Supreme Court of India
K. CHANNEGOWDA AND ORS.versusKARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2005 INSC 489
- Decided
- 6 October 2005
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B P SINGH
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order of limited re‑evaluation/moderation and application of the scaling method, dismissing the appeals.
Summary
The Karnataka Public Service Commission conducted a competitive examination for gazetted probationer posts, after which several unsuccessful candidates alleged irregularities in the evaluation of answer scripts, particularly favouritism by the Chief Examiner. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ordered fresh evaluation of all answer scripts, but the High Court modified this, directing re‑evaluation only in subjects where moderation was inadequate or where the variation in marks exceeded +/-20. The Supreme Court examined the material, found no evidence of unfairness by the examiners themselves, and held that the High Court’s limited re‑evaluation and application of the scaling method were appropriate. It affirmed that the examination need not be cancelled and that the Tribunal’s wholesale re‑evaluation order was excessive. Consequently, the Court dismissed all appeals and upheld the High Court’s directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the entire competitive examination should be cancelled and a fresh examination held due to alleged irregularities.
- Whether fresh evaluation of all answer scripts is required or limited re‑evaluation/moderation suffices.
- Whether the scaling method of evaluation should be applied to ensure uniformity of marks.
- Whether the conduct of the Chief Examiner warrants a wholesale re‑evaluation of answer scripts.
- Whether the High Court’s modification of the Tribunal’s order is legally valid.
- Whether the guidelines for random review (5% top‑level, 10% overall) were complied with and what remedial steps are required.
Subjects
service lawcompetitive examinationevaluation of answer scriptsscaling methodmoderationadministrative tribunalKarnataka Public Service Commissionfairnessre‑evaluationrandom reviewchief examiner misconduct
Judgment
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 ofguidelines-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 J27
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 that if the material asked for had been produced before H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP..4 S.C.R.
A the Tribunal, perhaps the Tribunal would not have drawn an adverse
inference and directed a wholesale re-evaluation of all the answer scripts.
1146-D, El
2.2. The High Court has recorded reasons for directing re-evaluation
in only so!_lle of the subjects. In regard to other subjects the High Court
B has found that sufficient number of answer scripts were randomly
evaluated and moderated, and further there was no conspicuous variation
in the award of marks by the examiners and the Head Examiners.
Obviously, therefore, there was no need to get such answer scripts re-
evaluated. However, where sufficient number of answer scripts were not
C re-evaluated by Head Examiner/Chief Examiner as required by the Rules,
the High Court was certainly justified in. directing compliance of the Rules.
1146-G, H; 147-AI
3.1. The scaling method of evaluation of answer scripts is applied
only with a view to maintain a uniform standard in the marking of answer
D scripts. It is true that there is bound to be some difference in the marks
awarded by d.ifferent examiners in the same subject. But the need for
applying scaling method arises only in cases where the variation in marks
awarded exceeds a certain level. It is, therefore, not necessary that the
scaling method should be applied in all cases. The scaling method will be
applied only where the variation in marks is plus or minus a certain level
E or percentage. The High Court in the instant case has directed that scaling
method shall be applied only when it is found that average variation is
plus or minus 20 or more. Wherever the average variation is less than
plus or minus 20, general review of the marks awarded need not be done.
The scaling method is now being applied in many competitive examinations
F held in this country and the purpose of applying the scaling method is to
bring about a certain uniformity of standard in the matter of award of
marks by the examiners. No exception can be taken to the scaling method
in principle. 1147-C, E, F, GI
U.P. Public Services Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit and Ors.,
G AIR (2004) SC 163, relied on.
3.2. It will make no difference in the instant case if the scaling method
is not applied to subjects where valuation and revaluation has been upheld
by the High Court because the High Court has not found it necessary to
direct re-evaluation of answer scripts in those subjects where the average
H variation was not found to be more than plus or minus 20%. Thus, the
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION J29
subjects in which the High Court has not directed re-evaluation are those A·
subjects where in any case the scaling method would not be applicable
because the average variation of marks has been found to be within the
prescribed parameter. Hence, the direction of the High Court to apply the
scaling method in re-evaluation of answer scripts pursuant to the order
of the High Court, is upheld. 1148-D, El
B
3.3. The submission of some of the candidates that there is nothing
which prevents the random re-evaluation of a larger percentage of answer
scripts, and thus there was no need to apply the scaling technique, must
be rejected because even if answer scripts more than the percentage
prescribed are reviewed by Head Examiner or Chief Examiner, that will C
not achieve the purpose for which the scaling technique is adopted, because
the scaling technique is confined to award of marks by examiners in the
same subject who are either too liberal or too strict in awarding marks
with the result that the average variation is more than plus or minus 20
marks. If the desired result is to be achieved all the answer papers
examined by a particular examiner will have to be re-evaluated. As D
between the two options, the scaling method is found to be more practical
and effective. 1148-F, G, H; 149-A]
4.1. The High Court has found as a fact that in some subjects random
review was not done to the extent prescribed in the guidelines (5% of top
level answer scripts and over all random review of 10%). No minutes or E
record were maintained to show whether moderation was done by the
Head Examiners/Chief Examiners in the manner required by the
guidelines. In these circumstances, one cannot find fault with the direction
of the High Court for re-evaluation of answer scripts in subjects in which
moderation/random review was not done in accordance with the p
guidelines. 1149-E, F]
4.2. The High Court in its judgment has noticed that the random
review prescribed under the guidelines was to be done in respect of 5%
of top level answer scripts and 10% over all ra11idom review. Even the
memo filed by the Commission and accepted by the High Court assured G
that whenever random review done by the Qead Examiner was less than
10% of the answer scripts evaluated by any examiner in any subject, the
shortfall would be made up examiner-wise and subject-wise by random
review of answer scripts to the extent of shortfall. While doing so it would
be ensured that random sampling was not less than 5% of the top level H
.I
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A answer scripts. Thus, the direction of the High Court has not deviated from
the guidelines. 1149-G, H; 150-A, Bl
4.3. Since valuation of answer scripts commenced on May 17, 1999
while the examination was held between April 9, 1999 and May 3, 1999,
no question of the model answers being leaked out so as to be available to
B the examinees on the dates of examination. 1150-D]
5. The High Court has taken care to safeguard the interest of all
concerned and to rule out th1e possibility of unfairness in the re-evaluation
of the answer scripts. The directions made by the High Court are adequate
C to deal with the peculiar facts of this case. Hence, no interference with
the order of the High Court is called for. 1151-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6172-6222
of 2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated I I.I 0.2002 of the Karnataka High
D Court in W.P. Nos. 12573, 12574, 8702-8711, 9085-9091, 9250-9255, 13310-
11316, 13469, 13474-13484 and 21218 of 2002.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 6313 and 6223-6312 of 2005.
E
K. Ramamoorthy, P.P. Rao, M.L. Verma and K.N. Bhat, P. Narasimhan,
Ms. E.R. Sumathy, Sriram J. Thalapathy, N.K. Arulmuruganandham, K.R.
Barath, B. Ranganath, E.C. Vidyasagar, B.K. Choudhary, K. Lingaraja, Ashok
Kr. Upadhyay, Yatindra Sharma, X.M. Joseph, Satyajit Saha, Mrs.V.D.
F Khanna, Satya Mitra, Venugopala Gowda, S.N. Bhat, D.P. Chaturvedi, N.P.S.
Panwar, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K.Mishra, A. Rohen Singh, Ramesh Chandra
Pandey, Rajesh Mahale, Ms. N. Annapoorani and T.V. George for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
B.P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted in all the matters.
In this batch of appeals the common judgment and order of the High
Court of Kamataka at Bangalore dated October 11, 2002 has been assailed.
The matter relates to the conduct of competitive examination by Kamataka
H Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Gazetted Probationers
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J.] 131
(Group 'A' and 'B' Posts). Some of the unsuccessful candidates approached A
Kamataka Administrative Tribunal with a grievance that the competitive
examination conducted by the Kamataka Public Service Commission was not
fair and impartial. The manner in which the examination was conducted and
the evaluation of the answer scripts by the examiners were suspect. In particular
allegations were made about the favours shown to one K. Rameswarappa, the B
appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP © No. 24322 of 2003 and two
of his relatives who had secured high positions and were ultimately selected.
The Kamataka Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated
February 6, 2002 allowed the applications filed before it, inasmuch as it
found certain irregularities committed in the conduct of the competitive C
examination, and in particular favours shown to the aforesaid Rameswarappa
and some of his relatives. The Tribunal ultimately directed the Kamataka
Public Service Commission to get all the answer scripts evaluated afresh after
. appointment of fresh examiners in accordance with the procedure contained
in the order. It also gave tertain directions in regard to the evaluation of the
answer scripts and the declaration of the· result. D
The Kamataka Public Service Commission filed writ appeals before the
High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore challenging the findings recorded by
the Administrative Tribunal and the ultimate order passed by it. The High
Court after hearing the parties gave certain directions for the re-evaluation of
some of the answer scripts, though not all. The High Court was of the view E
that having regard to the findings recorded by it, it was not necessary to get
all the answer scripts evaluated over again. The judgment and order of the
High Court has been impugned in this batch of appeals.
The appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP ) Nos. 11589 to F
11639 of 2003 are the unsuccessful candidates who were not selected for
appointment. They contend that the entire examination should have been
scrapped in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High
Court.
The appellants in appeals arising out ofSLP) Nos.610-699 of2004 are G
the successful candidates who were selected for appointment by the Kamataka
Public Service Commission on the basis of the declared result. They contend
that for no fault of theirs' the answers scripts are sought to be re-evaluated,
particularly when the High Court was able to identify the culprits and the
beneficiaries of the irregularities committed in the evaluation and moderation
of the answer scripts. They contend that apart from the persons against whom H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A a clear and categoric finding has been recorded, there is no need to order
fresh evaluation of the answer scripts in 15 optional subjects and also in
general studies.
The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP © No. 24322 of 2003
is one Dr. Rameshwarappa against whom findings have been recorded by the
B Kamataka Administrative Tribunal which have been affirmed by the High
Court. He has challenged the findings recorded against him and has prayed
for setting aside the judgments and orders of both the Kamataka Administrative
Tribunal and the High Court.
The facts of the case may be briefly noticed.
c
On February 4th, 1998 the Government of Karnataka sent requisition
to the Kamataka Public Service Commission for the selection of 415 candidates
for appointment to the post of Gazetted Probationers (Group 'A' and 'B'
posts). Pursuant to the said requisition, the Karnataka Public Service
D Commission issued an advertisement on March 9, 1998 inviting applications.
As many as 85598 applications were received in response to the said
advertisement and out of them 79130 applications were found to have been
validly made by eligible candidates. In accordance with the rules for selection
to the said posts, a preliminary examination was held followed by the main
examination. The preliminary examination was held on August 30, 1998 in
E which 56228 candidates appeared. Result of the preliminary examination was
declared on November 16, 1998 and on the basis of the aforesaid result 9857
candidates were found eligible to take the main examination. The main
examination was held between April 9, 1999 and May 3, 1999. The answer
scripts were evaluated between May 17, 1999 and June 18, 1999. On January
F 12, 2000 the result was declared and as many as 2397 candidates qualified
for the personality test. In the months of July and August, 2001 the personality
test was held and the provisional list of selected candidates was declared on
September 28, 200 I.
In February, 2000 eight candidates who had failed in compulsory papers
G of Kannada and/or English filed writ petitions before the High Court alleging
serious irregularities in evaluation of the answer scripts. The writ petition
came up before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who by a reasoned
order dated March 21, 2000 referred the aforesaid writ petitions to the Division
Bench.
H In the meantime 24 other candidates filed writ petitions before the High
K. CHANNEGOWDA ''·KARNA TAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH,!.] J33
Court. Those writ petitions were also clubbed with writ petitions filed by A
eight candidates earlier and another Writ Petition No. 7022 of 2000 filed by
another candidate. Ultimately the Division Bench held that the writ petitioners
may seek remedy before the Kamataka Administrative Tribunal and that writ
petitions were not maintainable. The High Court transferred all the 33 writ
petitions filed in the High Court to the Kamataka Administrative Tribunal. B
Nine other petitioners had directly approached the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal. In this manner 42 matters were heard and disposed of by the
Kamataka Administrative Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated February
6, 2002.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Karnataka Administrative C
Tribunal, the Karnataka Public Service Commission preferred writ petitions
before the High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore being Writ Petition Nos.
12548-12589 of2002 which have been disposed of by the impugned common
judgment and order.
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal concluded that the valuation of D
the answer scripts could not be regarded as fair. In the facts and circumstances
of the case no distinction could be made between answer scripts validly
valued and those not validly valued. It was, therefore, necessary that all the'
answer scripts should be re-evaluated. Accordingly, it directed the Karnataka
Public Services Commission to get all the answer scripts valued afresh by
appointing examiners who are in no way interested in the candidates taking E
the examination. The examiners were to be appointed after verifying their
declaration that none of their relatives specified in the format of the declaration
was a candidate. The Commission was directed to erase all the code numbers
and give fresh code numbers to the answer scripts relating to the compulsory
as well as the optional subjects. It, further, directed that all answer scripts p
wherein more than 60% marks were awarded must be valued by a set of two
examiners. In case there was a difference exceeding 5% of the marks in
evaluation by the two examiners, the matter must be referred to the third
examiner. It also directed that Karnataka Public Service Commission shall
permit re-evaluation of answer scripts of all those candidates who seek such
re-evaluation within the time to be specified, and on such payment as may G
b~ determined. It further obliged the Commission to furnish to all candidates
marks obtained by them in all the papers.
The High Court, however, modified the directions of the Tribunal. It
came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A not necessary to get all the answer scripts re-evaluated. It directed moderation/
random review by the Head Examiner and Chief Examiner only in regard to
subjects where the same had not been adequately done earlier. This had to
be done in the manner suggested by the Public Service Commission in para
(b) of its memo dated March 27, 2002 which reads as follows :-
B " .....•.. on the basis of random review of answer scripts done in respect
of answer scripts evaluated by each Examiner average variation shall
be arrived at Wherever the average variation is less than plus or
minus 20, general review of the marks awarded 'need not be done.
However where the average difference is plus or minus 20 or more
the marks awarded by such examiner shall be increased or deceased
c by that average in respect of each of the answer scripts evaluated by
that Examiner. In case the average variation is less than plus or minus
20 but variation in respe1;t of individual answer scripts is plus or
minus 20 or more those answer scripts would be subjected to third
valuation."
D
The entire process of moderation was directed to be done under the
supervision of the Secretary of Kamataka Public Service Commission. It was
left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service
Commission to have the moderation done either at a two tier level (Head
Examiner and Chief Examiner) or at only one level. The Secretary of the
E Karnataka Public Service Commission was directed to select and prepare a
fresh panel of Head/Chief Examiners for this purpose. The process of
interviews and selection carried out during the pendency of the applications
before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was declared to be illegal. The
Commission was further directed to re-evaluate the compulsory papers (English
F and/or Kannada) of those candidates who had approached the High Court or
Tribunal for such re-evaluation before the date of judgment. After re-evaluation
and moderation as directed, the Commission shall prepare the list of candidates
to be called for personality test in accordance with the Rules.
It would thus be seen that whereas the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
G directed that all the papers be evaluated by the examiners. afresh, the High
Court confined it to re-evaluation and moderation of some papers, and that
too only in those subjects wherein that was considered necessary, applying
the scaling method. A significant finding recorded by the High Court is that
there was hardly any material to raise any suspicion about the fairness of the
examiners in examining the answer scripts. Some doubts arose when re-
H
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNA TAK.A PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J.] J35
evaluation/moderation was done by the Head Examiner/Chief Examiner in A
respect of some of the subjects. The High Court, therefore, gave directions
for a limited re-evaluation and moderation confined to some subjects only,
and did not consider it necessary to order a total re-evaluation of answer
scripts of all subjects, or cancellation of the examination itself.
It will be necessary at this stage to notice the salient findings recorded B
by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The
Tribunal after noticing the submissions urged on behalf of the parties observed
that during the course of argument it enquired of the Karnataka Public Service
Commission about its willingness to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the
applicants before it. The senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission C
submitted that the Commission was not willing to undertake that exercise.
The Tribunal subsequently suggested, after arguments were concluded, to the
Commission that it may produce the marks list of the top 50 candidates in
each category indicating the marks assigned by the Head Examiner and the
Chief Examiner as the case may be, but the Commission filed a memo
declining to produce the information sought by the Tribunal for administrative D
reasons and having regard to the limited scope of judicial review in such
matters. It was also explained by counsel appearing for the Commission that
the Secretary of the Commission had gone for a training to Mussorie for a
period of 6 to 8 weeks and that the keys of the almirahs where the records
had been kept were with him, and therefore the required information could E
not be produced readily.
The Tribunal also sought clarification from the Commission about the
allegations made against some of the candidates namely Rameshwarappa and
his relatives. The Commission confirmed the fact that Rameshwarappa and
his relatives were seated in the same hall to take the examination. They had p
opted for same optional subjects and their answers were valued by the same
examiner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal formulated the
following contentions of the Petitioners which required examination by it :
G
"(i) That they are highly qualified persons having secured very high
professional degrees such as their chosen fields and in that back
ground it is inconceivable that they should have been failed in
Compulsory papers, the expected standards of which are not more
than SSLC standards.
H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A (ii) That the valuation of the papers by the examiners are apparently
erratic as not to be regarded as fair to all the candidates as for example,
members of the one family like sister, brother and brother-in-law
securing top ranking in the final examination indicating thereby
manipulation of marks secured by them, bearing no connection
between the marks given and the quality of answers; that one of the
B senior employees of the KPSC whose son had appeared for the
examination had participated in the examination process including
evaluation of the answer scripts casting a serious doubt as. to the
fairness in valuation of the answer scripts.
(iii) That one of the model answers had been leaked-out prior to the
c examination affecting the fairness of the examination process''.
Repelling the submission urged on behalf of the Karnataka Public Service
Commission that a candidate cannot seek revaluation of his answer s~ripts ...
merely on his own perception of good performance, the Tribunal observed
D that the mere fact that a candidate may think that he has performed extremely
well and yet not awarded marks which he rightly deserved, may not by itself
justify the revaluation of the answer scripts. However, in the light of other
allegations of unfairness and arbitrariness, if found to be true, re-examination
of the answer scripts may be justified. Reliance placed by the Karnataka
Public Service Commission on the decision of this Court in Maharashtra
E State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Educatio~ and Anr v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors., AIR (1984) SC 1543 did not,
according to the Tribunal, support the case of the Commission. That decision
was distinguished on the ground that in that case the Rules specifically
prohibited the authorities to entertain a claim of revaluation. In the instant
F case it observed that the Rules were silent on this aspect of the matter and,
therefore, in the absence of any express prohibition the Karnataka Public
Service Commission certainly had the power to order fresh evaluation of
answer scripts if it was satisfied that there was evidence of unfairness and
mal practice in the valuation of answer scripts. In the interest of fairness, the
Commission may exercise such authority wherever necessary.
G
As regards allegations of unfairness in valuation of answer scripts, the
Tribunal noticed that in the case of Remeshwarappa and his relatives the
answer scripts were first valued by the Examiner and then by the Chief
Examiner who awarded very high marks to them which really enabled them
to get high positions in the merit list resulting in their ultimate selection. The
H Tribunal noticed the marks awarded to Rameshwarappa and his relatives
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH,J.l J37
Nagaraja and Triveni which demonstrated that very high marks were awarded A
by the Chief Examiner and in some cases 80% marks were awarded as
against 30% awarded by the Examiner. The Tribunal commented on the
manner in which the Chief Examiner increased the marks awarded to these
candidates. This also disclosed that the model answers prepared to maintain
uniformity in the award of marks was not adhered to, because in that event B
there could not be possibility of such a huge difference in the award of marks
by the Examiner and the Chief Examiner. Th is reflected on the fairness in the
valuation of the answer scripts and demonstrated that the answer scripts were
not valued on the basis of the model answers prepared as per the accepted
standard.
The Tribunal further commented on the refusal of the Karnataka Public
c
Service Commission to accept a suggestion of the Tribunal that all the answer
scripts of the applicants should be revalued. In fact the suggestion of the
Tribunal that the marks list of the top 50 candidates in each category be
produced showing the marks awarded to them by the Examiners, Head
Examiner and the Chief Examiner was not accepted. The Tribunal did not D
find the explanation given by the Commission to be convincing. The Tribunal
went to the extent of holding that the refusal of the Karnataka Public Service
Commission to produce the marks assigned to top 50 candidates gave rise to
an adverse inference that if such tabulated statement of marks was produced
it would have gone against the Commission.
E
The Tribunal also commented on the conduct of some of the officials
who shouldered heavy responsibility in the conduct of the examination. Apart
from the Secretary of the Commission, one Sadyojathaiah, who was Incharge
Secretary for a few months, did not declare that his son was also taking the
examination. In fact his daughter also took the examination but was F
unsuccessful. This only showed that the declaration made by the Examiners/
officials were not scrutinized and enquired into with the result that the wards/
relatives of some of the officials closely associated with the conduct of the
examination also participated in the competitive examination. May be that
they did not act unfairly, but what was important was that the examination
must be seemed to have been conducted fairly. G
A contention was raised before the Tribunal that the model answers
were known even before the examination was conducted and that such a
· model answer relating to the compulsory subject, namely Kannada language
prepared by the Karnataka Public Service Commission was filed in a batch H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A of applications. The Karnataka Public Service Commission averred that these
model answers were prepared only a couple of days prior to commencement
of the valuation, but it did not deny that the model answer filed with the
applications purporting to be the model answer for the Kannada language
subject was in fact not the model answer prepared by the Commission. Though
B the Tribunal did not record a categoric finding of fact that such a model
answer was available to the candidates even before the conduct of the
examination, it commented on the fact that the model answer was available
to a candidate who annexed it with his application which demonstrated that'
the Commission was not able to maintain secrecy in such matters.
c could The Tribunal also held that the Karnataka Public Service Commission
not deny revaluation of answer scripts if sought by any candidate who
is aggrieved by the valuation of his answer scripts. To deny a candidate the
right to seek revaluation amounted to denial of fairness to him. Therefore, in
the absence of a specific rule prohibiting re-evaluation, it would be obligatory
on the Karnataka Public Service Commission to grant such re-evaluation
D within a specified time after the announcement of the result. It referred to
earlier instances where the Public Service Commission had permitted re-
evaluation of the answer scripts.
On such findings the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the award of
marks to the candidates did not appear to be fair resulting in the vitiation of
E the merit list. But the Tribunal following the principles laid down in Anamica
Mishra and Ors. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors.,
(1990] (Suppl.) SCC 692 held that the entire examination need not be set
aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. Fairness could be ensured
if the answer scripts were revalued after taking necessary precautions to
F ensure fairness. It, therefore, passed an order for fresh valuation of all the
answer scripts laying down guidelines which have been earlier referred to in.
this judgment.
We may observe at this stage that the Tribunal after considering the
material on record came to the conclusion that in respect of atleast three
G candidates namely, Rameshwarappa, Nagaraja and Triveni who were high
rank holders, the marks awarded by the Chief Examiner was much more than
the marks awarded to them by the examiner. That is how, they managed to
secure high positions in the competitive examination. The findings of the
Tribunal are also borne out by the report of the Sub committee constituted
H by the Commission to investigate the matter. The Committee found that
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J] J39
serious irregularities were committed by one Prof. K.S. Shivanna, Chief A ·
Examiner when he reviewed the marks awarded to Rameshwarappa, Nagaraja
and Triveni. The said Rameshwarappa was employed as Deputy Director of
Food and Civil Supplies while Nagaraja was his wife's brother and Smt.
Triveni and Smt. Hemalatha were two sisters of his wife. The report of the
Sub-committee discloses that their academic record was average. All of them B
had chosen the same optional subjects. In General Studies Paper I and II and
History Papers I and II all of them had chosen the very same questions for
answering and their answers were also identical. The Sub-committee found
that Prof. Shivanna had been appointed Chief Examiner to examine answers
written in Kannada medium in the subjects General Studies and History. He
had evaluated 127 answer scripts as Chief Examiner. It was discovered that C
in respect of the aforesaid four candidates he had even awarded marks for
totally wrong answers. He later claimed that by oversight such mistakes were
committed. He described as bona fide errors the awarding of more marks
than the maximum prescribed. It was found that six other candidates had
been shown such favourable treatment by Prof. Shivanna, out of whom two
were ultimately selected but the remaining four could not get selected. The D
evidence collected by the Sub-committee established that the aforesaid
Rameshwarappa used to visit the then Secretary of the Commission very
frequently, while Prof. Shivanna was his research guide for the Ph. D
programme. It also appeared from the material collected by the Sub-committee
that after the evaluation of answer scripts, all the three had undertaken a joint E
foreign trip. The Sub-committee came to the conclusion that Sri Monappa the
then Secretary of the Commission had parted with the· code numbers of the
candidates to Prof. Shivanna, who was willing to oblige Rameshwarappa and
some others. The Sub-committee found that Prof. Shivanna who was Chief
· ..,.__ Examiner in respect of answer scripts in Kannada medium, in the subjects
General Studies and History, also picked up answers given in English medium F
as in the case of Nagaraja and Triveni. He sought to explain this by saying
'
that since Prof. Raju Naidu, Chief Examiner of English medium was away,
those papers had been brought to him and he had accordingly moderated
those papers.
We do not wish to go into the details of the findings recorded by the
G
Subcommittee because we are informed that a proceeding is pending against
Sri Rameshwarappa. The selection of the alleged favoured candidates has
also been cancelled. Any observation made by us, or finding recorded in
respect of the matter, may prejudice the case ofRameshwarappa in the pending
proceeding, and, therefore, we do not wish to make any further comment on H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A this aspect of the matter. The findings of the Sub committee have been
noticed' by us, as also by the High Court, in the context of the challenge to
the validity and fairness of the competitive examination only for that limited
purpose and not with a view to finding the guilt or otherwise of Sri
Rameshwarappa.
B In the writ petitions preferred before the High Court against the order
of the Tribunal, while the selected candidates challenged the order for fresh
moderation in some subjects, the unsuccessful candidates challenged the
fairness of the examination and prayed for cancellation of the examination
itself. The Kamataka Public Service Commission justified its stand before the
C Tribunal.
We have earlier noticed that the Tribunal after conclusion of the hearing
of the matter, had suggested to the Commission on November 11, 2001 that '
it may produce the marks awarded to the top SO candidates in each category,
by the Head Examiner and the Chief Examiner. The Commission expressed
D its inability to give the aforesaid information having regard to the scope of
the proceeding before the Tribunal. It was also stated that since the Secretary
of the Commission was away on training at Mussorie for a period of six to
eight weeks and the keys of the Almirah in which the records were kept were
with him, the information could not be produced immediately. However,
before the High Court the Commission voluntarily produced the marks obtained
E by the top 50 candidates in each category, and with necessary particulars.
The Commission also furnished the particulars of marks obtained by all the
candidates who were ultimately selected for the personality test disclosing
the marks awarded to them by the Examiner and thereafter the Head Examiner
or Chief Examiner after moderation. The High Court directed the Commissfon
p to produce the list of candidates in whose cases the variation in marks was
plus or minus 20 or above (out of 300 marks) in a subject and also to furnish
the particulars of cases where the Chief Examiners had done random re- )
evaluation with particulars of difference in marks. Accordingly, the
Commission had produced necessary statements as required by the Court.
The rele~ant part of the Memo filed before the Court is as follows : -
G
"The Commission has placed before this Hon'ble Court subjectwise
abstract of total number of answer scripts valued, number of answer
scripts moderated by the Head Examiner and/or Chief Examiner and
cases where the marks awarded in moderation is plus or minus 20 or
more vis-a-vis the marks awarded by the Examiner. The total number
H
•
rl.
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH,].] J4 J
of tases where the variation is plus or minus 20 or more has been A
identified as 661. Keeping in mind anxieties expressed and
apprehensions stated during the hearing of the writ petitions and the
suggestions that fell from the Bench of this Hon'ble of this Hon'ble
Court, the Commission has examined the entire issue in the light of
the scheme laid down by the Commission regarding valuation of the B
answer scripts. The endeavour of the Commission has been to find a
solution which would be in line with the scheme ,of examination
prescribed by the Commission.
Keeping the above objective in mind and in deference to the
suggestions thatemerged during the hearing of the writ petitions, the C
Commission is making the following offer:
(a) Wherever the random review done by the Head Examiner is less
than IO per cent of the answer scripts evaluated by any examiner in
any subject, the short fall would be made up examinerwise and
subjectwise by random review of answer scripts to the extent of D
shortfall. While doing so, .it will be ensured that random sampling
shall not be less than 5 per cent of the top-level answer scripts.
(b) The Commission has always been of the view that review referred
to at para 3 of the scheme of valuation is not analogous to scaling
technique. It has been understood by the Commission as review of E
marks of particular answer script taken up for random review by the
Head Examiner. However, during the hearing it has been expressed
that review should be understood as scaling technique. The
Commission has considered the suggestion and is of the opinion that
on the basis of random review of answer scripts done in respect of
answer scripts evaluated by each examiner average variation shall be F
arrived at. Wherever the average variation is less than plus or minus
20 general review of the marks awarded need not be done. However,
where the average difference is plus or minus 20 or more, the marks
awarded by such examiner shall be increased or decreased by that
average in respect of each of the answer scripts evaluated by that G
examiner. In case the average variation is less than plus or minus 20,
but variation in respect of individual answer scripts is plus or minus
20 or above those answer scripts would be subjected to. third valuation.
(c) As a result of random review if in respect of any candidate the
change in marks is too generous or too adverse to the candidate, the H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Commission would refer such paper for third valuation.
The secretary who was holding the post at the time when central
valuation was conducted in respect of examination in question is no
longer with the Commission. The Commission would ensure that
disinterested staff of the Commission headed by the Secretary will
B supervise and monitor the entire process of review and revaluation
that would be undertaken as set out above".
The High Court has noticed the fact that on March 27, 2002 this memo
had been prepared and circulated to all Counsels appearing in the matter.
However, since the service of notice of the respondents was not complete and
C the matter was being heard only for the grant of interim relief at that stage,
the memo was not actually filed and was later filed on July 22, 2002. We
have noticed these facts because it was argued before us that this memo is
anti-dated. The observations of the High Court must set at rest this controversy.
On some aspects of the matter the Tribunal as well as the High Court
D have recorded concurrent findings. It has been concurrently found that so far
as Sri Rameshwarappa is concerned, as also his two relatives, with the
assistance of Chief Examiner, Prof. Shivanna and the Secretary of the
Commission, they were shown undue favour and their marks were increased
by Prof. Shivanna to such an extent that they obtained high positions and
E were selected for appointment. In doing so, Prof. Shivanna had committed
irregularities. The High Court however has further recorded a finding that so
far as evaluation of the answer papers by the Examiners is concerned no case
of irregularity or unfairness has been established. It is only at the stage of
moderation, and that too the moderation undertaken by Prof. Shivanna, that
there is evidence of irregularity and unfairness confined to the cases of the
F three selected candidates, though seven other unsuccessful candidates had
also been given high marks by Prof. Shivanna. It has, however, been
concurrently held that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not
necessary to cancel the examination. While the Tribunal felt that all the
answer scripts should be valued afresh, the High Court held that it was not
G necessaiy to do so. The High Court was of the view that only those answer
scripts required to be re-evaluated which had been moderated by Prof. Shivanna
as also those answer scripts in various subjects where the requisite percentage
of answer papers as required by the guidelines were not moderated by the
Head Examiner/Chief Examiner. The High Court further directed that scaling
method should be adopted in re-evaluation so that the benefit of moderation
H
K. CHANNEGOWDA 1·. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J ] J4J
A
is not confined to those candidates whose answer scripts are by chance picked
out for moderation, but the benefit is extended to all candidates who may
have similarly suffered or gained on account of the examiner being strict or
liberal in awarding marks.
Having perused the material placed before us we are satisfied that this B
is not a case where the examination deserves to be cancelled. We are also
satisfied that 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 C
of Chief Examiner Prof. Shivanna.
The High Court has very meticulously examined the material on record
and it is not necessary for us to undertake that exercise over again. The High
Court had called for and examined the following statements/ extracts :-
D
"(i) statement showing the merit-wise marks of the first 50 candidates
category wise (that is GM, Group I, 2A, 28, 3A, 38, SC and ST);
(ii) statement showing the subject-wise marks awarded by the
Examiners, Head examiners and Chief examiners, where the difference
is plus 20 and above (335 answer scripts); E
(iii) statements showing the subject wise marks awarded by the
Examiners, Head Examiners and Chief Examiners; where the
difference is minus 20 and above (in regard to 326 candidates);
(iv) Subject wise abstracts showing the number of answer scripts F
moderated by Head Examiners and Chief Examiners and the number
of answer scripts where the variation on moderation is plus or minus
20 and more;
(v) subject-wise list of Examiners, Head Examiners and Chief
Examiners". G
The High Court found that random review of adequate number of answer
scripts had been done in the seven optional subjects (out of thirty) noticed in
paragraph 31 of its judgment. Review disclosed that variation of marks had
not exceeded plus or minus 20 (out of 300 marks). The High Court, therefore,
found that there was no irregularity in review evaluation or moderation in the H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A aforesaid seven subjects and no interference was, therefore, called for.
It further found that in the four subjects noticed in paragraph 32 of its
judgment consisting of two papers each, there was adequate random review
of answer scripts by the Chief Examiners and there was no variatioo beyond
plus or minus 20 marks (out of 300 marks) in some papers, and only a very
B few, that too marginal, in other papers. There was, therefore, no need to
interfere with the evaluation in respect of the aforesaid four subjects. In the
optional subject Chemistry also, the material placed on record, did not justify
any interference with the evaluation of answer papers.
C However, the High Court found that in the optional subject Agriculture
and Marketing, no Head Examiner has been appointed, and the Chief Examiner
had reviewed only three answer scripts out of 222 in Paper I and only four
out of 279 in Paper II, that is 1% to 2%. Similar was the case with optional
subject Criminology. In-regard to the remaining 16 optional subjects and
General Studies the High Court found that the number of answer scripts were
D large and the variation exceeding plus or minus 20 marks were also substantial.
The necessary particulars have been noticed by the High Court in paragraph
34 of its judgment. The High Court has observed that the moderation in these
subjects was restricted only to the answer scripts which were reviewed, without
adopting the scaling technique of moderation by applying the upward or
E downward revision of all the answer scripts evaluated by the respective
examiners. Even the random review was not done to the extent suggested in
the guidelines, nor was any record maintained to show whether moderation
was done by the Head Examiner/Chief Examiner in the manner required by
the guidelines.
F The High Court further noticed that there were serious irregularities in
the review valuation by one of the Chief Examiners namely, Prof. Shivanna
who had evaluated 127 answer scripts as Chief Examiner in the subject
General Studies and History. The High Court has noticed the findings recorded
by the Sub-committee appointed by the Commission to investigate into the
G matter. The High Court found that glaring irregularities were committed by
Prof. Shivanna in the random review done by him in History Papers I and II
and General Studies Papers I and II and, therefore, there was need to review
the process of moderation even in these subjects.
In view of its findings the High Court set aside the direction of the·
H Kamataka Administrative Tribunal for a fresh evaluation of all the answer
scripts. The High Court directed that moderation, or random review, will be
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. K.ARNATAK.A PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J.] J 45
undertaken only where such moderation/random review was found to be A
inadequate. The subjects in which re-evaluation has been ordered have been
enumerated in paragraph 39(b) of the judgment of the High Court. In so
doing, the Kamataka Public Service Commission has been directed to apply
the scaling method as described in paragraph (b) of its memo dated March
27, 2002. The moderation is required to be done under the supervision of the B
Secretary of the Kamataka Public Service Commission, and it is open to him
to have the moderation done at two tier level (i.e. Head Examiner and Chief
Examiner) or at only one level, that is Chief Examiner. A fresh panel of Head
and/or Chief Examiner shall be prepared. The High Court did not direct
moderation/ random review in respect of the subjects where it found random
review to be adequate and there was no conspicuous variation in marks C
awarded by the examiner and the Head Examiner. The High Court in its
impugned order has enumerated those subjects/papers in sub-para (c) of its
order.
The High Court further directed to hold fresh interviews and selection
in place of those carried out during the pendency of the applications before D
the Kamataka Administrative Tribunal. It further directed the Kamataka Public
Service Commission to re-evaluate the compulsory papers (English and or
Kannada) of those candidates who had approached the High Court and the
Tribunal for such re-evaluation before the date of the Judgment. The High
Court has directed that a fresh list of candidates shall be prepared and E
candidates invited for personality test in accordance with Rules.
We may at the outset notice the submission urged on behalf of the
unsuccessful candidates that the entire examination should be cancelled and
a fresh examination be held. We have noticed earlier the findings of the
Tribunal as well as the High Court on this aspect of the matter. It has been p
concurrently held by the Tribunal as well as the High Court that it is not
necessary to hold the examination afresh. However, while the Tribunal held
that all the papers should be evaluated afresh, the High Court after a meticulous
examination of the material placed on record has come to the conclusion that
it is not necessary to re-evaluate all the papers. It has upheld the evaluation
of papers in some subjects while it has directed re-evaluation in some others. G
The High Court did not consider it necessary to order fresh evaluation of all
the papers by the examiners, because it did not find any allegation or evidence
of partiality or favouritism against the examiners. Even the Tribunal has not
specifically recorded any finding that the examiners acted in improper or
unfair manner. The allegations really are against the re-evaluation of papers H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A by Head Examiners/Chief Examiners and in particular against the conduct of
Prof. Shivanna, who it is found granted abnormally high marks to his favourite
-
candidates so that they may rank high in the merit list and be ultimately
selected. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have concurrently held that
the conduct of Prof. Shivanna was improper and unfair and we do not find
any reason to interfere with their concurrent finding. However, we do not
B wish to make any further observations since we are informed that proceedings
are pending against Prof. Shivanna and necessary action is being taken in this
regard. We further clarify 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.
c So far as the Tribunal is concerned, it has ordered fresh evaluation by
the examiners, while the High Court has directed re-evaluation only at the
Head Examiners/Chief Examiners level, that is at the stage of moderation/
random review. We find that there is really no justification for fresh evaluation
of all the answer scripts by the examiners, and we concur with the finding
D of the High Court.
It appears to us that the Tribunal directed fresh evaluation of all answer
scripts 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
E was produced and the High Court had the advantage .of scrutinizing the
material placed before it. Counsel for the successful candidates is, therefore,
right in his submission that if the material asked for had been produced
before the Tribunal, perhaps the Tribunal would not have drawn an adverse
inference and directed a wholesale re-evaluation of all the answer scripts.
F
On the question of re-evaluation by Head Examiner/Chief Examiner,
the High Court has placed the subjects into two categories viz; those where
sufficient percentage of answer scripts as required by the Rules had not been
taken up for random review/moderation, and secondly, those where the random
review/moderation is either found to be unfair (as in the case of Prof.
G Shivanna), or where the variation of marks awarded by the examiner and the
Chief Examiner/ Head Examiner was plus or minus 20 or more. The High
Court has recorded reasons for directing re-evaluation in only some of the
subjects. In regard to other subjects the High Court has found that sufficient
number of answer scripts were randomly evaluated and moderated, and further
H there was no conspicuous variation in the award of marks by the examiners
K CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNA TAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J.] ] 47
. and the Head Examiners. Obviously, therefore, there was no need to get such A
answer scripts re-evaluated. However, where sufficient number of answer
scripts were not re-evaluated by Head Examiner/Chief Examiner as required
by the Rules, the High Court was certainly justified in directing compliance
of the Rules.
Another aspect of the matter is with regard to applying the scaling B
method as per the direction of the High Court. The scaling method has been
described earlier in this judgment. The selected candidates have a grievance
against the application of this method. It was submitted that it may not be
proper to apply the scaling method only in respect of subjects where the
answer scripts have to be moderated by Head Examiner/Chief Examiner and C
not to other subjects where the High Court has upheld the moderation/ random
checking by the Head Examiner/Chief Examiner. We have given the
submission our serious thought. The scaling method is applied only with a
view to maintain a uniform standard in the marking of answer scripts. As is
well known some answer scripts are randomly taken up for evaluation by
Head Examiners/Chief Examiners. It may be that some examiner may be D
very liberal and generous in awarding marks whereas some other examiner
may award much less marks for the same quality of answer. Upon moderation,
no doubt the candidate whose answer paper is moderated gets benefit of
moderation, but such benefit is not extended to other candidates whose answer
scripts may have been examined by the same examiner, but were not randomly E
selected for re-evaluation by the Head Examiner/Chief Examiner. It is true
that there is bound to be some difference in the marks awarded by different
examiners in the same subject. But the need for applying scaling method
arises only in cases where the variation in marks awarded exceeds a certain
level. It is, therefore, not necessary that the scaling method should be applied
in all cases. The scaling method will be applied only where the variation in F
marks is plus or minus a certain level or percentage. The High Court in the
instant case has directed that scaling method shall be applied only when it is
found that average variation is plus or minus 20 or more. Wherever the
average variation is less than plus or minus 20, general review of the marks
awarded need not be done. We were told that the scaling method is now G
being applied in many competitive examinations held in this country and the
purpose of applying the scaling method is to bring about a certain uniformity
of standard in the matter of award of marks by the examiners. No exception
can be taken to the scaling method in principle.
In fact this Court in UP. Public Services Commission v. Subhash H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A Chandra Dixit and Ors., AIR (2004) SC 163, has found the scaling method
to be fair since it seeks to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards
of the examiners. This Court has observed:-
"There is a vast percentage difference in awarding of marks between
each set of examiners and this was sought to be minimized by applying
B the scaling formula. If scaling method had not been used, only those
candidates whose answer sheets were examined by liberal examiners
alone would get selected and the candidates whose answer sheets
were examined by strict examiners would be completely excluded,
though the standard of their answers may be to some extent similar.
The scaling system was adopted with a view to eliminate the
c inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners".
Then remains the question as to whether it will make any difference in
the instant case if the scaling method is not applied to subjects where valuation
and revaluation has been upheld by the High Court. In our view., it will make
D no difference because the High Court has not found it necessary to direct re-
evaluation of answer scripts in those subjects where the average variation
was not found to be more than plus or minus 20%. Thus, the subjects in
which the High Court has not directed re-evaluation are those subjects where
in any case the scaling method would not be applicable because the average
variation of marks has been found to be within the prescribed parameter. We,
E therefore, uphold the direction of the High Court to apply the scaling method
in re-evaluation of answer scripts pursuant to the order of the High Court.
No doubt counsel for the successful candidates submitted that it was
not necessary to apply the scaling method as the same purpose can be achieved
F by. the procedure already prescribed. It was submitted that the percentage 5
or I 0% as the case may be for random evaluation is the minimum prescribed.
There is nothing which prevents the random re-evaluation of a larger
percentage of answer scripts. There was, therefore, no need to apply the
scaling technique. This submission must be rejected because even if answer
scripts more than the percentage prescribed are reviewed by Head Examiner
G or Chief Examiner, that will not achieve the purpose for which the scaling
technique is adopted, because the scaling technique is confined to award of
marks by examiners in the same subject who are either too liberal or too strict
in awarding marks with the result that the average variation is more than plus
or minus 20 marks. If the desired result is to be achieved all the answer
papers examined by a particular examiner will have to be re-evaluated. As
H between the two options, we find the scaling method to be more practical and
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH. J] J49
effective. A
The counsel for the successful candidates as well as counsel appearing
on behalf of the Kamataka Public Service Commission submitted that it is
not necessary even to re-evaluate the answer scripts in some of the subjects
as directed by the High Court because the findings of the Sub-committee
appointed by the Kamataka Public Service Commission is clear and categoric. B
The Sub-committee which inquired into the irregularities committed in the
conduct of the examination found that the irregularities were committed by
Prof. Shivanna who awarded very high marks as the Chief Examiner to his
favourite candidates namely, Rameshwarappa and the members of his family.
There were 10 cases which were identified for favoured treatment, out of C
whom three were selected. In all Shivanna had moderated only 127 answer
papers and, therefore, it was not necessary to re-evaluate the other answer
scripts except those re-evaluated by Prof. Shivanna as the Chief Examiner. It
was also submitted on behalf of the successful candidates that the guidelines
provided that random review or random sampling should not be less than 5%
of the top level answer scripts and over all random review should not be less D
than I0% of the answer scripts evaluated by each examiner. However,
according to them, the High Court has increased the percentage to 20%
instead of 5 to I0%.
There is no merit in either of the two submissions. The High Court has E
found as a fact that in some subjects random review was not done to the
extent prescribed in the guidelines (5% of top level answer scripts and over
all random review of 10%). No minutes or record were maintained to show
whether moderation was done by the Head Examiners/Chief Examiners in
the manner required by the guidelines. In these circumstances, one cannot
find fault with the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answer F
scripts in subjects in which moderation/random review was not done in
accordance with the guidelines.
The submission that the guidelines earlier provided only for a random
review to the extent of 5 to 10 % which has now been increased to 20%, is G
based on a factually wrong assumption. The High Court in paragraph 35 of
its judgment has noticed that the random review prescribed under the guidelines
was to be done in respect of 5% of top level answer scripts and I 0% over
all random review. Even the memo filed by the Karnataka Public Service
Commission and accepted by the High Court assured that whenever random
review done by the Head Examiner was less than I 0% of the answer scripts H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A evaluated by any examiner in any subject, the shortfall would be made up
examiner-wise and subject-wise by random review of answer scripts to the
extent of shortfall. While doing so it will be ensured that random sampling
was not be less than 5% of the top level answer scripts. We have, therefore,
no doubt that the direction of the High Court has not deviated from the
B guidelines. Moreover, 5% or 10% as the case may be is the minimum required
percentage of random review. It can always be more than the minimum
prescribed.
We shall now notice some of th.e other submissions advanced before
us. It was argued before us that the key answers had been leaked out. The
C High Court has noticed the contention advanced before it and observed that
the same was neither pursued nor established. The facts disclosed that the
model answers were prepared only a few days before the actual commencement
of the valuation. In the instant case, valuation commenced on May 17, 1999
while the examination was held between April 9, 1999 and May 3, 1999.
There was, therefore, no question of the model answers being leaked out
D earlier so as to be available to the examinees on the dates of examination.
It was also argued before th.! High Court and faintly submitted before
us that the writ petitioners were students who had a good academic record
and, therefore, it was unbelievable that they would have failed in compulsory
E papers English and Kannada which were of SSLC level. It was explained by
the Commission that it is not as if all writ petitioners had failed in compulsory
subjects English and Kannada. Only three had failed in English and one had
failed in Kannada. The other writ petitioners had passed in the compulsory
subjects English and Kannada, but since they had not secured high marks
over all they were not called for personality test. In any event, the Kamataka
F Public Service Commission had agreed to re-evaluate the compulsory papers
of the applicants/petitioners who had already approached the Tribunal or the
High Court. The High Court has accepted the submission on behalf of the
Commission and clarified that the relief in regard to re-evaluation of
compulsory papers should be restricted to those candidates who have
G approached the Tribunal or the High Court, and not to others.
A submission was sought to be urged before us on behalf of the
unsuccessful candidates that even the interview conducted for selection of
candidates was not proper inasmuch as 350 candidates out of 390 were awarded
195 marks each. Counsel for the successful candidates submitted that such a
H contention was not raised either before the High Court or the Tribunal, and
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNA TAK.A PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH,J.] 151
there is no pleading or finding on this aspect of the matter. It is not necessary A
for us to examine this question. The High Court has directed holding of fresh
interviews on the basis of marks obtained after re-evaluation of answer scripts
in accordance with the directions of the High Court. Since fresh interviews
will be held, the grievance of the aforesaid petitioners does not subsist.
Having considered all aspects of the matter, we are satisfied that no B
interference by this Court in these appeals is called for. The High Court has
taken c~re to safeguard the interest of all concerned and to rule out the
possibility of unfairness in the re-evaluation of the answer scripts. The
directions made by the High Court are adequate to deal with the peculiar
facts of this case.
c
We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals and affirm the judgment and
order of the High Court.
S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.
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