Supreme Court of India
JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusMANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 1401
- Decided
- 18 December 2019
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The moderation committee, as per the UGC scheme, may determine cut‑off marks for Paper III at a later stage, and such determination does not constitute a change of the rules of the game.
Summary
The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) advertised the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET) to determine eligibility for lecturer appointments, requiring candidates to secure 50% in Papers I and II before attempting Paper III. The petitioner obtained the required 50% in Papers I and II but failed to meet a 60% cut‑off that JPSC later fixed for Paper III, leading to his disqualification. The petitioner challenged this in a writ petition, and the High Court held that JPSC could not fix a minimum mark for Paper III, deeming it a change of the rules after the advertisement. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the UGC‑prescribed scheme, which provides for a moderation committee to determine cut‑off marks for Paper III after the test. The Court held that the moderation committee’s role permits setting cut‑off marks later and that this does not constitute a change of the rules. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside, the JPSC’s appeal was allowed, and the respondent’s appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Jharkhand Public Service Commission could fix a minimum qualifying mark for Paper III of the Jharkhand Eligibility Test after the advertisement was issued.
- Whether fixing such a cut‑off mark amounts to a change in the rules of the selection process.
Subjects
service laweligibility testmoderation committeecut‑off markspublic service commissionselection process
Judgment
984 [2019]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 18 S.C.R. 984 [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9441 of 2019)
B
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Jharkhand Eligibility Test – Eligibility of the
candidates for appointment as lecturers – Jharkhand Public Service
C Commission (JPSC) issued advertisement on 19.07.2006 inviting
applications for Jharkhand Eligibility Test – The test consisted of
three papers; the first two papers were multiple choice questions
and third paper was a descriptive type question paper – Candidates
obtaining 50% marks in Paper I and II were eligible to take test in
paper III – The writ petitioner obtained 50% marks in papers I and
D
II – Thereafter, writ petitioner appeared in paper III – The JPSC
fixed a cut off percentage of 60 for paper III which the writ
petitioner did not attain and he was declared unsuccessful – Writ
petition – High Court held that JPSC could not fix the minimum
marks for paper III – On appeal, held: There were no minimum
E marks provided for paper III in the advertisement – It was for the
moderation committee to decide what should be the cut-off marks –
This could be done by the moderation committee even at a later
stage – This was not a change brought about but an additional
aspect brought in while determining the merit of the candidates who
were found fit to be eligible for consideration for appointment of
F
lecturers – High Court erred in holding that the JPSC could not fix
the minimum marks for paper III – Therefore, judgment of the High
Court set aside.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
G HELD : 1. A perusal of Clause 4.1 of the scheme clearly
indicates that the moderation committee has been constituted
only for the purpose of deciding the cut-off marks in each subject
for declaring the result. The advertisement clearly indicates that
only those candidates who obtained 50% marks in Paper I and II
H
984
JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 985
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.
would be eligible to take the test in Paper III. The minimum A
qualifying marks in case of General/OBC candidates was 50%.
At this stage, there was no need to fix the qualifying marks for
Paper III. That need will arise only when the moderation
committee meets and decides what should be the level of
competence expected from the people who are to be considered
B
for appointment as Lecturers. It is for the moderation committee
to decide what should be the cut-off marks. There could be the
subject where all the people who qualified Paper I and II get
very low marks in Paper III and the moderation committee may
be justified in lowering the standards and prescribing lower
qualifying standards. On the other hand, there may be a subject C
where there are many candidates who do extremely well in Paper
III and the moderation committee may decide to fix a higher
minimum standard. The constitution of a moderation committee
is normally done only to do this sort of moderation. [Para 6]
[988-C-F]
D
2. As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules of
the game were changed after the selection process had started,
this Court is of the considered view that this is not the case as far
as the present case is concerned. There were no minimum marks
provided for Paper III in the advertisement. This could be done
E
by the moderation committee even at a later stage. This is not a
change brought about but an additional aspect brought in while
determining the merit of the candidates who are found fit to be
eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.
[Para 7][988-F-G]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9441
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2016 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (C) No. 3705 of 2015.
With G
Civil Appeal No. 9442 of 2019.
Sunil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Vikas, Jamnesh Kumar, Parth
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A Shekhar, Himanshu Shekhar, Anil K. Jha, Chandra Anand Jha, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
B 1. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued an
advertisement on 19.07.2006 inviting applications from candidates
desirous of competing in the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET). This test is
not meant for selection to any post but is conducted to determine the
eligibility of the candidates for appointment as lecturers in universities
and colleges of the State of Jharkhand. This test called the State Level
C Eligibility Test (SLET) is conducted as per the guidelines laid down by
the University Grants Commission (UGC).
2. The test consists of three papers – the first two papers are
multiple choice questions to be answered on an Optical Mark Reader
(OMR). One test is of a general subject and one test is of the subject for
D which the candidate applies. The third paper is a descriptive type question
paper dealing only with the subject selected by the candidate. Relevant
portion of the advertisement reads as follows:
“A candidate who does not appear in Paper-I will not be permitted
to appear in Paper-II and Paper-III. Paper-III will be evaluated
E only for those candidates who are able to secure the minimum
qualifying marks in Paper-I and Paper-II as per the table given in
the following:-
CATEGORY MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS
F PAPER-I PAPER-II PAPER-I
+
PAPER-II
G
GENERAL/OBC 40 40 100 (50%)
PH/VH 35 35 90 (45%)
SC/ST 35 35 80 (40%)
H
JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 987
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
3. The writ petitioner obtained 50% marks in Papers I and II but A
he did not do as well in Paper III. The JPSC fixed a cut off percentage
of 60 for Paper III which the writ petitioner did not attain and as such he
was declared not successful and, therefore, ineligible to be considered
for appointment as lecturer.
4. Aggrieved by the said action, the writ petitioner filed a writ B
petition before the High Court which allowed the same. The appeal filed
by the JPSC before the writ court was also allowed mainly on the ground
that the Public Service Commission could not have fixed qualifying marks
of 60% and this amounted to changing the rules of the game after the
advertisement had been issued and process of selection had started. It
held that once the candidate had obtained 50% marks, the candidate C
could not be disqualified and the JPSC was not bound by the instructions
of the UGC in this regard. The High Court also directed that the case of
the writ petitioner would be considered on the basis of performance.
The High Court held that no cut off marks had been provided for Paper
III. D
5. We have heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the JPSE who drew our attention to the scheme framed
by the UGC for the SLET. The scheme has a provision for constitution
of a moderation committee which will help in deciding the cut off marks
in each subject for declaring the result. The relevant portion of the scheme E
reads as follows:
“Moderation Committee: The committee will help in deciding the
cut-off marks in each subject for declaring the result. The
Committee will consist of the following:
1. Chairman of Steering/Advisory Committee. F
2. State Government Representatives.
3. Two Professors of the different State Universities in rotation.
4. One Professor from outside the State.
5. Member Secretary (State agency) G
6. One nominee of the U-CAT out of two nominated by UGC.
7. Member Secretary, (UGC Official) U-CAT, UGC.”
Mr. Sunil Kumar contends that the moderation committee, keeping
in view the various factors, decides what should be the cut off marks in H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.
A each subject and this does not have to be decided at the stage of issuance
of advertisement. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Vikas, learned
counsel appearing for the original writ petitioner, submits that the
advertisement does not envisage any minimum cut-off marks for Paper
III. He further submits that this is only an eligibility test and the field of
choice becomes larger if more people are held eligible. Both sides have
B
challenged the judgment of the High Court and we are deciding both the
appeals by this common judgment.
6. A perusal of Clause 4.1 of the scheme clearly indicates that the
moderation committee has been constituted only for the purpose of
deciding the cut-off marks in each subject for declaring the result. The
C advertisement clearly indicates that only those candidates who obtained
50% marks in Paper I and II would be eligible to take the test in Paper
III. The minimum qualifying marks in case of General/OBC candidates
was 50%. At this stage, there was no need to fix the qualifying marks
for Paper III. That need will arise only when the moderation committee
D meets and decides what should be the level of competence expected
from the people who are to be considered for appointment as Lecturers.
It is for the moderation committee to decide what should be the cut-off
marks. There could be the subject where all the people who qualified
Paper I and II get very low marks in Paper III and the moderation
committee may be justified in lowering the standards and prescribing
E lower qualifying standards. On the other hand, there may be a subject
where there are many candidates who do extremely well in Paper III
and the moderation committee may decide to fix a higher minimum
standard. The constitution of a moderation committee is normally done
only to do this sort of moderation.
F 7. As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules of the
game were changed after the selection process had started, we are of
the considered view that this is not the case as far as the present case is
concerned. There were no minimum marks provided for Paper III in the
advertisement. This could be done by the moderation committee even at
G a later stage. This is not a change brought about but an additional aspect
brought in while determining the merit of the candidates who are found
fit to be eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the
High Court erred in holding that the JPSC could not fix the minimum
H marks for Paper III. Hence, we set aside the judgment of the High
JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 989
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
Court dated 09.11.2016. The Civil Appeal No. 9441 of 2019 @ Special A
Leave Petition (Civil) No.14926 of 2017 filed by the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission is allowed and C.A. No. 9442 of 2019 @ Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.31106 of 2017 filed by the other side (writ
petitioner) is dismissed.
B
Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search