SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 14-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2016] 12 S.C.R. 1070 
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE 
COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8606-8610Of2015) 
OCTOBER 14, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
ServicE~ law: Competitive Examination - Whether the 
Court in Sanjay Singh had laid down any principle or direction 
regarding the methodology that has to be adopted by the 
Commission while assessing the answer-scripts of the 
D candidates in a public examination and specifically whether 
any such principle or direction has been laid down governing 
public examinations involving different subjects in which the 
candidates are to be tested - Held: This Court in Sanjay 
Singh could not be understood to have laid down any binding 
E principle of law or directions or even guidelines with regard 
to holding of examinations; evaluation of papers and 
declaration of results. by the Commission - What was held, 
was that scaling is a method which was generally unsuitable 
to be adopted for evaluation of answer papers of subjects 
F common to all candidates and that the application of the said 
method to the examination in question had resulted in 
unacceptabli~ results - Sanjay Singh did not decide that to 
such an examination i.e. where the papers are common, the 
system of moderation must be applied and to an examination 
G where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is the only 
available option - The decision, therefore, has to be 
understood to be confined to the facts of the case, rendered 
upon a consideration of the relevant Service Rules 
H prescribing a particular syllabus. 
1070 
SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE 
1071 
COMMISSION 
Judicial review: Public Service Commission - Decisions by A 
- Scope of interference - Held: In the instant case, absence 
of plea of malafide and uniform application of principles 
adopted by the Commission - Not an appropriate case for 
exercise of power of judicial review. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. In the judgment Sanjay Singh, this Court 
was· considering the validity of the selections held for 
appointment in the U.P. Judicial Service on the basis of c 
a competitive examination in which the Rules prescribed 
five (05) papers all of which were compulsory for all the 
candidates. There is no dispute that the U.P. Public 
Service Commission in the said case had scaled down 
the marks awardect. to the candidates by following the D 
scaling method. This Court, after holding that the Judicial 
Service Rules which governed the selection did not 
permit the scaled down marks to be taken into 
consideration, went into the further question of the 
correctness of the adoption of scaling method to an 
E 
examination where the papers were compulsory and 
common to all the candidates. This Court in Sanjay Singh 
could not be understood to have laid down any binding 
principle of law or directions or even guidelines with 
regard to holding of examinations; evaluation of papers F 
and declaration of re&ults by the Commission. The 
decision, therefore, has to be understood to be confined 
to the facts of the case, rendered upon a consideration 
of the relevant Service Rules prescribing a particular 0 
syllabus. [Paras 14, 20) [1080 D - G; 1084 C - D; G] 
2. The requirement of adoption of moderation of 
marks to a particular kind of examination and scaling to 
others are, at best, opinions, exercise of which requires 
an in-depth consideration of questions that are more H 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public 
examinations involving wide and varied subjects/ 
disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant 
solution by adoption of any singular process or by a 
strait jacket formula. Not only examiner variations and 
8 variation in award of marks in different subjects are 
issues to be answered, there are several other questions 
that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the 
strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary 
c examination format is one such fine issue that was 
coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh. A conscious 
choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the 
time of his entry to the University thereby restricting his 
choice of papers in a public examination; the standards 
0 
of inter subject evaluation of answer papers and 
issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in, 
different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration:

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