of Evaluation-Preference of-Held: Sealing method is 
more practical and effective-Scaling method of evaluation being applied in 
many competitive examinations with the sole aim to bring about uniformity 
of standard in the matter of award of marks by the examiners-As such, no 
exception could be taken to the scaling method in principle. 
The Government of Karnataka sent requisition to the Karnataka 
Public Service Commission for selection of 415 Gazetted Probationers 
(Group 'A' and 'B' posts). The Commission conducted the written 
examination and selected the candidates for appointment for the said posts. 
Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before the High 
Court alleging serious irregularities in the evaluation of the answer scripts. 
126 
K. CHANNEGOWDA 1•. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
J 2 7 
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the writ petitions were A 
not maintainable and the petitioners may seek remedy before the 
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the 
Commission to get all the answer scripts valued afresh by appointing fresh 
examiners. On appeal, High Court modified the order of the Tribunal by 
directing the Commission to have moderation/random review by the Head B 
Examiner and Chief Examiner only in those subjects where the evaluation 
had not been adequately done earlier. Aggrieved, some of the candidates 
filed appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Since the selection of two of the alleged favoured C 
candidates has been cancelled, any observation or finding, if recorded by 
this Court in respect of the matter, may prejudice the pending case of other 
alleged favoured candidate, and therefore, no further comment is made 
on this aspect of the matter. (139-G, H; 140-A] 
1.2. This is not a case where the examination deserves to be cancelled. D 
The finding recorded by the High Court that there is really no allegation 
imputing unfairness in the matter of examination of answer scripts by the 
examiners, is justified. The allegations, if any, relate to the stage of 
moderation by the Chief Examiners, and in particular confined to the 
conduct of the Chief Examiner. Besides, the High Court has very E 
meticulously examined the material on record and it is not necessary to 
undertake that exercise over again. (143-B, C( 
1.3. The Tribunal as well as the Hi~h Court have concurrently held 
that the conduct of the Chief Examiner was improper and unfair and no 
reason is found to interfere with their concurrent finding. Hence, finding F 
of the High Court is concurred with. However, it is clarified that the 
finding recorded in these proceedings is only for the purpose of disposing 
of these appeals and should not prejudice the case of the parties in the 
pending enquiry. (146-B, C( 
2.1. The Tribunal directed fresh evaluation of all answer scripts G 
because the suggestion made by the Tribunal for production of the marks 
assigned to the top 50 candidates in each category was not accepted by 
. the Commission. However, before the High Court the relevant material 
was produced and the High Court had the advantage of scrutinizing the 
material placed before it. The successful candidates are, therefore, right 
in their submission 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.