U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION versus SUBHASH CHANDRA DIXIT AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 05-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION 
v. 
SUBHASH CHANDRA DIXIT AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 2003 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 320 and 234-UP Public Service Commission (Regulation of 
C Procedure and Conduct of Busines.1) Amendment Act, 1976-Rule 51-UP 
Nyayik Sewa Niyamavali, 1951-Rule 19-Conduct of Civil Judge (Junior 
Division) Examination by State Public Service Commission-Adoption of 
scaling system by invoking power conferred under Rule 51 of 1976 Act in 
view of Rule 19 of Niyamavali 1951-Correctness of-Held: Niyamavali, 1951 
D made by Governor in consultation with the Commission and High Court 
whereas 1976 Act not made in consultation with the Commission and High 
Court yet the provisions of the 1976 Act applicable for conducting the 
Recruitment Examination-Further, the 1976 Act gives guidelines for any 
recruitment to be made by U.P.P.S.C whereas Niyamavali 1951 only gives 
special rules concerning Subordinate Judicial Service in the State, as such 
E Niyatnavali is not a complete code in itself-On facts, State Commission 
correctly applied scaling formula and prepared merit of candidates for UP 
Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, Provincial Civil Services (Executive 
Branch) Main Examination 2001 and Preliminary Examination, 2002-Hence, 
High Court not justified in interfering with the merit list prepared by the 
F Commission. 
Articles 320, 14 and 16-Public Service Commissions-Conduct of 
c()l'1petitive examinations-Adoption of scaling system-Correctness of-Held: 
Scaling system adopted to eliminate inconsistency in the marking standards of 
the examiners is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable-Also when scaling system 
G is adopted after expert study, the Court would not interfere unless it is proved 
to be arbitrary and unreasonable. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Aggregate Marks '-Meaning of 
H 
210 
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION v. SUBHASH CHANDRA DIXIT 
2 J J 
Appellant-Uttar Pradesh Public Services Commission conducted the A 
U.P. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2000, the Provincial Civil 
Services (Executive Branch), Main Examination, 2001 and the Provincial 
Civil Services (Executive Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2002. In these 
examinations, it applied a system of scaling of marks awarded by the 
examiners and thereafter, published the result. Unsuccessful candidates 
challenged the merit lists on the gronnd that the scaling of marks was B 
arbitrary and illegal. Division Bench of High Court set aside the merit 
list. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-Commission contended that Article 320 of the Constitution 
gives ample power to the Public Service Commission to conduct the 
examinations for appointment to the services of the Union and States and C 
such power is not subject to any of the provisions contained in the 
Constitution; that it is the constitutional duty of the State Public Service 
Commission to conduct such examinations in a free and fair manner; and 
that the proviso to Section 51 of the UP Public Service Commission 
(Regulation of Procedure and Conduct of Business) Amendment Act, 1976 D 
gives ample power to the Commission to adopt a scaling system to find 
out the most suitable candidates for selection and the marks awarded to 
the candidates could be varied by adopting such a system. 
Respondents contended that the examination for selection of Civil 
Judge [Jr. Division) should have been conducted in accordance with the E 
procedure prescribed in Niyamavali and any deviation therefrom would 
be illegal; that any of the provisions contained in the U.P. Public Services 
Commission (Regulation of Procedure and Conduct of Business) Act 1974 
being contrary to the provisions of Niyamavali 1951 cannot be applied for 
the selection of Judicial Officers in the State as the Act of 1974 is not made 
in consultation with the State Public Services Commission and the High F 
Court; that even if Rule 51 of 1974 Act permitted the U.P.P.S.C. to adopt 
scaling of marks, the same should not have been applied in the case of 
selection of Judicial Officers; that Rule 19 of Niyamavali 1951 expressly 
says that the Commission would prepare the list of candidates in the order 
of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded G 
which means the marks assigned by various examiners to each of the 
candidates and not the marks assigned to the candidates after the scaling 
system is applied; that Niyamavali 1951 

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