STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI & ORS

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 07-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 28
28
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI & ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2022)
JANUARY 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
29
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]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
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 exam

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