Holding

The Board's adoption of normalization at the initial eligibility stage, interpreting "marks" in both Rule 15(b) and 15(e) as normalized scores, was within its jurisdiction and lawful.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh conducted a massive recruitment for Sub‑Inspector, Platoon Commander and Fire Officer posts, receiving over 6.3 lakh applications and holding the written exam in 29 batches over 12 days with different question papers. The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board applied a "Standardized Equi‑percentile" normalization (scaling) of marks to place all candidates on an even footing and used the normalized scores to determine eligibility (50% threshold) and to prepare the final select list. Petitioners challenged the Board's use of normalized scores at the eligibility stage, arguing that Rule 15(b) required raw marks and that the Board exceeded its authority. The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of the term "marks" in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) and held that both provisions must be read consistently, giving "marks" the meaning of "normalized score". It further held that the Board was within its jurisdiction to adopt normalization at the initial stage and that there were no allegations of mala fides. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside and the Board's results of 28 February 2019 were upheld. The appeals were allowed, restoring the selection outcome.

Issues considered

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board could use normalized (scaled) scores to determine eligibility under Rule 15(b) of the Recruitment Rules.
Whether the expression "marks" in Rule 15(b) and Rule 15(e) should be construed as raw marks or normalized scores.
Whether the Board exceeded its statutory authority by altering the 50% eligibility criterion through normalization.
Scope of judicial review of decisions taken by expert bodies such as public service commissions.

Legislation cited

Police Act, 1861
U.P. Sub‑Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015s. Rule 15(b), s. Rule 15(e)
U.P. Sub‑Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008s. Rule 15(b), s. Rule 15(e)

Subjects

recruitmentnormalizationscaling of markseligibility criteriaRule 15public service commissionjudicial reviewexpert bodyUttar Pradesh Policeselection process

Judgment

28 [2022]
SUPREME COURT 1 S.C.R. 28
REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI & ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2022)
B
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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
28
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 29

Service Law: Recruitment/Selection – Adoption of process of A
‘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 B
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 C
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 D
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] E
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 F
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
G
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]
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 examination to be appropriate so as
to eliminate every scope for variation in the assessment
of answers and award of marks valued by different valuers.
[Para 42][97-E-F]
B
2. In the instant case, the clause “Detailed procedure for
written examination shall be determined by the Board and will
be displayed on its own website” as appearing in Rule 15(b) of
the Recruitment Rules [U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil
Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015], specifically
C empowered the Board to devise or determine the procedure.
With deletion of Appendix-3 and specific empowerment in Rule
15(b), the Board could have multiple examinations instead of one
single examination. By very nature of such empowerment and in
the backdrop of conducting an examination for more than 6 lakh
D candidates, the Board was entitled to adopt the process of ‘scaling
of marks’ or ‘normalization’. Given the facts and circumstances,
the process of ‘scaling of marks’ or normalization was inevitable
in the instant matter and was necessarily required to be
undertaken. [Para 43][97-G-H; 98-A-B]

E 3.1. Going by the plain language of the concerned
provisions, what is clear is both provisions i.e. Rule 15(b) and
15(e) of the Recruitment Rules refer to the expression ‘marks’.
Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules requires every candidate to
obtain minimum 50% marks in each of the subjects and states,
“candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above
F subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment”. Rule 15(e) requires
the Board to prepare a select list of each category of candidates,
“on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in written
examination under clause (b)”. The provisions do not, on the
plain language employed, demand different yardstick or principle
G to be adopted. [Para 45][98-F-H]
3.2. If one construes the expression ‘marks’ in Rules 15(b)
and 15(e) to be ‘raw marks’ at both the stages that will go against
the very basic idea which calls for applicability of ‘scaling of marks’
or ‘normalization’ because of the variability arising from multiple

H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 31

examinations. Thus, if ‘raw marks’ is to be the basis at both the A
stages, the candidates would never be tested on an equal footing
or basis. This would, therefore, call for either of the following
two alternatives:- Either to consider expressions ‘marks’ in both
these provisions to be marks after the adoption of normalization,
or ‘normalized score’, or to accept the course suggested by the
B
respondents and construe expression ‘marks’ in Rule 15(b) to
be ‘raw marks’ and apply normalization at Rule 15(e) stage only
to consider inter se merit position. [Para 46][99-A-C]
3.3. However, if the submission advanced by the
respondents is accepted, it will lead to incongruities on three
counts. It may, as well, lead to a situation where a person, in the C
final analysis i.e. after the ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’ is
adopted, may have failed to secure more than 50% “normalized
score” in a subject or subjects and yet he will be part of the Select
List. Secondly, those who may have secured more than 50%
‘normalized score’ but less than 50% ‘raw marks’ will be out of D
reckoning as they would not be allowed to go beyond Rule 15(b)
stage. Lastly, such a course will necessarily imply that the
expression “Candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of
the above subject shall not be eligible for recruitment” [as
appearing in Rule 15(b)] will have to be treated differently as
against the preparation of a select list [in terms of Rule 15(e)] E
“on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in written
examination under clause (b)”. [Para 47][99-C-F]
3.4. It is relevant to note that the ineligibility referred to in
Rule 15(b) is as against ‘recruitment’. The criteria for eligibility
is not just confined to the stages upto 15(c) and 15(d) but must F
be fulfilled all through i.e. upto recruitment. Rule 15(e) makes
specific and clear reference to- marks obtained by each candidate
in written examination under clause (b). The verb used is ‘obtain’
at both the places i.e. in Rule 15(b) and in Rule 15(e). At both the
stages the marks ‘obtained’ in written examinations referable to G
clause (b), are the relevant criteria for (i) being eligible for
recruitment in terms of Rule 15(b) and for (ii) preparing the select
list under Rule 15(e). Adopting a different yardstick as suggested
by the respondents will certainly lead to incongruent situations
as stated. [Para 48][99-G-H; 100-A]
H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 4. It is true that the same expression appearing at different
places in a statute has, on some occasions, been construed by
this Court differently, depending upon the context in which such
expressions appear. Thus, 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. [Paras 49,
B
50][100-A-B; 102-E-F]
5. If one accepts the interpretation sought to be placed by
the respondents it would result in a situation where a person
having ‘normalized score’ of 50% marks or above may be out of
reckoning because his raw marks were less than 50%; and, there
C are sizable number of such persons. At the same time, someone
whose ‘normalized score’ was well below 50% may still be part
of the Select List because his “raw marks” were above 50%.
[Para 51][102-F-G]
6. If the intent is to see that every candidate must have
D obtained minimum 50% marks and those ‘candidates failing to
obtain 50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be
eligible for recruitment’ as mandated by Rule 15(b) of Recruitment
Rules or by paragraph 9 of the notification dated 28.6.2017, even
going by the context and purposive interpretation, the expression
E ‘marks’ must be given the same meaning at both the stages; and
the only possible meaning that can be ascribed is ‘normalized
score’. Adopting different standards as suggested by the
respondents would result in anomalous situations. Such anomaly
will however stand removed if the expression ‘marks’ appearing
in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) stages is construed in the same light
F and as ‘normalized score’. [Para 52][102-G-H; 103-A-C]
7. In conclusion, the 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. The power exercised by
G the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by
the High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence
of bona fides at any juncture of the process. Further, decisions
made by expert bodies, including the Public Services

H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 33

Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless A
instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made
out. [Para 53][103-C-E]
8. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside
and the results declared by the Board on 28th February 2019 shall
now be given effect as early as possible. However, the State and B
the Board had permitted candidates from both the categories i.e.
who had secured more than 50% ‘raw marks’ as well as those
who had secured more than 50% ‘normalized score’. Such
candidates had participated in all the further stages, namely, in
physical standard test, physical efficiency test, though some of
them from the first category were finally disqualified on the ground C
that they had secured less than 50% ‘normalized score’. The
State may consider making some allowance in favor of such
subsequently disqualified candidates either by granting some
weightage and/or age relaxation in the next selection. [Paras 54,
55][103-F-H; 104-A] D
Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission,
Allahabad & Anr.(2007) 3 SCC 720 : [2007] 1
SCR 235; Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public
Service Commission and others (2016) 2 SCC 495;
Mahinder Kumar and Ors. v. High Court of Madhya E
Pradesh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 87; Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P)
Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 632 : [1999] 2 SCR 177; and
Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. The District Magistrate,
Thana [1956] SCR 644 – relied on.
F
P.Singaravelan and others vs. District Collector,
Tiruppur and DT and others (2020) 3 SCC 133; P.C.G.
Govindan v. State of Gujarat and others (1987) 7 SCC
625; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through
its Chairman v. Omaditya Verma and others (2005) 4
SCC 424 : [2005] 3 SCR 166; State of Orissa and G
another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das and others (2019)6
SCC 270 : [2019] 7 SCR 197; U.P. Public Service
Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit and others

H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A (2003) 12 SCC 701 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 210; Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar
Yadav and another (2018) 3 SCC 706 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 1 SCR 235 relied on Para 21 (g)
B
(2020) 3 SCC 133 referred to Para 23
(1987) 7 SCC 625 referred to Para 23
[2005] 3 SCR 166 referred to Para 23
[2019] 7SCR 197 referred to Para 23
C
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 210 referred to Para 33
(2013) 11 SCC 87 relied on Para 35
(2016) 2 SCC 495 relied on Para 37
D (2018) 3 SCC 706 referred to Para 38
[1999] 2 SCR 177 relied on Para 49
[1956] SCR 644 relied on Para 49
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.228 of
2022.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in W. A. No.23733 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 and 235 of 2022.
F
Tushar Mehta, SG, Vinod Diwakar, AAG, Vinay Navare, Pallav
Shishodia, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, V. Giri, P. S. Patwalia, Dr. A. M.
Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Kapil Sibal, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Dr. Rajiv
Dhavan, Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advs., Akshat Srivastava, Krishna M.
Singh, Rajiv Kumar, Sanjeev Gupta, D. K. Devesh, Ms. Pooja, Ravi
G Shanker Jha, Durga Dutt, Rohit Priyadarshi, Dr. Sushma Singh, Rakesh
Kumar Singh, Somesh Kumar Dubey, Amarendra Choubey, Upendra
Narayan Mishra, Kousik Ghosh, Ms. Shuchi Singh,
Krishna Kant Dubey, Jainendra Kumar Ojha, Sanjay Kumar
Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Prashant Shukla, Suyash Srivastava,
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 35

Madhumay Mishra, Anurag Tripathi, Satyajeet Kumar, Priyank Upadhyay, A
Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, D. N. Dubey, Sudhir Rawat, Dr. Bheem
Pratap Singh, R. K. Singh, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ms. Ritu
Reniwal, Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Aman Rastogi, Sanjay Rastogi, Robin
Khokhar, Mahendra Kumawat, Arvind Aggarwal, Anas Tanwir, Sachin
Upadhyay, Shivendra Rathore, Ms. Garima Prasad, Sanjay Kapur, V.
B
M. Kannan, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Amit, Surendra Singh Rana, Ikshit
Singhal, Vipin Sandu, Ms. Vani Vyas, Jeetendra Kumar, Ashutosh
Chaturvedi, Maneesh Saxena, Anbarasan Nathar Paul, Raghvendra
Shukla, Ms. Bhanu Priya Sharma for M/s Mukesh Kumar Singh & Co.,
Tom Joseph, Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Sankalp Narain, Ms. Pallavi Pratap,
Ms. Prachi Pratap, Bhav Ratan, Ms. Madhavi Khanna, M/s Pratap & C
Co., D. K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Abhishek Garg, Chanakya Gupta, M.
P. Parthiban, Md. Saquib Siddiqui, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Ms. Shagun
Thakur, Amod Kumar Bidhuri, Raghwendra Tiwari, Ms. Mamta Tiwari,
Ravi Mishra, Ajay Kumar, Abhishek Verma, Ms. Amrita Kumari, Abbula
Kalam, Satish Pandey, Abdul Qadir, Dr. Brij Bhushan K. Jauhari, Gaurav
D
Yadav, Lalit Chahar, Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Harsh Mahan, O. P. Singh,
Arvind Kumar Shukla, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Prashant Mishra, Prakhar
Saran, Tarun Agrawal,
Ms. Anuroop Chakravarti, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ravi
Chandra Prakash, Abhishek Tripathi, Ms. Sushma Vyas, Adit Pujari, Ms.
Sujata Muni, Manish Kumar Gupta, Shashank Singh, Romil Pathak, E
Arvind C., Vinay Bhardwaj, Amit Kumar, Prashant Chaturvedi, Anand
Sharma, Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, A. Dev Kumar, Vipin Sharma, Atulesh
Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Vishal Thakre, Abhay Singh Yadav, Rudra
Pratap Yadav, S. B. Khan, Sanjeev Malhotra, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sanjay
Kr. Yadav, Rakesh Kumar, Divhyash Tiwari, Binod Kumar Singh, Ravi F
Shanker Jha, Shish Pal Laler, Ravi Panwar, Anand Mishra, Amrendra
Kumar Singh, Ms. Shivangi Popli, Vivek Sharma, Ms. Rachana Sharma,
Kaushal Yadav, Sandeep Mishra, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Ms. Shweta
Yadav, Dr. Ajay Kumar, M. Shoeb Alam, Amit K. Ranjan, Pinkesh Kumar,
Mojahid Karim Khan, Ms. Akansha Rai, Ms. Apeksha Rai, Ms. Yashoda
Katiyar, Ms. Kritya Pandey, Krishna M. Singh, Vishal Singhal, Ravleen G
Chhabra, Anand Nandan, Hassan Zubair Waris, Amit Pawan, Ms. Nidhi
Agarwal, Pankaj Sharma, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Manish Vashistha,
Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Danish Zubair Khan, Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Richa
Kapoor, Kunal Anand, Badri Prasad Singh, Shivendra Singh, Pradeep
Misra, Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advs. for the Appellants. H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
Leave granted.
1. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated
B 11.09.2019 passed by the High Court1.
2. A notification was published by the State Government inviting
online application forms from male candidates for filling up 2400 posts
of Sub-Inspector of Police, 210 posts of Platoon Commander (PAC2)
and 97 posts of Fire Officer (Grade-II) in Uttar Pradesh Police. The
C procedure for recruitment contemplated Online Written Examination,
Physical Standard Test and Physical Fitness Test whereafter the final
list of selected candidates would be published. The relevant portion of
the notification dealing with online written examination was as under:
“4. Procedure of Recruitment
D This recruitment is done under Uttar Pradesh Sub Inspector and
Inspector (Police) Service (1st Amendment) Rulebook – 2015.
4.1 Online Written Examination
All the applicants whose application have been found to be correct
and accepted will be expected to take up a 400 marks online
E written examination. This examination will contain question based
on 4 subjects listed below and will be based on multiple choice
type questions.

F

G Applicants who will fail to score a minimum of 50 percent marks
in the test will not be eligible for recruitment. Depending on the
number of applicants the written examination will be carried out
1
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Application No.23733 of 2018 and all
other connected matters.
2
H Provincial Armed Constabulary.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 37
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

on one day and one session, or on one day multiple sessions or on A
multiple days multiple sessions. For each session the question paper
will be different. The course for the online examination is in
Annexure-1. If after completion of online examination and being
invited by the board the applicant makes any objection then he
has to pay a pre-determined charge. If the objection has been
B
found to be true then the amount will be refunded.”
2.1 Similar notification was published on the same date with respect
to 600 posts of Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police) for female candidates.
The recruitment procedure was dealt with in Para 4 of the notification
and the portion dealing with “Online Written Examination” was identical
to Para 4.1 quoted hereinabove. C
3. In response to these advertisements, 6,30,926 applicants
submitted their online application forms. Considering the large number
of candidates who had offered their candidature, a notification was
published on 28.6.2017, the translated portion of which was as under:
D
“NOTICE/ RELEASE
No.PRPB-Anu-6-P-18/2016 Dated: June 28, 2017
1. For the Males for the Direct Recruitment 2016 on the posts
of the Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police), Platoon Commander
PAC and Fire Brigade Second Officers and for filling up E
2400 posts for the Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police), 210 posts
for the Platoon Commander PAC and 97 posts for the Fire
Brigade Second Officer from the Males candidates online
application was invited.
2. Similarly for the Females for the post of Sub-Inspector
F
(Nagrik Police) under the Direct Recruitment – 2016 in the
Uttar Pradesh Police for the 600 posts for filing up the posts
for the Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police) from the Females
candidates online application was invited.
3. For the Males on the posts of Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police),
Platoon Commander, PAC and Fire Brigade Second G
Officers under the Direct Recruitment-2016 total 5,42,124
candidates and for the Females for the filling up the post
for the Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police) under the Direct
Recruitment-2016, 88,802 viz. total 6,30,926 candidates had
applied. H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 4. On the posts of Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police), Platoon
Commander PAC and Fire Brigade Second Officer in the
direct online written examination on the basis of the seniority
of the received marks this examination is being run/
organized. In accordance with the number of the candidates
the online written examination in more than one date in the
B
different sitting along with the different questions papers
the need has come for getting organized the same. The
question paper of every sitting will be different in which
there may not be possibility of equality and keeping in view
the same in the different questions paper by the candidates
C the Normalisation of the received marks “MAH-MBA/
MMS CET 2015” by the used Standardized Equi-percentile
method it will be done.
5. The construction of the question paper of the online written
examination will be as under:-
D

E

F

6. In the question paper total 160 questions will be there. For
every question there will be four alternative answers, in
which the candidates will select one out of four alternative
G answers which the candidate feels it correct. For every
question select only one answer and fill up online answer.
7. For every correct answer 2.50 marks is fixed or for any
incorrect answer no negative marking will be done there.
8. In any subject in case of cancelling of any question the
H valuation procedure in the Writ Petition No.2669/2009 (MB)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 39
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

– Pawan Kumar Agrahari vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service A
Commission by the Hon’ble High Court it will be done in
accordance with the established law and order.
9. In every subject in receiving 50% marks the candidate who
failed to do so for the recruitment procedure he will not be
eligible. B
10. In the question paper leaving the general Hindi subject the
question paper of other subjects there will be in Hindi and
English Language. Any question in other native language
on the login screen it will be selected it may be seen. In
case of any doubts the English translation will be C
acceptable……”
4. Paragraph 4 of the notification dated 28.06.2017 thus stated
that normalization of marks received, would be done as per “Standardized
Equi-percentile method” used in MAH-MBA/MMS CET 2015.
It may therefore be relevant at this stage to set out relevant D
instructions pertaining to MAH-MBA/MMS CET 2015. The instructions
issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai for holding the online Common Entrance Test were:-
“Instructions for Registration for MAH-MBA/MMS-CET
2015 by candidate: E
1. MAH-MBA/MMS-CET 2015 shall be conducted only in
the ONLINE mode in multiple sessions. Competent
Authority, using standardized equi-percentile method, will
be equating scores across sessions.
F
… … …”
The information brochure dealt with issue of arriving at the equated
score as under:
“(i) Number of questions answered correctly by a candidate
in each objective test is considered for arriving at the G
Corrected Score.
(ii) The Corrected Scores so obtained by a candidate are made
equivalent to take care of the minor difference in difficulty
level, if any, in each of the objective test held in different
sessions to arrive at the Equated Scores.* H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A *Scores obtained by candidates on any test are equated to
the base form by considering the distribution of scores of
all the forms.
(iii) testwise scores and scores on total is reported with decimal
points upto two digits.
B Please note that the types of questions shown here are only
illustrative and not exhaustive. In the actual examination
you will find questions of a higher difficulty level on some
or all of these types and also questions on the types not
mentioned here.”
C 5. Written examination was held between 12th to 23rd December,
2017 in 29 different sittings. In other words, 29 different batches of
students appeared for the written examination where the question papers
were different. After the completion of written examination, 11741
students were called for further stages to participate in “Physical
D Standards Test” and “Physical Efficiency Test”. This number comprised
of 5461 candidates who had secured more than 50% actual marks in the
written examination which shall hereafter be referred to as “raw marks”;
while 5713 candidates had secured more than 50% marks after the process
of normalization as set out in para 4 of the Notification dated 28.06.2017
was adopted, which marks shall hereafter be referred to as “normalized
E score”.
All these 11741 candidates were allowed to take part in the further
stages of the process of selection.
6. In October, 2018, Writ Petition No.23733 of 2018 was filed in
F the High Court by certain candidates who had secured more than 50%
raw marks submitting inter alia that the Board3 had wrongly applied the
normalization process by issuing call letters to all those candidates who
had not obtained more than 50% raw marks but had secured more than
50% normalized score. It was submitted that the candidates who had
not secured more than 50% raw marks but could cross 50% only with
G the help of normalized score could not be included in the list of qualified
candidates and were required to be excluded from the process of selection.
In the affidavit in reply filed by the Member Secretary of the
Board3 to said writ petition, it was stated :-

3
H Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 41
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

“10. That in the present selection all the candidates who has A
obtained 50% marks either in the category of raw marks or after
the process of normalization in each of the subject such candidates
has been declared successful for next stage of recruitment such
as document verification and physical standard test and the
aforesaid process of normalization is being adopted by the Board
B
in accordance with law and as the present writ petition as framed
is devoid of any merits and the grounds taken therein have no
force and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.”
7. On 28.02.2019, the final result of the selection process was
declared which comprised of eight lists as under:-
C
“(i) List 1 – List of 2181 selected candidates for the post of Sub
Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander PAC and Fireman
Second Officer.
(ii) List 2 – A joint merit list of 2181 selected candidates for Sub
Inspector (Police), Platoon Commander PAC and Fireman Second D
Officer.
(iii) List 3 - A joint merit list of 2181 selected candidates for Sub
Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander PAC and Fireman
– Second Officer categories.
(iv) List 4 – A list of 1943 candidates selected for Sub Inspector E
(Civil Police).
(v) List 5 – 162 candidates selected for Platoon Commander PAC.
(vi) List 6 – List of 76 officers selected for Fireman Second Officer.
(vii) List 7 – List of non-selected candidates. F
(viii) List 8 – List of candidates declared unsuccessful in the written
examination.”
8. Thereafter, an application seeking amendment of Writ Petition
No.23733 of 2018 was filed and the following prayer was sought to be
added: - G

“(iii-a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
and quash the impugned result dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-8)
regarding List-B showing name of Petitioners Nos.1, 2, 4, 12, 21,
26, 41, 61, 62, 63, 70, 80, 81, 82, 84, 90, 94, 97, 98 and 99 as well
as other candidates failed in written exam.” H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A The aforesaid amendment application was allowed by a Single
Judge of the High Court vide Order dated 06.03.2019.
9. Some of the unsuccessful candidates had also filed Writ Petition
SS No.6540 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Yadav and 49 Ors. v. State of U.P.
Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.) before the Lucknow
B Bench of the High Court.
In the reply dated 23.03.2019, filed by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh to said Writ Petition,
it was submitted:-
“It is further submitted that the written examination has been
C organized by the U.P. Public Service Commission by different
papers and same has been evaluated by the different examiners
and as such scaling system has been adopted by the U.P. Public
Service Commission. Hence the aforesaid judgment cited by the
petitioners is not applicable.
D It is also relevant to mention here that selection in question has
been conducted online but in the aforesaid online examination there
is no difference in the subject, however, considering the huge
number of candidates online examination was held on different
dates and different shifts, as such different set of papers with
E varying levels of difficulty have been used. It is further submitted
that for normalization of the Marks of the candidates who appeared
in different papers, Standardized Equi-percentile Method has been
applied. Where the Examination were held in different dates,
different shifts and different set of papers. The Normalization
process has been adopted in different National Examination,
F therefore, the Normalization process adopted by board is legal
and justified.”
10. In said Writ Petition No.6540 of 2019 and other connected
matters, a Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim order on
30.03.2019, the operative portion of which was:-
G
“As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of
listing, no appointment letter shall be issued to the selected
candidates pursuant to the select list / result dated 28.02.2019,
which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, however,
the process of selection which is being undertaken by the State
H Authorities may go on.”
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 43
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

11. The aforestated Order dated 30.03.2019 was challenged by A
some of the selected candidates by preferring Special Appeal (Defective)
No.210 of 2019 (Satyendra Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P.
Thru. Add. Chief Secy, Deptt. of Home and Ors).
The Division Bench of the High Court considered rival submissions
advanced by the concerned candidates and the State Government and B
by its order dated 27.05.2019 modified the interim directions issued by
the Single Judge. The operative portion of the order passed by the Division
Bench was:-
“….After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the
opinion that the process of recruitment, which was initiated in the C
year 2016 for which the final select list has been issued on
28.02.2019 could not be hampered on account of any order passed
by the Court. It is not in dispute that the introduction of the Rule
of Equi-percentile Methodology was notified by means of the notice
dated 28.06.2017 i.e. prior to the date when the examination was
held and none of the writ petitioners had assailed the said D
Methodology. After having appeared in the examination and upon
declaration of the final select list, it would not be appropriate for
such candidates to hold the entire recruitment process to ransom.
However, without entering into the merits of making any
observations, this Court in the facts and circumstances deem E
appropriate that subject to the directions given in this special appeal,
the respondent No.2 i.e. U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion
Board may issue the appointment letters, which shall be subject
to the final outcome of the writ petition pending before the learned
Single Judge.
F
The appellants and other selected candidates shall give their
undertaking before the appropriate authority concerned that they
shall not claim any lien or right over the appointment and their
appointments shall be purely subject to the outcome of the writ
petitions pending before the learned Single Judge. The appellants
shall ensure that they file their counter affidavit before the next G
date of listing before the learned Single Judge, who shall upon
exchange of pleadings shall consider the issue involved shall decide
the writ petitions pending before it.”
12. Consequently, selected candidates were sent for training.
H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 13. The Order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench
was challenged by some of the candidates by preferring Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.13551 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) which came up before the Vacation
Bench of this Court on 12.06.2019 when following order passed by this
Court: -
B
“We do not find any cogent grounds to interfere with the order of
the Division Bench impugned. The selected candidates have given
an undertaking that they shall not claim any lien or right over the
appointments which shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
The special leave petition is not entertained.
C
We, however, request the Chief Justice of the High Court to
constitute a special Division Bench to expeditiously hear the writ
petition on day-to-day basis without granting necessary
adjournments and to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously
as possible preferably within thirty days from the date of
D constitution of the Bench.
The special leave petition and pending applications are accordingly
disposed of.”
14. Thereafter, a Special Division Bench was constituted at
E Allahabad. Similarly, a Special Bench was also constituted at Lucknow
Bench of High Court. The Special Division Bench constituted at
Allahabad allowed Writ Petition No.23733 of 2018 and other connected
matters by its judgment and order dated 11.09.2019 which is presently
under challenge.

F 14.1 The rival submissions advanced by the parties, were
summarized by the Special Division Bench at Allahabad as under:-
“61. Having noted the rival contentions, at length, the submissions
of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in brief can be
summarized as follows:-
G (i) the Selection Board has been conferred limited power under
the Recruitment Rules only to determine the procedure of written
examination;
(ii) the Selection Board is not vested with the power and authority
to determine the procedure of selection which has been prescribed
H by the rule making authority;
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 45
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(iii) the eligibility condition of obtaining 50% marks by a candidate A
is a condition precedent mandated under the Rules, which is not
subject to any alteration or substitution by normalized score;
(iv) normalization is a method of evaluation falling within the ambit
of written examination and not an eligibility condition, normalized
score at the best can be applied for preparing the select list in B
order of merit;
(v) the Selection Board by eliminating the qualified candidates
having scored 50% marks in each subject by applying the
normalized score exceeded its power and authority vested by the
Recruitment Rules;
C
62. In rebuttal the submissions on behalf of the respondents, can
be briefly summarized as follows:-
(i) the Selection Board is vested with the power and authority to
equalize the marks obtained by a candidate in the backdrop of
written examinations held on multiple dates/multiple shifts with
different papers; D
(ii) the Selection Board has inherent power to adopt a fair and just
procedure by equalizing the marks to place all the candidates on a
level playing ground;
(iii) the Selection Board has power to equalize the eligibility marks
(50%) prescribed under the Rules in an examination held in multiple E
shifts with different standard of papers;
(iv) candidates appearing in difficult papers would be in
disadvantageous position as against candidates appearing in
relatively easier question papers. The word ‘’marks’ used in Sub-
clause (b) and (e) of Rule 15 would mean and include normalized F
marks.
(v) petitioners after participating in the selection process cannot
turn around to challenge the same.
63. Rival submissions fall for consideration.”
14.2 The questions that arose for consideration were formulated G
as under: -
“(i) whether the Selection Board was within its power and authority
in applying the normalized percentile score to determine the
eligibility of the candidates or in the alternative whether the
Selection Board transgressed its authority to alter/substitute the H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A eligibility criteria (50% marks) mandated in Sub-clause (b) of Rule
15 by normalized score to non-suit, all such candidates from the
recruitment process who obtained 50% marks and above;
(ii) the scope of judicial review of the Standardized Equitable
Percentile Method adopted by the Selection Board.”
B 14.3. In paragraph 66 of its judgment, the Special Division Bench
quoted Rule 15 of the Recruitment Rules4:
“”Procedure for Direct Recruitment to the post of Sub-
Inspector:-
15. (a) Application form and call letter:-
C A candidate shall fill only one application Form. The Board will
accept only online applications. The application of candidates, who
fill more than one form, may be rejected by the Board. The Head
of the Department, in consultation with the Board, shall fix an
application fee for any recruitment. Detailed procedure of filling
D the Application Form and issuance of call letter shall be determined
by the Board and will be displayed on its own website.
The Government may change the number of vacancies for any
recruitment at any time before the first examination and may also
cancel any recruitment at any time or stage of recruitment without
E assigning any reason therefor.
(b) Written examination
Candidates whose applications are found correct, shall be required
to appear for written test of 400 marks. In this written examination,
the Board will keep one objective type question paper of the
F following subjects:-

G

4
The U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules,
H 2015 framed in exercise of powers under the Police Act, 1861.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 47
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above A
subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment. The detailed
syllabus for the examination will be decided by Board and will be
displayed on its own website. The Board will decide at its own
level to conduct written examination on one date in a single shift
or in more than one shift or on more than one shift or on more
B
than one date in different shifts with different question paper.
Detailed procedure for written examination shall be
determined by the Board and will be displayed on its own
website.
(c) Scrutiny of documents and physical standard test:-
C
Candidates found successful in written examination under
clause (b) shall be required to appear in Scrutiny of
Documents and physical Standard Test. Keeping in view the
total number of vacancies, the Board shall decide at its own level,
the number of candidates on the basis of merit to be called for this
test. Physical Standards for candidates are as follows:- D

1. Minimum Physical Standards for male candidates are as
follows:-
(a) Height:-
xxxxxx E
(b) Chest:-
xxxxxx
2. Minimum Physical Standards for female candidates are
as follows:- F
(a) Height:-
xxxxxx
(b) Weight:-
xxxxxx G
For conducting this examination, a Committee will be constituted
by the Board in which a Deputy Collector nominated by the District
Magistrate will be the Chairman and the Deputy Superintendent
of Police nominated by the District Superintendent of Police will
be the member, the other members of the committee shall be H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A nominated by the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of
Police if requested by the Selection Board.
Detailed procedure for this examination shall be determined
by the Board and will be displayed on its own website.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
B
(d) Physical Efficiency test:-
Candidates found successful in Scrutiny of Documents and
Physical Standard Test as per clause (c) will be required to appear
in Physical Efficiency Test, which will be of qualifying nature……
Detailed procedure for Physical Efficiency Test shall be
C
determined by Board and will be displayed on its own website.
For conducting this exam a committee will be constituted by
Board……..
(e) Selection and final merit list:-
D From amongst the candidates found successful in Physical
Efficiency Test under clause (d), on the basis of marks obtained
by each candidate in written examination under clause (b). Board
shall prepare, as per the vacancies, a select list of each category
of candidates, as per order of merit keeping in view reservation
policy and send it with recommendation to the Head of the
E Department subject to Medical test/character verification. No
waiting list shall be prepared by the Board. List of all candidates
with marks obtained by each candidate shall be uploaded on its
website by the Board. The Head of the Department shall after
his approval forward the list sent by the Board to the Appointing
F Authority for further action.
Note:- xxxxxxxxx
(f) Medical Test:-
The candidates whose names are in the select list as per clause
G (e), will be required to appear for Medical Examination by the
Appointing Authority. For conducting the medical examination,
the Chief Medical Officer of the concerned district shall constitute
a medical Board, which will have 03 doctors, who will conduct
Medical Examination as per “Police Recruitment Medical
Examination Forms” as prescribed and codified by the Head of
H Department in consultation with the Director General of Medical
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 49
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Health. Any candidate not satisfied by his Medical Examination, A
may file an appeal on the day of examination itself. xxxxxxxx The
candidates found unsuccessful in Medical Examination shall be
declared unfit by the Appointing Authority and such vacancies
shall be carried forward for next selection”.
(Emphasis supplied) B
14.4 The Special Division Bench was not satisfied with the
translation of the relevant parts of the notification dated 28.06.2017 and
as such, it translated paragraphs 4 and 9 of the notification as under:-
“4. The direct recruitment to the posts of Sub Inspector Civil Police,
Platoon Commander, PAC and Fire Officer II is being conducted C
on the basis of merit in terms of the marks obtained by the
candidates successful in the online written examination. In view
of the number of candidates, need has arisen for conducting online
written examination on more than one date in different shifts with
different sets of papers. Question papers of the different shifts D
shall be different, and keeping in view the possibility of them being
not similar, the normalization of the marks obtained by the
candidates in different question papers shall be done by the “MAH-
MBA/MMS CET 2015” Standardized Equi-percentile Method.
xxx xxx xxx E
9. The candidates who fail to obtain 50 percent marks in each
subject shall not be eligible for the recruitment.”
14.5 The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
writ petitioners were summed up as under:-
F
“14. To summarise the arguments of the learned counsels for
both sides, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioners submits that the process of normalization adopted
by the respondents for preparation of the eligibility list is not
contemplated in the Recruitment Rules. Even the Selection Board
while issuing notification dated 17.06.2016 in Clause 4.1 and 4.2 G
thereunder provided that selection would be made on the criteria
of 50% marks being the qualifying marks in the written examination
and select list calling the candidates for participation in the process
of scrutiny of documents and Physical Standard test would be
drawn on the said criteria.
H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 15. In the notification dated 28.06.2017 (which was issued in Hindi),
it was categorically provided that the candidates who did not attain
50% marks would be disqualified and would not be treated as
eligible candidates. In paragraph no.’4’ of the said notification it
was provided that normalization of the total marks obtained by
the candidates taking the question paper as one unit would be
B
made by applying Equi Percentile method for the purpose of
drawing inter-se merit of the selected candidates. The Selection
Board had committed illegality in drawing the final merit list by
exclusion of all those candidates who did not attain 50% normalized
marks (by applying the Equi-percentile Method) in each subject
C though they attained 50% actual/raw marks in each four subjects
of the question paper for written examination and, thus, were
qualified to be included in the list of eligible candidates for
participation in further stage of “Physical test and scrutiny of
document” as per the Rule 15(c) of the Recruitment Rules. The
criteria of selection had been changed during the course of the
D
selection process which was not permissible in view of the settled
legal proposition that rules of the game cannot be changed during
mid of the game.”
14.6 The submissions on behalf of the State were:-
E “43. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General on
behalf of the State-respondents and the Selection Board, in reply
to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the
petitioners and to justify the process of normalization adopted by
the Selection Board made the following submissions:-

F 44. The first submission is that the normalization is an universally
approved standard method applicable in case of variable difficulty
level of question papers and, therefore, application thereof was
well within power of evaluation of the Selection Board. Placing
the affidavit dated 12.04.2019 filed on behalf of the respondent
Nos.2 & 3, it is contended that normalized marks “Y” were derived
G after applying the Equi Percentile formula on fraction of 100 and
as such denote percentage and not percentile. The said formula
was worked out by the agency which had conducted the
examination and prepared result for the Selection Board. The
experts/statistician of the company had applied Equi-percentile
H Method in coordination with and under the instructions of the
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 51
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Selection Board. It is wrong to assert that normalized marks A
achieved by the Equi-Percentile Method and percentile are one
and the same thing. Ultimate value of “Y” being value out of
‘100’ is percentage marks of the candidates. The equation of Equi
Percentile formula re-written on fraction of 100 at page no.’10’
(Annexure no.2 of the said affidavit) is noted hereunder:-
B

C

14.7 The relevant discussion and the conclusions arrived at by the
Special Division Bench were:-
“78. On a plain reading of Sub-clause (b) of Rule 15, the rule
making authority explicitly and clearly mandated that a candidate D
fulfilling the educational qualification would have to take the written
examination, in the event of the candidate ‘failing to obtain 50%
marks’ in each subject would not be ‘eligible’ to participate in the
subsequent stages of recruitment. The latter part of Sub-clause
(b) confers power upon the Selection Board to determine: (i) detail
syllabus for the examination; (ii) to conduct written examination E
on one date in single shift or in more than one shift or on more
than one date in different shifts with different question papers;
(iii) to determine the procedure for written examination. Sub-clause
(c) of Rule 15 provides that candidates found “successful in written
examination under sub-clause (b)” shall be required to appear in F
scrutiny of documents and physical efficiency test.
79. On conjoint reading of Sub-clause (b), in particular, the first
part with sub-clause (c), it is evidently clear that the Selection
Board has not been conferred power to dilute, alter or prescribe
the eligibility of a candidate by substituting the mandated ’50% G
marks’ by the ‘normalized score’ to qualify the candidates for
subsequent stages of selection. The rule making authority upon
prescribing the eligibility criteria, conferred limited power upon
the Selection Board to determine the detailed procedure of written
examination. The procedure of selection was prescribed by the
rule making authority under Rule 15, however, the Selection Board H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A was conferred limited power to determine the procedure of written
examination. In the facts of the instant case, the Selection Board
exceeded its authority and power by applying the normalized score
and not the raw marks to determine the eligibility of the candidates
while preparing the select list. The petitioners, herein, qualified
the written examination by scoring ’50% marks’ in each subject,
B
thereafter, were invited by the Selection Board to participate in
the subsequent stages of recruitment i.e. document verification
and physical efficiency test, which is of a qualifying nature, no
marks are allotted. The Selection Board, however, eliminated the
petitioners by applying the normalized score in order to determine
C the eligibility qualifying marks in contradiction to that mandated
under the Rule in gross violation of Sub-clause (b) of Rule 15.
The conduct of the Selection Board tantamounts to re-writing/
amending the mandatory rule, thereby, vitiating the select list.”
… … …
D
88. On reading Sub-clause (b) and (e) of Rule 15 the word “marks”
used therein have different connotation. The phrase ‘failing to
obtain 50% marks’ employed by the rule making authority in Sub-
clause (b) prescribes the eligibility criterion which is mandatory
qualification. In other words, a candidate failing to obtain the
E prescribed eligibility marks gets excluded from the recruitment
process automatically. Whereas, the phrase “marks obtained by
each candidates” employed in Subclause (e) of Rule 15, would
not mean and include the marks obtained by the candidate for
determining his/her eligibility, but would take within its fold the
‘normalized score’ for preparing the select list in order of merit
F
after equalising the marks obtained by the candidates in Sub-clause
(b). Sub-clause (b) refers to marks prescribed by the rule for
eligibility purpose, whereas, Sub-clause (e) refers to marks/score
obtained upon evaluation upon normalization of the marks referred
to in Sub-clause (b) for the purpose of making the select list in the
G order of merit. Such an approach in drawing the select list in an
examination held in multiple shifts would be just and fair. The
Selection Board is within its powers in adopting a method of
evaluation of written examination papers in the backdrop of multiple
shifts/different paper exams to arrive at a process to prepare the
select list in order of merit.
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 53
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

103. We are also fortified in our conclusion while tracing the A
evolution of the Rules pertaining to the recruitment of Sub-
Inspector. The Recruitment Rules came to be amended on 3
December 2015. The selections have been made pursuant to the
amended Rules. Sub clause (b) of Rule 15 provides that
“candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the subject
B
shall not be eligible for recruitment”. The same phrase was
employed in Sub-clause (e) of Rule 15 that came to be amended.
In other words, eligibility criteria was not altered or changed by
rule making authority. The only change brought about by the
amendment was that the procedure for written examination was
entrusted upon the Selection Board exclusively by omitting C
Appendix-3 which prescribed the procedure of written
examination. We are informed that the superseded Rule (Prior to
enactment of Recruitment rules) governing the appointment and
selection of Sub-Inspector, viz. “the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector
and Inspector (Civil Police) Service rules, 2008”, Rule 15(f)
D
provided that the candidate ‘who fails to obtain minimum 50%
marks’ in each subject shall not be eligible for recruitment. It is,
thus, evident that the rule making authority was fully conscious
that the candidates are required to score minimum marks (50%),
failing which, they shall not be eligible for recruitment. The eligibility
criteria was retained while promulgating Recruitment Rules. The E
Selection Board was not conferred the power and jurisdiction by
the rule making authority to alter or amend the eligibility criteria.
The Selection Board by the amended rules was vested with
exclusive, but limited power to determine the procedure of the
written examination, which includes evaluation of papers by
F
adopting method of scaling to equalize the different levels of papers
in examination held in multiple shifts and, accordingly, draw the
select list. We accordingly find merit in the contention of the
petitioners that Selection Board exceeded its authority by
disqualifying the petitioners.
G
… … …
107. Normalisation of marks, therefore, means increasing and/or
decreasing the marks obtained by students in different timing
sessions (shifts) to a certain number. In statistics, the term
normalization refers to the scaling down of the data set such that
H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A the normalized data falls in the range between 0 and 1. Such
normalization techniques help in comparing corresponding
normalized values from two or more different data sets in a way
that it eliminates the effects of the variation in the scale of the
data sets i.e. a data set with large values can be easily compared
with a data set of smaller values. The normalized score/percentile
B
is obtained by applying a formula.
108. Percentiles, however, should not be confused with percentage.
The latter is used to express fractions of a whole, while percentiles
are the values below which a certain percentage of the data in a
data set is found. In practical terms, there is a significant difference
C between the two. The percentage score reflects how well the
student did in the exam itself, the percentile score reflects how
well he did in comparison to other students. Percentile rank would,
therefore, mean percentage of scores that fall at or below a given
score. Usually written to the nearest whole percent and are divided
D into 100 equally sized groups. The lowest score is at the first
percentile and the highest score is at the 99th percentile.
109. It is relevant to place on record that none of the aggrieved
candidates have made any allegation of mala fides or lack of bona
fides, as against the Selection Board or its members or for that
E matter in the manner in which subsequent stages of selection were
held by the Committee or with regard to the computation of
normalized score arrived at by applying the Standardized Equi-
Percentile method. In the absence of challenge to the normalization
method and the scores obtained by the Selection Board in scaling
the marks of the candidates scored in written examination, we
F take it that the normalisation formula and the normalized percentile
score worked out by the Selection Board is just and fair.
… … …
122. On specific query, learned Additional Advocate General
G submits that all the petitioners herein who obtained 50% minimum
marks (qualifying marks) were allowed to participate in the
subsequent stages of selection i.e. physical standard test, document
verification and physical efficiency test. It is, therefore, urged
that the Selection Board would not be required to undertake any
fresh exercise of selection/recruitment in preparation of the select
H list in order to merit.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 55
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

123. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the A
case and the provisions mandated by the Recruitment Rules, the
writ petition is allowed by passing the following orders:
i) the select list dated 28 February, 2019 is set aside and quashed;
ii) the candidates having failed to obtain 50% marks (raw marks)
in each subject are declared ineligible for recruitment/selection; B

iii) the Selection Board shall prepare the select list in order of
merit on normalized score, derived by Standardized EquiPercentile
Method;
iv) Selection Board to comply the order within six weeks from the C
date of filing of certified copy of this order and the selected
candidates shall be sent for training.”
15. The points which were noted or weighed with the Special
Division Bench of the High Court can be summed up as under:-
a. There were no allegations of mala fides or lack of bona D
fides as against the Selection Board or its Members or with
respect to the manner in which the subsequent stages of
selection were held or with regard to the computation of
normalization score or the normalization method and formula
adopted by the Selection Board.
E
b. The expression “marks” as used in Rule 15 (b) of the
Recruitment Rules must be construed as “raw marks”.
c. Rule 15 (b) dealt with eligibility condition and a candidate
failing to obtain 50% “raw marks” in each of the subjects
would not be eligible for recruitment. F
d. Only those candidates who were successful in written
examination under clause (b) of Rule 15 that is to say who
had obtained more than 50% “raw marks” were eligible to
appear in the further stages of scrutiny of documents and
physical efficiency test. G
e. The expression “marks obtained by each candidate in written
examination under clause (b)” as appearing in Sub-rule (e)
of Rule 15 must be understood and construed as “normalized
score”. In other words, the process of normalization could
be applied only for preparing the select list after all stages H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A of examination contemplated under Sub-rules (b), (c) and
(d) were over.
f. The Selection Board was not competent to adopt the process
of normalization at Rule 15(b) stage and such conduct on
part of the Selection Board amounted to re-writing or
B amending the mandatory rule.
In the light of these conclusions, the directions passed by the Special
Division Bench required the concerned authorities to rule out the
candidature of those who had failed to obtain 50% “raw marks” in each
subject and then to prepare the select list in order of merit using
C “normalized score”.
16. Relying on the aforestated decision of the Special Division
Bench at Allahabad, the Special Division Bench at Lucknow disposed
of all the matters pending before it namely SS No.6540 of 2019 and
connected matters (Manish Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Uttar
D Pradesh and others) by its order dated 18.10.2019. Said order of the
Special Division Bench at Lucknow was challenged in Special Leave
Petition (C) Diary No.39931 of 2019 (Ajay Singh v. Manish Kumar
Yadav and 49 others). The Special Leave Petition was rejected summarily
by this Court by its order dated 18.11.2019 as under:-

E “Application for permission to file Special Leave Petition is
allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Pending applications stand disposed of.”
F
17. State of Uttar Pradesh and some of the candidates being
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the
Special Division Bench at Allahabad have challenged the decision by
filing Special Leave Petitions from which the instant appeals arise. In its
order dated 28.02.2020, this Court directed the State and the Board as
G under:
“We direct the State and the Board to file appropriate affidavits
indicating:
(a) How many candidates had secured minimum 50% of marks
H before the normalization process was applied and who were also
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 57
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

found to be eligible in the subsequent two stages namely scrutiny A
of documents and physical standard test.
(b) How many candidates were found to have secured minimum
50% marks after normalization process was applied and who were
also found to be eligible in the subsequent two stages namely
scrutiny of documents and physical standard test. B
In other words, the number of candidates who were found eligible
without resorting to normalization and after taking resort to
normalization, must be available.
(c) Out of these two lists, which are the common names who
irrespective of, whether normalization is applied or not would still C
be qualified.
(d) The affidavit shall also indicate the current vacancy position
category-wise and how many seats were actually advertised to
be available in the current selection process.
D
Let the exercise be done within next four days and appropriate
affidavits be filed on or before 5.3.2020.
Pending further consideration, there shall be stay of proceedings
in any contempt filed in relation to the present matter.”
18. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State and E
the Board placing on record the factual information as under:
“3. That for recruitment of Sub Inspector Civil Police and
equivalent post of direct recruitment 2016, 2400 posts of Sub
Inspector Civil Police, 210 posts of PAC Platoon Commander, 97
posts of Fire Service Second Officer regarding Male candidates F
and 600 posts of Sub Inspector Civil Police regarding female have
been advertised separately for male and female vide notification
dated 17-06-2016 respectively. Against the said advertisement total
630926 online applications (Male 542124 & Female 88802) have
been received. Out of which total 364539 candidates (Male 317828
& Female 46711) have participated in the written examination. G

4. That 9158 male candidates had secured 50% of marks in each
section/ subject before the normalization process was applied.
Out of these 9158 candidates, 7930 candidates were present/
appeared in DV/ PST (Document Verification and Physical
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A Standard Test-Height/ Chest) and 1181 remain absent. Out of
these 7930 candidates, 7603 were qualified in DV/PST. 5723
candidates out of 7603 were qualified in Physical Efficiency Test
(Running).
In addition to above, it has to be clarified that 47 male candidates
B were qualified before normalization as per instructions of Hon’ble
High Court, Allahabad, they were awarded extra marks for two
wrong questions but they could not be called for DV/ PST because
they could not qualify in normalized marks as by that time the
selection result was being prepared on the basis of only normalized
marks.
C

D

5. That 501 female candidates had secured minimum 50% of marks
in each section/ subject before the normalization process was
applied. Out of these 501 female candidates, 448 candidates were
present/ appeared in DV/ PST (Document Verification and
E Physical Standard Test-Height/ Weight) and 53 candidates
remained absent. Out of 448 candidates, 441 were qualified in
DV/ PST and 348 candidates out of 441 candidates were qualified
in Physical Efficiency Test (Running).

F

G
6. That 5229 male candidates had secured minimum 50% of marks
in each section/ subject after the normalization process was
applied. Out of these 5229 candidates 4452 candidates were
present/ appeared in DV/ PST (Document Verification and
Physical Standard Test-Height/ Chest) and 777 candidates
H remained absent. Out of 4452 candidates, 4261 were qualified in
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 59
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

DV/ PST and 3148 candidates were qualified in Physical A
Efficiency Test (Running) out of these 4261.

B

7. That 484 female candidates had secured minimum 50% of marks
in each section/ subject after the normalization process was
applied. Out of these 484 candidates 400 candidates were present/ C
appeared in DV/ PST and 84 candidates remained absent. Out of
400 candidates, 395 were qualified in DV/ PST. 309 candidates
were qualified in Physical Efficiency Test (Running) Out of 395
candidates.

D

E
8. That in the male category 3899 names are common. Out of
which finally 2498 candidates were qualified in PET (Running)
9. That in the female category 352 names are common. Out of
which finally 246 candidates were qualified in PET (Running)
F

G
10. That the position of unfilled vacancies is as follows: After
completion of this section process 821 posts are unfilled/ vacant
due to non-availability of suitable candidates.
(a) Category wise unfilled posts in Males-526
H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A

B

(b) Category wise unfilled posts in Females-295

C

D 11. That the said online written examination, scrutiny of document
and Physical Efficiency Test has been got conducted by highly
certified undertaking NSEIT’s Ltd. a Government of India
undertaking and the information in respect of present affidavit
has been supplied by the said executing agency NSEIT’s Ltd.
which is entirely transparent and non-discriminatory.”
E
19. As some of the respondents were not served, the subsequent
order dated 28.07.2020 passed by this Court directed the State
Government to publish appropriate advertisement in two newspapers
having wide circulation in the State i.e. one in vernacular language and
other in English, indicating that the judgment and order dated 11.09.2019
F passed by the High Court was under challenge in this Court and that any
person interested in supporting said judgment could appear either in-
person or through his counsel. It was also observed that in any case,
those respondents who were served in the matters and were being
represented by number of learned counsel, would be taken to be
representing the interest of all the concerned respondents.
G
Accordingly, the advertisements were published by the State and
compliance affidavit was filed in the Registry of this Court. The matters
were thereafter directed to be placed for final disposal.
20. In these appeals, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional
H Advocate General advanced submissions on behalf of the State. Mr.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 61
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

P.S. Patwalia, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Vinay Navare, A
learned Senior Advocates and Mr. Amit Pawan and Mr. Shoeb Alam,
learned Advocates in that order, advanced submissions on behalf of the
concerned candidates supporting the State. The arguments on the part
of the respondents were advanced by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Mr. Kapil
Sibal, Mr. V. Giri, Ms. V. Mohana, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Mr. Pallav
B
Shishodia, learned Senior Advocates and Ms. Bansuri Swaraj and Mr.
Anand Verma, learned Advocates, in that order. Both sides placed
reliance on some of the instances highlighting the effects of normalization.
21. The submissions advanced in support of the appeals were:
(a) Expression “marks” could not be given different meaning C
or connotation at two different stages of the process
contemplated by Rule 15 of Recruitment Rules. Rules 15(b)
and 15(e), being part of the same Rule and part of the same
process, must carry the same meaning for expression
“marks” at both the places.
D
(b) By very nature of having the written examination in 29
sessions, some of the papers were tougher while some were
much simpler or easier and therefore there was a necessity
to put all the candidates on an even keel. Thus, the process
of normalization was rightly adopted at the threshold, that
is to say, at the level contemplated by Rule 15(b) of E
Recruitment Rules.
(c) Considering the large number of candidates, even before
the process had begun, the State had made it quite clear
that the process of normalization would be adopted. Thus,
the action on the part of the State was completely fair and F
transparent.
(d) In any case, as found by the High Court, there was not
even an allegation of mala fides or absence of bona fides
in the action on part of the State.
(e) If the process of normalization was not adopted at the initial G
stage, some of the rightful claimants and candidates would
have got eliminated at the initial stage though upon
normalization they had easily qualified.
(f) The equality doctrine under Article 14 of the Constitution
would postulate that unequals ought not to be treated equally. H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A If the degree of difficulty in the question papers otherwise
demanded normalization being adopted, postponing the
process of normalization to the stage of Rule 15(e) of
Recruitment Rules would only result in an unfair treatment
as against those who by sheer coincidence had to answer
tougher question papers.
B
(g) The decision of this Court in Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P.
Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr. 5 had found
that moderation would be permissible and it was only in the
peculiar fact situation of case that scaling down or
normalization was not found to be permissible.
C
(h) Wherever large number of candidates appear at the
examination and wherever multiple number of question
papers are utilized, a process such as, equalisation,
normalization or standardisation or scaling would always
be applied so that all the candidates are judged or tested on
D parameters equal to all.
(i) It was not the submission of the original writ petitioners
that the process of normalization could never be adopted.
All that they contended was that the stage of normalization
ought to be postponed to the state of Rule 15(e).
E
(j) The normal approach in service jurisprudence, where the
extent of judicial review is limited, is to give maximum leeway
to the concerned authorities so long as their actions are fair
and transparent, uniform in application and without any mala
fides.
F
22. On the other hand, the submissions advanced on behalf of the
writ petitioners who had succeeded in the High Court, were:
(a) A candidate should always be made well aware of the
minimum percentage that he would be required to obtain in
order to be eligible for further stages of the selection. The
G
cut off at 50%, therefore, had to be reckoned as against
the written examination that a candidate was required to
undertake. The parameters ought to be clear and well
defined rather than being susceptible to any change or

5
H (2007) 3 SCC 720.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 63
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

modification depending upon the level of difficulty that the A
other candidates were required to face.
(b) At the initial stage, that is to say, at Rule 15(b) level what
was required was minimum 50% out of maximum marks
allocable for such written examination. In other words, the
candidate was to be competing against himself and his B
performance was not to be judged in comparison to that of
others in order to be eligible.
(c) What Rule 15(b) required was fifty “percent” of marks
and not that the candidate ought to be in fifty “percentile”.
(d) At the Rule 15(b) stage, a specific and known target would C
be required to be met by the candidate in order to enable
him to reach the next level and as such marks required at
that stage ought to be “raw marks” and not any “normalized
score”.
(e) The “normalized score” would be a measure to compare D
inter se performance or level of the candidates and
therefore, ought to be relied upon only for deciding the inter
se merit position amongst candidates and not to disqualify
those who had secured more than 50% “raw marks”.
(f) Since Rule 15(b) required a candidate “to obtain 50% marks E
in each of the subjects”, the requirement was rightly
construed by the High Court to be 50% “raw marks”.
(g) Obtaining of 50% “raw marks” being a condition of eligibility
stipulated by the rule making authority, the Board as a sub-
delegate, was not competent and justified in modifying the F
requirement.
(h) In the process of normalization, what factors would be
considered were never known to the candidates at the
beginning of the selection process. All that they were made
aware was that they had to obtain 50% marks in the written G
examination. What they had actually obtained, could not
have been altered by any artificial process such as
normalization resulting in disqualification of the candidates.
(i) A candidate was required to appear for the written test of
400 marks comprising of four subjects, all of which had to H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A be answered in one session as part of the same question
paper. It was quite possible that questions regarding one of
those said four subjects were tougher while the other
subject/subjects were much simpler. It was the sum total
of the entire paper that a candidate was required to face
and answer in one session. A candidate could as well have
B
devoted more time to solve tougher questions. Thus, by very
nature of examination, it was difficult to adopt the process
of normalization at the initial stage and thereby hold some
of the candidates to be ineligible.
(j) The instant matters were rightly found by the High Court
C to be covered by the decision of this Court in Sanjay
Singh’s5 case.
(k) The decision of the High Court, in any case, stood affirmed
by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.39931
of 2019.
D
23. At the outset, we must consider the effect of dismissal of
Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.39931 of 2019. It was a summary
dismissal at the admission stage and the order does not disclose any
reasons why the challenge was negated. The challenge was also not at
the instance of the State.
E In P. Singaravelan and others vs. District Collector, Tiruppur
and DT and others6, it was observed by this Court:-
“6. It is evident that all the above orders were non-speaking orders,
inasmuch as they were confined to a mere refusal to grant special
leave to appeal to the petitioners therein. At this juncture, it is
F useful to recall that it is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP
against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation
of the same. If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does
not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the
Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. The following
discussion on this proposition in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala7,
G
is relevant in this regard: (SCC pp. 383-84, para 44)
“(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order
passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior
6
(2020)3 SCC 133
7
H (2000)6 SCC 359
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 65
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms A
the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate
forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is
the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of
enforcement in the eye of the law.
(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution B
is divisible into two stages. The first stage is up to the disposal
of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage
commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the
special leave petition is converted into an appeal.
(iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or C
unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction
exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-
matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be
determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior
jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or
affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of D
the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or
affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while
exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising
the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special
leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied E
to the former and not to the latter.
(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a
non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it
does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing
special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place F
of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the
Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to
allow the appeal being filed.
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e.
gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order G
has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in
the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within
the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other
than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are
the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind
the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline,
the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But,
this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal
or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme
Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of
the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in
B
subsequent proceedings between the parties.
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked the order
passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order
may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
C
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking
leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before
the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain
a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1)
of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.”
D
(emphasis supplied)
This view has also been adopted in a plethora of decisions of
this Court, including the recent decision in Khoday Distilleries
Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane
Ltd. 8
E
7. Applying these observations to the present case, it is clear that
there has been no pronouncement by this Court constituting the
law of the land as to the interpretation of GOMs No. 162. In such
a situation, it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals
uninfluenced by the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs
F against the grant of relief to drivers placed similarly as the
appellants herein.”
To similar effect are the observations in C.G. Govindan v. State
of Gujarat and others 9, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
through its Chairman v. Omaditya Verma and others10 and State of
G Orissa and another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das and others11. We,
therefore, reject the submission.
8
(2019) 4 SCC 376
9
(1998) 7 SCC 625
10
(2005) 4 SCC 424
H 11
(2019) 6 SCC 270
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 67
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

24. We now proceed to consider the issues arising in these matters. A
25. In State of Uttar Pradesh, the matters concerning selection,
promotion, training, appointment, determination of seniority and
confirmation of service of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh
Civil Police were dealt with by the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspectors and
Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 (“2008 Rules”, for short) B
which were framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 46
(2) read with Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861.
Part V of 2008 Rules dealt with “Procedure for Recruitment”
and Rule 15 from said Part V was to the following effect:
“15. For the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Sub- C
Inspector, there shall be representation to the Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes of citizen in
Selection Committee shall be made in accordance with the order
made under section-7 of the Act, as amended from time to time.
(a) Applications- D

(i) A candidate shall fill the application Form from one
District only. Regarding allocation of Examination Centre the
candidate may give more than one option. However Board may
allocate centre other than those indicated by the candidate;
E
(ii) a separate booklet shall be attached with the application
Form containing the information regarding educational qualification,
age, minimum qualifying standards for each category of Physical
Standard Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Medical Fitness, Minimum
qualifying marks for Written Examination subject wise, copy of
O.M.R. sheet for practice and other important guidelines; F

(iii) the application Form is on the O.M.R. sheet with carbon
copy;
(iv) the space for candidate’s both left and right thumb
impression is provided in the application Form; two attested G
photographs of the candidate be pasted on application Form one
photo on the application Form and one photo on the admission
card are to be pasted at proper places.
(v) it is essential that every application Form must
accompany with the attested copes of the certificates of age 10th, H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 12th and Graduation/ Post Graduation, Sports Certificate, National
Cadet Corps Certificate, Home Guard Certificate, Caste
Certificate, Unit discharge Certificate in case of Ex-servicemen
and Certificate of Dependent of Freedom Fighters as the case
may be.
B (vi) Application Form can be purchased on payment of
prescribed fees from notified Post Office/ Bank.
(vii) Duly filled up application Forms should be submitted in
the same Post Office/ Bank from where it is so purchased.
(b) Call letters:-
C
All the certificates, submitted by the candidate will be
examined before issuance of the call letter. If a certificate is shown
to be submitted in the Application Form but not found attached
with it, the Application Form of the candidate may be cancelled.
After getting the Application Form scanned through computer,
D computerized call letter will be issued to eligible candidates through
the same Post Office/ Bank from where Application Form was
submitted. Code/ Name/ Postal address/ Place of the examination
centre along with the date and time of the Physical Standard Test,
Physical Efficiency Test and medical examination will be clearly
E mentioned in the call letter. Documents with which the candidates
are required to reach for the examination will be clearly indicated
in the call letter. Call letter should reach at least a week before
the examination. In case call letter is not received till a week
before beginning of the examination candidates may contact
helpline, serial code of the Application Form will have to be given
F in this regard. Duplicate call letter will be issued by the Board.
(c) Physical Standard Test:-
All eligible Candidates to appear in a qualifying standard
for Physical Standard Test of a qualifying nature the procedure
for which is given in Appendix-1.
G
(d) Preliminary Written Test-
The Candidates who are declared successful in the Physical
Standard Test under clause (c) shall be required to appear in an
objective type/ Preliminary Written Test of qualifying nature. This
H test shall carry 200 marks.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 69
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

It shall comprise three sections, namely General Knowledge A
(Current Affairs, History, Geography, Constitution of India,
Freedom Struggle etc.) of 100 marks. Numerical Ability Test of
50 marks and Reasoning of 50 Marks. The candidate who secure
a minimum fifty percent marks in the said test shall be declared
successful.
B
(e) Physical Efficiency Test-
The candidates who are declared successful in the
preliminary written test under clause (d) shall be required to appear
in a Physical Efficiency Test of qualifying nature. This test shall
be of the level of National Physical Efficiency Standard Star-I. C
The Board shall be empowered to change or upgrade the standards
of the said test which shall, in no case, be lesser than the prescribed
standards of Star-I. The procedure for conducting the Physical
Efficiency Test shall be such as prescribed in Appendix-2.
(f) Main Written Examination- D
The candidates who are declared successful in the Physical
Efficiency Test under clause (e) shall be required to appear in the
main written examination which shall carry 400 marks in the
following subjects:-
Subject Maximum Marks E
1. General Hindi/ 75 marks
Hindi Essay 25 marks
2. Basic Law and Constitution 100 marks (objective type)
3. Numerical and Mental Ability Test 100 marks (objective type)
F
4. Mental Aptitude Test/ I.O. 100 marks (objective type)
Test/ Reasoning
Note: The procedure for conducting written examination shall be
such as prescribed as Appendix-3
The Candidate who fails to obtain minimum fifty percent G
marks in each subject shall not be eligible for recruitment. The
Board shall, having regard to the need for securing due
representation of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and others under Rule 6, prepare a list
of successful candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A in the Main Written Examination, the entire list along with marks
obtained per subject along with answer key would be displayed
on the Board’s website immediately. The number of candidates
to be selected in the main written examination shall be three time
the number of vacancies.
B (g) Medical Examination-
The candidates who have passed the Main Written
Examination will undergo the Medical Examination test shall be
such as prescribed in Appendix-3.
(h) Group Discussion:
C
The candidates selected under the rule 15(f) shall be required
to appear in a Group Discussion for which separate groups of ten
candidates each shall be formed. The process of Group Discussion
shall be carried out under the supervision of a panel comprising
Management Expert, Psychologist and Criminologist in the
D presence of Chairman of the Board or his nominee, one Additional
Director General of Police nominated by Director General of
Police, Uttar Pradesh). In the said Group discussion, Police Case
Study shall be presented for discussion and the entire Group
discussion shall be completed within the stipulated timeframe. The
Group Discussion shall carry 20 marks and it will include the
E
evaluation of candidates Management Skill (5 marks), Presentation
(5marks), Attitude (5 marks) and Personality (5 marks). These
marks shall also be uploaded in the Board’s website.
NOTE 1- The entire process of Group Discussion shall be video-
graphed and a CD thereof shall be prepared.
F
NOTE 2- Nomination of officers for giving presentation to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes of Citizens in the Selection
Committee shall be made in accordance with Section
7 of the Act, as amended from time to time.
G
NOTE 3- The procedure for conducting written examination
shall be such as prescribed in Appendix-3.
(i) Selection and Merit List-
The marks obtained by each candidate in the Main
H Written Examination under Rule 15 (f) shall be added to
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 71
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

the marks obtained by him in the Group Discussion under A
Rule 15 (h).
(j) The Board shall prepare a select list of candidates in order
of their merit, keeping in view the reservation policy
guidelines as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained
by each candidate at the main written examination and B
Group Discussion. If two or more candidates obtain equal
marks, the candidate obtaining higher marks in the main
written examination shall be placed higher in the list. The
Board will upload the Select List on website for all candidates
immediately and shall forward it to the Head of the
Department. C

25.1 Appendix 3 to 2008 Rules dealt with the procedure for written
examination which was as under:
“Procedure for Written Examination
All the candidates will have to undergo for a Physical Efficiency D
Test before the main Written Examination (In the case of direct
recruitment of Sub-Inspector). On the pattern of Union Public
Service Commission, computerised call letters with pasted
photographs will be sent to candidates for main Written
Examination through the Post Offices/Banks in the manner it were E
sent for preliminary examination.
(a) Photograph, thumb impressions of both the hands and code
number/name of the examination centre, postal address, date/time
of the examination along with the name of the District will be
clearly provided in the call letter. F
(b) Call letter should reach to the candidates at least a week before
the date of the examination. In case call letter is not received a
week before the date of the examination the candidate may contact
the helpline/landline/mobile phones of the Board or can obtain the
duplicate call letter by contacting the Board’s website.
G
(c) Written examination will be conducted on same day at the
same time throughout the State.
(d) Candidates will be provided OMR sheet with carbon copy in
the examination hall. Candidate can carry the carbon copy with
him after the examination. When the result of all the candidates is H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A declared the result will be uploaded along with answer key on
Board’s website with marks obtained by them subject wise. The
candidates can check his marks from the website as per OMR
(carbon copy) answer sheet.
(e) After the written examination is over answer sheets will be
B sent to the Board, centre-wise in sealed covers through the safe
custody provided by the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent
of Police/Superintendent of Police.”
26. 2008 Rules were, however, amended by the Uttar Pradesh
Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 on 19th
C August 2015 and by the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector
(Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015 on 03rd December
2015. Rule 15 of the Amended Rules (‘Recruitment Rules’, for short)
dealing with procedure for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector
has been quoted in the judgment under appeal. It must be noted here
that Appendix 3 referable to earlier Rule 15(e) dealing with “Procedure
D for Written Examination”, was deleted by virtue of the amendment.
27. Rule 15 of 2008 Rules, as it stood before the amendments,
thus contemplated :-
(i) Scrutiny/examination of certificates submitted by the
E candidates along with their application formed the first step,
whereafter, call letter would be issued to the candidates;
(ii) All candidates were required to appear in the physical
standard test and only those who were successful, would
appear in an objective type preliminary written test;
F (iii) Those who secured minimum 50% marks in the preliminary
written test, would appear in physical efficiency test which
was of qualifying nature. Those who qualified at that stage
would then be required to appear in the main written
examination;
G (iv) As per Rule 15(f), the procedure for conducting the written
examination was to be in terms of Appendix 3. In terms of
said Appendix, the written examination had to be conducted
on the same date at the same time throughout the State. A
list of successful candidates who obtained minimum 50%
marks would then be prepared.
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 73
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(v) Thereafter, there would be medical examination in terms A
of Rule 15 (g).
(vi) Finally, there would be group discussion carrying 20 marks.
(vii) The final selection and merit list would be based on the
marks obtained by each candidate in the main written
examination and the marks obtained in the group discussion. B

28. The steps and stages indicated in Rule 15 of 2008 Rules, have
now undergone substantial changes in that:-
(a) After scrutiny of the application forms under Rule 15(a),
all candidates are required to appear for written test of 400 C
marks. Candidates found successful in written examination
will then be required to appear at the stage of scrutiny of
documents and physical standard test in terms of Rule 15(c).
(b) Candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the
subjects are not to be eligible for recruitment. D
(c) Candidates found successful in the written examination are
required to appear at the stage of scrutiny of documents
and physical standard test in terms of Rule 15(c).
(d) Those who succeeded at the previous stages will then have
to undergo physical efficiency test in terms of Rule 15(d). E
(e) Finally at the stage of Rule 15 (e), from amongst the
candidates who are successful in physical efficiency test, a
select list of each category of candidates shall be prepared
on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in the
written examination under clause (b). F
(f) It is left to the Board to decide whether to conduct written
examination on one date in a single shift or in more than
one shift or on more than one date in different shifts with
different question papers.
(g) It is again left to the Board to decide the procedure for G
written examination which must be displayed on its own
website.
29. Under the unamended provisions, the procedure for written
examination was laid down in Appendix 3, which had to be followed by
the Board while holding main written examination in terms of the then H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A Rule 15(f). The procedure mandated that the main written examination
be conducted on the same date and at the same time throughout the
State.
That procedure now stands displaced and the amended provisions
now confer the discretion upon the Board at two levels. Under the first
B part, it is up to the Board to decide whether the written examination be
conducted on the same date, same time and at the same place or it be
conducted in more than one shift on the same date or on more than one
dates in different shifts with different question papers. Secondly, the
procedure for written examination is also to be determined by the Board
but it ought to be displayed on its own website.
C
Going by the requirements of the amended Rule 15, the marks
obtained in the written examination will now be the determining factor
subject to the candidates fulfilling or meeting the qualifying marks and
qualifying at the stages in scrutiny of documents, physical standard test
and physical efficiency test.
D
30. Considering the large number of candidates who had submitted
online application forms, a notification was published by the Board on
28.06.2017 indicating:-
a) That the written examination would be held on more than
E one date in different sittings along with different question
papers.
b) Since the question papers of every sitting would be different,
there would not be possibility of equality.
c) The exercise would require normalization of the marks by
F using standardized Equi-percentile Method. Such method
would be as adopted in MAH-MBA/MMS CET 2015.
31. The exercise of issuing said notification and declaring the intent
as stated above, were well within the powers of the Board in terms of
Rule 15(b) as amended by the rule making authority. It was brought to
G the notice of the candidates well in advance before the written
examinations were to be conducted. In view of the large number of
candidates, the written examinations were held in 29 different sittings or
batches with 29 different question papers. This necessarily implied and
required the Board to adopt process of normalization in order to test the
merit of the candidates on the same footing or parameter.
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 75
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

The question that arises, however, is about the stage at which the A
process of normalization was required to be adopted or applied.
32. Before we go into the question, we must consider some of the
decisions of this Court which had dealt with the issues of scaling or
normalization.
33. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra B
Dixit and others12, the Public Service Commission had applied “scaling
of marks” in circumstances noticed by this Court as under:-
“6. 4270 candidates appeared for the examination. For each of
the subjects in the written examination, there were around 14
examiners and each of them evaluated about 300 answer-sheets, C
except in language papers. U.P. PSC had earlier held similar
examination for Civil Judge (Junior Division) for selection of
Judicial Officers in 1997 and 1999. According to U.P. PSC, there
was wide disparity in awarding marks by the various examiners
in respect of the same subject. The answer-sheets were
D
randomised before being given to examiners. The randomisation
was done at three stages, namely, at the stage of allotment of roll
numbers, allotment of centres and at the time of distribution of
answer-sheets to the examiners for evaluation. U.P. PSC received
representation from several quarters to adopt a scientific method
of evaluation of marks awarded by different examiners in respect E
of common papers. It was noticed that the different examiners
adopted different yardsticks to award marks to the candidates.
Thus, the candidates were left at the whims of the examiners.
The gross disparity between two sets of examiners resulted in
injustice to some of the candidates and therefore a check was
required. It was noticed that the marks awarded by two different F
sets of examiners required to be scaled in accordance with certain
universally accepted method. U.P. PSC considered the different
facets of scaling system and appointed a three-member Committee
to carry out an in-depth study of the scaling system. The members
of this Committee consisted of Professors from reputed G
universities. U.P. PSC considered the recommendations made by
the Expert Committee and on 7-9-1996 accepted the report of the
Committee. U.P. PSC resolved to apply the formula of scaling
and thereafter, it was made applicable to PCS Preliminary
12
(2003) 12 SCC 701 H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A Examination, 1996 and also in PCS Main Examination held in 1996.
Considering the utility of the scaling system, U.P. PSC decided in
its meeting on 13-10-1999 to apply the scaling pattern for all the
examinations conducted by it. In the case of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Examination, 2000, the answer-sheets were randomised
in order to avoid duplicity or any possible mischief. The marks
B
awarded by each examiner were considered and scaled in
accordance with the formula adopted by U.P. PSC. The said
formula was based on the opinion of experts on the subject and
accordingly, the result was published by U.P. PSC. The merit list
published by U.P. PSC was challenged by the respondents in SLP
C (Civil) No. 23723 of 2002 on the ground that the scaling system
adopted by U.P. PSC was confusing, arbitrary and without any
reasonable basis. It was alleged that arbitrary marks were
awarded to certain candidates in the name of scaling system to
provide undue favour to them. It was contended that U.P. PSC
had not disclosed the guidelines and criteria adopted in
D
implementing the scaling system and, therefore, it was arbitrary
and unjustified. It was also contended that several candidates had
been awarded less than 40% marks without any basis whereas
several other candidates who had secured lesser marks in the
written tests were awarded more than 60% or 70% marks.”
E 33.1 The relevant Rules were quoted in paragraphs 15 and 17 as
follows:-
“15. Part VI Rule 19 deals with appointment, probation and
confirmation. Rule 19 reads as follows:-
“19. List of candidates approved by the Commission.—The
F Commission shall prepare a list of candidates who have taken
examination for recruitment to the service in order of their
proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally
awarded to each candidate. If two or more candidates obtain
equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission shall arrange
them in order of merit on the basis of their general suitability
G
for the service:
Provided that in making their recommendation, the Commission
shall satisfy itself that the candidate has obtained such an
aggregate of marks in the written test that he is qualified by his
ability for appointment to the service.”
H … … …
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 77
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

17. Rule 51, which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: A
“51. The marksheets so obtained shall be opened on the last
day of interview and immediately thereafter the marks of
interview/personality test shall be added to the marks obtained
by the candidates in the written examination. Thereafter, on
the basis of the totals so obtained, the merit list shall be prepared B
and placed before the Commission for final declaration of the
result:
Provided that the Commission may, with a view to eliminating
variation in the marks awarded to candidates at any examination
or interview, adopt a method, device or formula which they C
consider proper for the purpose.”
33.2 The discussion on the point was:-
“19. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is
whether the U.P. Public Service Commission can adopt the scaling
system by invoking the power conferred under Rule 51 of the D
1976 Amendment Act in view of Rule 19 contained in the
Niyamavali, 1951. Of course, Niyamavali, 1951 was made by the
Governor in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission
and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by virtue of the
powers conferred by Article 234 of the Constitution whereas the E
provisions of the 1976 (sic 1974) Act are general guidelines for
the U.P. Public Service Commission, it is not an enactment made
in consultation with the High Court. Nevertheless, the provisions
of the 1976 (sic 1974) Act are applicable for the purpose of
conducting examination for recruitment of Judicial Officers in the
State of Uttar Pradesh. The expression “aggregate marks” used F
in Rule 19 of the Niyamavali, 1951 can only be construed as the
final marks awarded after the scaling system is applied. Certainly,
the proviso to Rule 51 gives ample power to the Commission to
adopt any method, device or formula to eliminate any variation in
the marks awarded to the candidates. The various provisions G
contained in the 1974 Act deal with the method and manner in
which the examinations are to be conducted. The Niyamavali,
1951 deals with only general provisions regulating recruitment to
the posts and the conditions of service. The Niyamavali, 1951
does not deal with the method and the manner in which the
examinations are to be conducted. Various steps and procedures H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A have to be adopted in completing the recruitment for which detailed
procedure has been laid down. This procedure is not part of the
Niyamavali, 1951.
20. We do not think that the proviso to Rule 51 is in any way in
conflict with Rule 19 of the Niyamavali, 1951. The aggregate
B marks can only be considered to mean the total marks finally
obtained by the candidate after the complete valuation process is
over. The dictionary meaning of “aggregate” is thus: (i) a whole
formed by combining several disparate elements; (ii) the total
score of a player or team in a fixture comprising more than one
game or round; and (iii) formed or calculated by the combination
C of many separate units or items.
… … …
31. There is a vast percentage difference in awarding of marks
between each set of examiners and this was sought to be
D minimised by applying 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
E was adopted with a view to eliminate the inconsistency in the
marking standards of the examiners. The counsel for the
respondents could not demonstrate that the adoption of scaling
system has in any way caused injustice to any meritorious
candidate. If any candidate had secured higher marks in the written
F examination, even by applying the scaling formula, he would still
be benefited.
32. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the
process of scaling was done examinerwise only and the scaling
formula did not take into consideration the average of mean of all
G the candidates in one particular paper but took the mean of only
that group of candidates which has been examined by one single
examiner. The counsel for U.P. PSC submitted that the observation
made by the High Court is incorrect. The scaling formula was
adopted to remove the disparity in the evaluation of 14 examiners
who participated in the evaluation of answer-sheets and the details
H have also been furnished as to how the scaling formula was adopted
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 79
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

and applied. Therefore, we do not think that the observation of A
the Division Bench that the Commission did not take care of varying
standards which may have been applied by different examiners
but has sought to reduce the variation of the marks awarded by
the same examiner to different candidates whose answer-sheets
had been examined, is correct. The Division Bench was of the
B
view that as a result of scaling, the marks of the candidates who
had secured zero marks were enchanced to 18 and this was illegal
and thus affected the selection process. This finding is to be
understood to mean as to how the scaling system was applied. 18
marks were given notionally to a candidate who secured zero
marks so as to indicate the variation in marks secured by the C
candidates and to fix the mean marks.
33. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the application
of scaling formula to the examinations in question was either
arbitrary or illegal. The selection of the candidates was done in a
better way. Moreover, this formula was adopted by U.P. PSC D
after an expert study and in such matters, the court cannot sit in
judgment and interfere with the same unless it is proved that it
was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and the
selection itself was done contrary to the Rules. Ultimately, the
agency conducting the examination has to consider as to which
method should be preferred and adopted having regard to the E
myriad situations that may arise before them.”
34. The basic facts in Sanjay Singh5 were noticed by this Court
as under:-
“2. On the request of the Allahabad High Court, to conduct the F
examination for filling 347 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
the Commission issued an advertisement in Employment
News dated 28-11-2003. As many as 51,524 candidates appeared
for the “U.P. Judicial Service, Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Preliminary Examination, 2003” conducted by the Commission
on 21-3-2004. The preliminary examination was of “objective” G
type consisting of two papers — General Knowledge and Law.
The result was declared on 30-6-2004 and 6046 candidates were
declared qualified to appear for “U.P. Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Examination (Main), 2003” which was of “descriptive”
(conventional) type. The main examination consisted of five papers H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A (each carrying 200 marks) — General Knowledge, Language,
Law I, II and III — and was held between 5-10-2004 and 7-10-
2004. The number of candidates who took the said examination
was 5748.
3. The answer-scripts relating to each subject were distributed to
B several examiners for valuation, as it was not possible to get the
large number evaluated by a single examiner. The number of
examiners, to whom the answer-scripts were distributed for
valuation, were as follows: General Knowledge-18, Language-
14, Law I-11, Law II-10, and Law III-14. The marks assigned by
the examiners were subjected to “statistical scaling” and the results
C of written examination based on such scaled marks, were declared
on 7-3-2005. Thereafter, 1290 candidates were interviewed
between 14-4-2005 and 26-4-2005. After such interview, the
Commission declared the final results of the examination on 1-5-
2005 based on the aggregate of “scaled marks” in the written
D (main) examination and the marks awarded in the interview. On
the recommendations made by the Commission, appointments were
made to 347 posts of Civil Judge, Junior Division.”
34.1 This Court was called upon to consider the correctness of
“Scaling System” adopted by the Public Service Commission. Considering
E the text of U. P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001, this Court concluded that
the “Scaling System” was unsuited in regard to Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Examination. It was noticed that in the earlier decision in
Subhash Chandra Dixit and Ors.12 this Court had upheld scaling and
had ruled that scaling was a recognized method to bring raw marks in
different subjects to a common scale. It was, however, found that there
F was no provision in Judicial Service Rules akin to proviso to Rule 51 of
the Public Service Commission Procedure Rules.
The relevant discussion on the point was:-
“17. It is no doubt true that the Judicial Service Rules govern the
G recruitment to Judicial Service, having been made in exercise of
power under Article 234, in consultation with both the Commission
and the High Court. It also provides what examinations should be
conducted and the maximum marks for each subject in the
examination. But the Judicial Service Rules entrust the function
of conducting examinations to the Commission. The Judicial Service
H Rules do not prescribe the manner and procedure for holding the
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 81
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

examination and valuation of answer-scripts and award of the A
final marks and declaration of the results. Therefore, it is for the
Commission to regulate the manner in which it will conduct the
examination and value the answer-scripts subject, however, to
the provisions of the Judicial Service Rules. If the Commission
has made Rules to regulate the procedure and conduct of the
B
examination, they will naturally apply to any examination
conducted by it for recruitment to any service, including the Judicial
Service. But where the Judicial Service Rules make a specific
provision in regard to any aspect of examination, such provision
will prevail, and the provision of the PSC Procedure Rules, to the
extent it is inconsistent with the Judicial Service Rules, will be C
inapplicable. Further, if both the Rules have made provision in
regard to a particular matter, the PSC Procedure Rules will yield
to the Judicial Service Rules.
18. The manner in which the list of candidates as per merit should
be prepared is provided both in the Judicial Service Rules and the D
PSC Procedure Rules. Relevant portion of Rule 20(3) and Note
(i) of Appendix II of the Judicial Service Rules and Rule 51 of the
PSC Procedure Rules providing for the aggregation of marks and
preparation of the merit list, are extracted below:
E

F

G

(different emphasis supplied) H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A As the field is occupied by Rule 20(3) and Note (i) of Appendix II
of the Judicial Service Rules, they will prevail over the general
provision in Rule 51 of the PSC Procedure Rules.
19. Rule 20(3) provides for the final list of selected candidates in
order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of “marks
B finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination
and the interview”. Note (i) to Appendix II of the Judicial Service
Rules provides that the “marks obtained in the interview” will be
added to “the marks obtained in the written papers” and that
the candidate’s place will depend on the aggregate of both. Though
the Judicial Service Rules refers to “marks finally awarded”, the
C said Rules do not contain a provision similar to the proviso to Rule
51 of the PSC Procedure Rules, enabling the Commission to adopt
any method, device or formula to eliminate variation in the marks.
It is not possible to read the proviso to Rule 51 or words to that
effect into Rule 20(3) or Note (i) of Appendix II of the Judicial
D Service Rules. It is well settled that courts will not add words to a
statute or read into the statute words not in it. Even if the courts
come to the conclusion that there is any omission in the words
used, it cannot make up the deficiency, where the wording as it
exists is clear and unambiguous. While the courts can adopt a
construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the
E legislative or the rule-making authority, it cannot set at naught the
legislative intent clearly expressed in a statute or the rules.
Therefore, Rule 20(3) and Note (i) of Appendix II have to be
read as they are without the addition of the proviso to Rule 51 of
the PSC Procedure Rules. If so, what can be taken into account
F for preparing final list of selected candidates, are “marks finally
awarded to a candidate” in the written examination and the
interview. The marks assigned by the examiner are not necessarily
the marks finally awarded to a candidate. If there is any error in
the marks awarded by the examiner it can always be corrected
by the Commission and the corrected marks will be “the final
G marks awarded to the candidate”. Where the Commission is of
the view that there is “examiner variability” in the marks (due to
strict or liberal assessment of answer-scripts) or improper
assessment on account of erratic or careless marking by an
examiner, they can be corrected appropriately by moderation. The
H moderation is either by adding (in the case of strict examiners) or
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 83
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

deducting (in the case of liberal examiners) a particular number A
of marks which has been decided with reference to principles of
moderation applied. If there is erratic or careless marking, then
moderation is by fresh valuation by another examiner. Therefore,
the marks assigned by the examiner as moderated will be the
marks finally awarded to the candidates or marks obtained by the
B
candidates. Moderation, it has to be held, is inherent in the
evaluation of answer-scripts in any largescale examination, where
there are more than one examiner.
20. We cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the
words “marks awarded” or “marks obtained in the written papers”
refer only to the actual marks awarded by the examiner. C
“Valuation” is a process which does not end on marks being
awarded by an examiner. Award of marks by the examiner is
only one stage of the process of valuation. Moderation when
employed by the examining authority, becomes part of the process
of valuation and the marks awarded on moderation become the D
final marks of the candidate. In fact Rule 20(3) specifically refers
to the “marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written
examination”, thereby implying that the marks awarded by the
examiner can be altered by moderation.
21. But the question is whether the raw marks which are converted E
into scaled scores on an artificial scale with assumed variables
(assumed mean marks and assumed standard deviation) can be
considered as “marks finally awarded” or “marks obtained”. Scaled
scores are not marks awarded to a candidate in a written
examination, but a figure arrived at for the purpose of being placed
on a common scale. It can vary with reference to two arbitrarily F
fixed variables, namely, “assumed mean” and “assumed standard
mean”. We have dealt with this aspect in greater detail while
dealing with Question (iii). For the reasons given while considering
Question (iii), we hold that “scaled scores” or “scaled marks”
cannot be considered to be “marks awarded to a candidate in the G
written examination”. Therefore, scaling violates Rule 20(3) and
Note (i) of Appendix II of the Judicial Service Rules.
… … …
24. In the Judicial Service Examination, the candidates were
required to take the examination in respect of all the five subjects H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A and the candidates did not have any option in regard to the subjects.
In such a situation, moderation appears to be an ideal solution.
But there are examinations which have a competitive situation
where candidates have the option of selecting one or few among
a variety of heterogenous subjects and the number of students
taking different options also vary and it becomes necessary to
B
prepare a common merit list in respect of such candidates. Let us
assume that some candidates take Mathematics as an optional
subject and some take English as the optional subject. It is well
recognised that marks of 70 out of 100 in Mathematics do not
mean the same thing as 70 out of 100 in English. In English 70 out
C of 100 may indicate an outstanding student whereas in
Mathematics, 70 out of 100 may merely indicate an average
student. Some optional subjects may be very easy, when compared
to others, resulting in wide disparity in the marks secured by equally
capable students. In such a situation, candidates who have opted
for the easier subjects may steal an advantage over those who
D
opted for difficult subjects. There is another possibility. The paper-
setters in regard to some optional subjects may set questions which
are comparatively easier to answer when compared to some paper-
setters in other subjects who set tougher questions which are
difficult to answer. This may happen when for example, in Civil
E Service Examination, where Physics and Chemistry are optional
papers, Examiner ‘A’ sets a paper in Physics appropriate to degree
level and Examiner ‘B’ sets a paper in Chemistry appropriate for
matriculate level. In view of these peculiarities, there is a need to
bring the assessment or valuation to a common scale so that the
inter se merit of candidates who have opted for different subjects,
F
can be ascertained. The moderation procedure referred to in the
earlier para will solve only the problem of examiner variability,
where the examiners are many, but valuation of answer-scripts is
in respect of a single subject. Moderation is no answer where the
problem is to find inter se merit across several subjects, that is,
G where candidates take examination in different subjects. To solve
the problem of inter se merit across different subjects, statistical
experts have evolved a method known as scaling, that is creation
of scaled score. Scaling places the scores from different tests or
test forms on to a common scale. There are different methods of
statistical scoring. Standard score method, linear standard score
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 85
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

method, normalised equipercentile method are some of the A
recognised methods for scaling.
25. A. Edwin Harper Jr. and V. Vidya Sagar Misra in their
publication Research on Examinations in India have tried to explain
and define scaling. We may usefully borrow the same. A degree
“Fahrenheit” is different from a degree “Centigrade”. Though B
both express temperature in degrees, the “degree” is different for
the two scales. What is 40 degrees in Centigrade scale is 104
degrees in Fahrenheit scale. Similarly, when marks are assigned
to answer-scripts in different papers, say by Examiner ‘A’ in
Geometry and Examiner ‘B’ in History, the meaning or value of
the “marks” is different. Scaling is the process which brings the C
marks awarded by Examiner ‘A’ in regard to Geometry scale and
the marks awarded by Examiner ‘B’ in regard to History scale, to
a common scale. Scaling is the exercise of putting the marks which
are the results of different scales adopted in different subjects by
different examiners onto a common scale so as to permit D
comparison of inter se merit. By this exercise, the raw marks
awarded by the examiner in different subjects are converted to a
“score” on a common scale by applying a statistical formula. The
“raw marks” when converted to a common scale are known as
the “scaled marks”. Scaling process, whereby raw marks in
different subjects are adjusted to a common scale, is a recognised E
method of ensuring uniformity inter se among the candidates who
have taken examinations in different subjects, as, for example,
the Civil Services Examination.”
34.2 Finally, following directions were issued by this Court:-
F
“53. However, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, we deem
it proper to issue the following directions to do complete justice on
the facts of the case:
(a) If the aggregate of raw marks in the written examination
and the marks in the interview of any petitioner is less than G
that of the last selected candidate in the respective category,
he will not be entitled to any relief (for example, the petitioners
in WP (C) No. 165 of 2005 belonging to the category ‘BC’
have secured raw marks of 361 and 377 respectively in the
written examinations, whereas the last five of the selected
candidates in that category have secured raw marks of 390, H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 391, 397, 438 and 428 respectively. Even after adding the
interview marks, the marks of the petitioners in WP (C) No.
165 of 2005 are less than the marks of the selected candidates).
(b) Where the aggregate of raw marks in the written
examination and the interview marks of any petitioner, is more
B than the aggregate of the raw marks in the written examination
and interview marks of the last selected candidate in his
category, he shall be considered for appointment in the
respective category by counting his appointment against future
vacancies. [For example, we find that petitioner Archna Rani,
one of the petitioners in WP (C) No. 467 of 2005 has secured
C 384 raw marks which is more than the raw marks secured by
the last five selected candidates (347, 337, 336, 383 and 335)
under the SC category and even after adding the interview
marks, her marks are more than the five selected candidates.
Hence, she should be considered for appointment.] This relief
D will be available only to such of the petitioners who have
approached this Court and the High Court before 31-8-2005.”
35. In Mahinder Kumar and Ors. v. High Court of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors.13 relevant clauses of Para 9 of the advertisement
and the concerned Rule 7 were considered by this Court as follows:-
E “15. The advertisement stated that out of 20 posts, 11 posts were
earmarked for general category candidates and three posts each
reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Class candidates. It was also made clear that if sufficient
number of suitable candidates belonging to the reserved categories
were not available, such posts would be treated as unreserved.
F Para 9 of the advertisement which contains sub-clauses (i) to
(vii) are relevant for our purpose. The same are required to be
extracted, which read as under:
“(i) The candidates may be shortlisted at the preliminary
stage i.e. before written examination, by the High Court.
G
(ii) Eligible candidates will be required to appear in written
examination and interview at their own expenses before the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, or at such other
places as may be specified by the High Court.

13
H (2013) 11 SCC 87
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 87
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(iii) The written examination shall consist of two papers, A
each of 3 hours’ duration and of maximum 100 marks. The
object of the written examination is to assess the knowledge
of a candidate in Law and latest pronouncements. First paper
shall relate to the Constitution of India, the Civil Procedure
Code, CrPC, IPC, Hindu Law, the Transfer of Property Act,
B
the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the Limitation Act, the
Evidence Act and the M.P. Land Revenue Code, special Acts
like NDPS, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Prevention of Corruption
Act, the Negotiable Instrument Act.
Second paper will be in two parts, the first part will contain C
factual data of a civil case and a criminal case on the basis of
which the candidate shall prepare judgment in the civil case
and criminal case. The second part will contain a passage in
Hindi to be translated into English and a passage in English to
translate into Hindi. D
(iv) Only such candidates will be called for interview as
the High Court may decide, on the basis of evaluation of their
performance in the written examination.
(v) The interview shall carry 25 marks.
E
(vi) Candidates shall be selected on the basis of aggregate
marks obtained by them in both the written examination and
interview.
(vii) On completion of the selection process, the result of
examination (list of selected candidates) shall be published in F
M.P. Rajpatra and all the candidates both successful and
unsuccessful shall be supplied marksheets at their given
addresses by ordinary post.”
16. The said Para 9 states as to how the short-listing of candidates
at the preliminary stage itself before the written examination were
G
to be made by the High Court, the requirement of the candidates
to appear in the written examination consisting of two papers
where, the maximum marks in each paper was 100 and the relevant
laws in which the examination would be conducted in both the
papers was also specified. In Para 9(iv), it was specified that the
High Court may decide on the basis of evaluation of their H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A performance in the written examination for calling those candidates
for interview. Under Para 9(v), the interview marks were specified
as 25. In Para 9(vi), it was mentioned that the candidates would
be selected on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them,
both in the written examination and the interview. The last
paragraph of the amended Rule 7 is also relevant, which reads as
B
under:
“The procedure of selection for direct recruitment and
promotion shall be such, as may be specified by the High Court
from time to time.”
C 35.1 On the question whether the High Court was entitled to adopt
the process of normalization while evaluating performance in the written
examination, this Court observed as under:
“37. Once we steer clear of the said position, the next submission
of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that when
D assuming Rule 7 empowers the High Court to follow its own
procedure, it should have been disclosed in the advertisement.
The contention of the learned Senior Counsel was that whatever
procedure evolved by the High Court should have been disclosed
well in advance by the High Court or at least before the written
examination was conducted. When we consider the said
E submission, we find that there is a clear indication in Para 9 of the
advertisement as to in what manner the High Court is going to
conduct the selection process:
37.1. Para 9(i) makes it clear that the candidates may be shortlisted
at the preliminary stage i.e. before the written examination is held
F by the High Court. No one can find fault with such a prescription,
inasmuch as such short-listing will have to be necessarily made in
order to ensure that only such of those candidates who satisfy the
conditions in Paras 2-8 of the advertisement are duly complied
with.
G 37.2. In fact, Para 8 makes it clear that non-receipt of the forms
of application, etc. in time by the candidate will not be accepted
as an excuse for late submission of the application forms. Meaning
thereby, that any application for the post to be submitted before
30-9-2006, should be complete in all respects furnishing whatever
details which were required to be furnished and also satisfy the
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 89
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

various conditions such as, age restriction, years of practice, A
character certificate, citizenship, etc. If such conditions are not
fulfilled, by exercise of such power contained under Rule 9(i), the
High Court would be fully entitled to exclude the consideration of
such candidates for participating in the written examinations.
37.3. In Para 9(iii), it has been sufficiently indicated that each B
paper of the written examination will be for a duration of 3 hours,
with a maximum of 100 marks to be scored. The object in holding
the written examination in both the first and second papers, have
also been specifically highlighted in Para 9(iii).
37.4. Once the written examination part is fulfilled, the High Court C
has to formulate a procedure by which the answer papers are to
be evaluated in order to ascertain the marks scored by the
respective candidates. Therefore, in Para 9(iv) it has been specified
that before calling any of the candidates for interview who
appeared for the written examination, an evaluation will have to
be made and based on the evaluation and performance, the High D
Court will decide as to who should be called for the interview.
37.5. The expression “evaluation” would, therefore, take into its
fold the minimum marks to be scored, the manner in which the
evaluation is to be made and in the event of any requirement, to
equalise the merits of the candidate in the written examination E
and follow any appropriate procedure in consonance with law, in
order to ultimately arrive at a fair process by which the candidate
can be called for interview, based on the evaluation of the marks
in the written examination.
38. In a situation like this, where nearly 3000 candidates appeared F
for the written examination and the answer papers were evaluated
by several District Judges, it cannot be held that there was every
scope for variation in the assessment of the answers and the award
of marks valued by different valuers. The High Court in exercise
of its authority under Rule 7, read along with Para 9(iv) adopted a G
fair procedure to normalise the marks of the candidates in order
to assess their respective merits. Therefore, the expression
“evaluation” used in Para 9(iv), should be held to fully empower
the High Court to even resort to such a step in a case like this,
where more number of District Judges evaluated the answer
sheets and thereby, it required the intervention of the High Court H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A on its administrative side, to find a fair method by which the
normalisation of the marks could be worked out.”
The action on part of the High Court in adopting the process of
normalization was thus, accepted by this Court and the challenge raised
against such process was rejected.
B 36. It is important to note that Subhash Chandra Dixit12 was
decided by a Bench of two Judges of this Court while Sanjay Singh5
and Mahinder Kumar13 were decided by Benches of three Judges.
Further, the decision in Sanjay Singh5was noticed in paragraph 7 of the
decision in Mahinder Kumar13 but Rule 7 and Para 9 (iv) of the
C advertisement were found sufficiently wide enough to admit adoption of
a procedure by which normalization of marks could be worked out.
37. In Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service
Commission and others14, a Bench of two Judges of this Court, among
other questions, considered the applicability of the decision in Sanjay
D Singh5to cases where the candidates were tested in different subjects
as against an examination where the question papers were compulsory
and common to all the candidates. The discussion was:-
“11. Having considered the rival submissions advanced before
us, we are of the view that the question that calls for an answer in
E the present case is whether this Court in Sanjay Singh5 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 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
F the candidates are to be tested. Closely connected with the
aforesaid question is the extent of the power of judicial review to
scrutinise the decisions taken by another constitutional authority
i.e. the Public Service Commission in the facts of the present
case.
G … … …
13. We have read and considered the judgment in Sanjay Singh5.
In the said case, this Court was considering the validity of the
selections held for appointment in the U.P. Judicial Service on the

14
H (2016) 2 SCC 495
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 91
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

basis of a competitive examination in which the Rules prescribed A
five (5) papers all of which were compulsory for all the candidates.
There is no dispute that the U.P. Public Service Commission in
the aforesaid case had scaled down the marks awarded to the
candidates by following the scaling method. This Court, after holding
that the Judicial Service Rules which governed the selection did
B
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 examination where the papers were
compulsory and common to all the candidates. In doing so, it was
observed as follows: (SCC p. 742, para 24)
“24. The moderation procedure referred to in the earlier C
paragraph will solve only the problem of examiner variability,
where the examiners are many, but valuation of answer scripts
is in respect of a single subject. Moderation is no answer where
the problem is to find inter se merit across several subjects,
that is, where candidates take examination in different subjects. D
To solve the problem of inter se merit across different subjects,
statistical experts have evolved a method known as scaling,
that is creation of scaled score. Scaling places the scores from
different tests or test forms on to a common scale. There are
different methods of statistical scoring. Standard score method,
linear standard score method, normalised equipercentile method E
are some of the recognised methods for scaling.”
It was furthermore observed: (SCC p. 742, para 25)
“25. … Scaling process, whereby raw marks in different
subjects are adjusted to a common scale, is a recognised method F
of ensuring uniformity inter se among the candidates who have
taken examinations in different subjects, as, for example, the
Civil Services Examination.”
14. After holding as above, this Court, on due consideration of
several published works on the subject, took note of the G
preconditions, the existence or fulfilment of which, alone, could
ensure an acceptable result if the scaling method is to be adopted.
As in Sanjay Singh5 the U.P. Public Service Commission had
not ensured the existence of the said preconditions the
consequential effects in the declaration of the result were found
to be unacceptable. It was repeatedly pointed out by this Court H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A (paras 36 and 37) that the adoption of the scaling method had
resulted in treating unequals as equals. Thereafter, in para 45 this
Court held as follows: (SCC p. 751)
“45. We may now summarise the position regarding scaling
thus:
B (i) Only certain situations warrant adoption of scaling
techniques.
(ii) There are number of methods of statistical scaling, some
simple and some complex. Each method or system has its merits
and demerits and can be adopted only under certain conditions
C or making certain assumptions.
(iii) Scaling will be useful and effective only if the distribution
of marks in the batch of answer scripts sent to each examiner
is approximately the same as the distribution of marks in the
batch of answer scripts sent to every other examiner.
D (iv) In the linear standard method, there is no guarantee that
the range of scores at various levels will yield candidates of
comparative ability.
(v) Any scaling method should be under continuous review
and evaluation and improvement, if it is to be a reliable tool in
E the selection process.
(vi) Scaling may, to a limited extent, be successful in eliminating
the general variation which exists from examiner to examiner,
but not a solution to solve examiner variability arising from the
‘hawk-dove’ effect (strict/liberal valuation).”
F 15. Moreover, in para 46, this Court observed that the materials
placed before it did not disclose that the Commission or any expert
body had kept the above factors in mind for deciding to introduce
the system of scaling. In fact, in the said paragraph this Court had
observed as follows: (Sanjay Singh5 , SCC p. 751)
G “46. … We have already demonstrated the anomalies/
absurdities arising from the scaling system used. The
Commission will have to identify a suitable system of evaluation,
if necessary by appointing another Committee of Experts. Till
such new system is in place, the Commission may follow the
moderation system set out in para 23 above with appropriate
H modifications.”
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 93
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

16. In Sanjay Singh5 an earlier decision of this Court approving A
the scaling method i.e. U.P. Public Service Commission v.
Subhash Chandra Dixit 12 to a similar examination was also
noticed. In para 48 of the judgment in Sanjay Singh5 it was held
that the scaling system adopted in Subhash Chandra Dixit12
received this Court’s approval as the same was adopted by the
B
Commission after an in-depth expert study and that the approval
of the scaling method by this Court in Subhash Chandra Dixit12
has to be confined to the facts of that case.
17. Finally, in para 51 of the Report in Sanjay Singh5 the Court
took note of the submission made on behalf of the Commission
that it is not committed to any particular system and “will adopt a C
different or better system if the present system is found to be
defective” (SCC p. 754).
18. In Sanjay Singh5 the Court was considering the validity of
the declaration of the results of the examination conducted by the
Public Service Commission under the U.P. Judicial Service Rules D
by adoption of the scaling method. This, according to this Court,
ought not to have been done inasmuch as the scaling system is
more appropriate to an examination in which the candidates are
required to write the papers in different subjects whereas in the
examination in question all the papers were common and E
compulsory. To come to the aforesaid conclusion, this Court had
necessarily to analyse the detailed parameters inherent in the
scaling method and then to reach its conclusions with regard to
the impact of the adoption of the method in the examination in
question before recording the consequences that had resulted on
application of the scaling method. The details in this regard have F
already been noticed (Sanjay Singh case5, paras 45 and 46) (in
paras 14 and 15 herein).
19. The entirety of the discussion and conclusions in Sanjay
Singh5 was with regard to the question of the suitability of the
scaling system to an examination where the question papers were G
compulsory and common to all candidates. The deficiencies and
shortcomings of the scaling method as pointed out and extracted
above were in the above context. But did Sanjay Singh5 lay
down any binding and inflexible requirement of law with regard to
adoption of the scaling method to an examination where the H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A candidates are tested in different subjects as in the present
examination? Having regard to the context in which the conclusions
were reached and opinions were expressed by the Court it is
difficult to understand as to how this Court in Sanjay Singh5
could be understood to have laid down any binding principle of
law or directions or even guidelines with regard to holding of
B
examinations; evaluation of papers and declaration of results by
the Commission. What was held, in our view, was that scaling is a
method which was generally unsuitable to be adopted for
evaluation of answer papers of subjects common to all candidates
and that the application of the said method to the examination in
C question had resulted in unacceptable results. Sanjay Singh5 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 where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is
the only available option. We are unable to find any declaration of
law or precedent or principle in Sanjay Singh5 to the above effect
D
as has been canvassed before us on behalf of the appellants. 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 syllabus.
20. We cannot understand the law to be imposing the requirement
E of adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and
scaling to others. Both are, at best, opinions, exercise of which
requires an in-depth consideration of questions that are more
suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public examinations
involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task
F which defies an instant solution by adoption of any singular process
or by a straitjacket formula. Not only examiner variations and
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 examination format is one such fine issue that
G was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh5. 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 of inter-subject evaluation of answer
papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in
H different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 95
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

questions and, may be, several others not identified herein are A
required to be considered, which questions, by their very nature
should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including, the Public
Service Commissions. The fact that such bodies including the
Commissions have erred or have acted in less than a responsible
manner in the past cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the
B
judicial power which by its very nature will have to be understood
to be, normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide
exercise of power.”
38. In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj
Kumar Yadav and another15, the process of selection comprised of
preliminary examination in General Studies and one optional subject, C
whereas, the main written examination was to consist of four compulsory
papers i.e. two in General Studies and one paper each in Hindi and
English essay. The Public Service Commission had adopted “Scaling of
Marks” at the preliminary as well as the main written examination. A
Bench of two Judges of this Court applied the law laid down by this D
Court in Sanjay Singh5 and found that scaling method could not have
been adopted for compulsory subjects. However, considering the fact
that the directions issued by the High Court would result in displacement
of a number selected candidates and alteration of merit list causing serious
prejudice to those appointed and working for last few years, the relief
was not granted. The relevant discussion is to be found in paragraphs 13 E
and 15:-
“13. In the PCS Examination, 2004 and the Backlog Examination,
2004 the candidates had to take part in the main written
examinations which consisted of four compulsory subjects and
two optional subjects. The compulsory subjects were common to F
all candidates and the two optional subjects were to be chosen
from the available 33 subjects as mentioned in the advertisements.
As per the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Singh case5, the
Commission could have followed the scaling method only for the
optional subjects and not for the compulsory subjects. However, G
it is clear from the submissions made on behalf of the appellant in
the High Court that scaling method was followed even for
compulsory subjects. We approve the findings of the High Court
that the evaluation of the PCS and Backlog Recruitment
15
(2018) 3 SCC 706 H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A Examinations, 2004 was contrary to the judgment of this Court in
Sanjay Singh case5.
15. It is settled law that in certain situations, on account of
subsequent events, the final relief granted by this Court may not
be the natural consequence of the ratio decidendi of its judgment.
B In such situations, the relief can be moulded by the Court in order
to do complete justice in the matter. It is relevant to note the fact
that Sanjay Singh case5 was also made prospective in operation
and this Court declined to interfere with the selections already
made in that case on the basis that relief can be moulded. In the
instant case, the examinations were conducted by the appellant
C on the basis of the pattern being followed by them since 1996. At
the time when the examinations were conducted, a judgment of
this Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash
Chandra Dixit12 approving the scaling method adopted by the
Commission held the field. Moreover, the selected candidates were
D appointed on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court in
2007 and they have been working continuously since then. There
are no allegations of any irregularities or malpractices in the conduct
of the said examinations. The candidates who participated in the
examinations cannot be found fault with for the error committed
by the appellant in adopting the scaling method. In view of the
E above, we do not deem it fit to disturb the appointments made
pursuant to the selections in the examinations conducted in 2004.”
39. In the backdrop of these decisions, what is of importance in
the instant matters is the fact that more than 6.3 lakh applicants had
submitted online application forms whose candidature was tested in
F written examinations held in 29 different batches over 12 days. The
cases dealt with by this Court did not deal with the fact situation akin to
that which arises in the instant matters. In the aforesaid decisions the
number of candidates was not quite large (4270 in Subhash Chandra
Dixit12, 51524 and 5748 in preliminary and main examinations respectively
G in Sanjay Singh5 and about 3000 in Mahinder Kumar13). Further, these
decisions dealt with “single examination” for the concerned papers or
subjects and the variability was either with regard to the examiners or in
the circumstances arising from different optional subjects.
40. Cases of single examination where there are multiple number
H of examiners may call for moderation to be adopted by the examiner-in-
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 97
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

chief or such body constituted for the purposes. On the contrary, scaling A
of marks has been accepted to be an appropriate method where
candidates are tested in different subjects. As noticed by this Court in
Sanjay Singh5, a candidate having secured 70% marks in “Mathematics”
cannot be said to be on an equal footing as against the candidate who
had secured 70% marks in “English”. As against examiner variability in
B
the same or compulsory examination, the subject variability was thus
found to be a good ground to adopt “Scaling of Marks” as a method to
put all the candidates on an even keel.
41. In the instant cases, we are however concerned with a
dimension which had not been considered earlier, namely variability on
account of the fact that the candidates were tested on different dates C
over 12 days through different sets of question papers. The 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 D
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.
42. As found by this Court in Sunil Kumar14, the decision inSanjay
5
Singh cannot be said to have laid down an inflexible rule that Scaling of E
Marks can never be adopted. As a matter of fact, though, a Bench of
three Judges of this Court noticed the earlier decision in Sanjay Singh5,
it found the approach of the High Court in “Scaling of Marks” even in
the same examination to be appropriate in Mahinder Kumar13so as to
eliminate every scope for variation in the assessment of answers and
award of marks valued by different valuers. The concerned provisions F
namely, clause (iv) of Para 9 of the advertisement and last paragraph of
amended Rule 7, were construed to be adequate to empower and permit
the High Court to adopt “scaling of marks”.
43. On lines similar to Rule 7 considered in Mahinder Kumar13,
the clause “Detailed procedure for written examination shall be G
determined by the Board and will be displayed on its own website” as
appearing in Rule 15(b), specifically empowered the Board to devise or
determine the procedure. With deletion of Appendix-3 and specific
empowerment in Rule 15(b), the Board could have multiple examinations
instead of one single examination. By very nature of such empowerment H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A and in the backdrop of conducting an examination for more than 6 lakh
candidates, the Board was entitled to adopt the process of ‘scaling of
marks’ or ‘normalization’. Given the facts and circumstances, the process
of ‘scaling of marks’ or normalization was inevitable in the instant matter
and was necessarily required to be undertaken. This aspect of the matter
is accepted by the learned counsel for the respondents but in their
B
submission the appropriate stage for application of normalization would
be at Rule 15(e) level.
44. According to the learned Additional Advocate General and
the learned counsel appearing for the candidates whose names figured
in the select list prepared by the Board, the stage at which normalization
C
was required to be applied was at Rule 15 (b) level. In their submission,
if the basic idea was to put all candidates on an even and equal parameter
through the process of normalization and, if the scoring in the written
examination was to be the main determining criteria for selection, the
normalization had to be applied at the initial stage itself.
D
On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the original
writ petitioners, who found themselves to be disqualified for having
secured less than 50% marks after normalization, the application of
normalization had to be at the stage of preparation of the final merit list.
It was submitted that regardless whether the candidate had obtained
E less than 50% “normalized score” in a subject or subjects, he would still
be part of the final merit list as he had already secured 50% “raw marks”
in each of the subjects.
45. It is true that the written examination, subject to the qualifying
facets such as Scrutiny of Documents, Physical Standard Test and
F Physical Efficiency Test, is now the determining criteria. Going by the
plain language of the concerned provisions, what is clear is both provisions
i.e. Rule 15(b) and 15(e) refer to the expression ‘marks’. Rule 15(b) of
Recruitment Rules requires every candidate to obtain minimum 50%
marks in each of the subjects and states, “candidates failing to obtain
50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be eligible for
G
recruitment”. Rule 15(e) requires the Board to prepare a select list of
each category of candidates, “on the basis of marks obtained by each
candidate in written examination under clause (b)”. The provisions do
not, on the plain language employed, demand different yardstick or
principle to be adopted.
H
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 99
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

46. If we construe the expression ‘marks’ in Rules 15(b) and A
15(e) to be ‘raw marks’ at both the stages that will go against the very
basic idea which calls for applicability of ‘scaling of marks’ or
‘normalization’ because of the variability arising from multiple
examinations. Thus, if ‘raw marks’ is to be the basis at both the stages,
the candidates would never be tested on an equal footing or basis. This
B
would, therefore, call for either of the following two alternatives:-
Either to consider expressions ‘marks’ in both these provisions to
be marks after the adoption of normalization, or ‘normalized score’, or
to accept the course suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents
and construe expression ‘marks’ in Rule 15(b) to be ‘raw marks’ and
apply normalization at Rule 15(e) stage only to consider inter se merit C
position.
47. However, if the submission advanced by the learned counsel
for respondents is accepted, it will lead to incongruities on three counts.
It may, as well, lead to a situation where a person, in the final D
analysis i.e. after the ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’ is adopted,
may have failed to secure more than 50% “normalized score” in a subject
or subjects and yet he will be part of the Select List.
Secondly, those who may have secured more than 50% ‘normalized
score’ but less than 50% ‘raw marks’ will be out of reckoning as they E
would not be allowed to go beyond Rule 15(b) stage.
Lastly, such a course will necessarily imply that the expression
“Candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above subject
shall not be eligible for recruitment” [as appearing in Rule 15(b)] will
have to be treated differently as against the preparation of a select list F
[in terms of Rule 15(e)] “on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate
in written examination under clause (b)”.
48. It is relevant to note that the ineligibility referred to in Rule
15(b) is as against ‘recruitment’. The criteria for eligibility is not just
confined to the stages upto 15(c) and 15(d) but must be fulfilled all through
G
i.e. upto recruitment. Rule 15(e) makes specific and clear reference to
- marks obtained by each candidate in written examination under clause
(b). The verb used is ‘obtain’ at both the places i.e. in Rule 15(b) and in
Rule 15(e). At both the stages the marks ‘obtained’ in written
examinations referable to clause (b), are the relevant criteria for (i)
being eligible for recruitment in terms of Rule 15(b) and for (ii) preparing H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A the select list under Rule 15(e). Adopting a different yardstick as
suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents will certainly lead
to incongruent situations as stated above.
49. It is true that the same expression appearing at different places
in a statute has, on some occasions, been construed by this Court
B differently, depending upon the context in which such expressions appear.
For instance, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v.
Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd.16, this Court relied upon the earlier
decision of this Court in Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. The District
Magistrate, Thana17 and found the expression “Articles of things” could
not be assigned the same meaning as was used in Fifth Schedule to
C Sections 32A and 80J of the Income Tax Act. The discussion on the
point was:
“18. It was then urged by the learned counsel for the assessee
that the Act uses the words “articles or things” at several places
and the meaning assigned to them in other places of the Act should
D also be assigned under Section 32-A and Section 80-J of the Act.
The Fifth Schedule of the Act sets out a list of items which are
treated as articles or things manufactured or produced for the
purpose of Section 33(1)(b) of the Act. In this Schedule we find
that processed seeds which are products of plants have been
E shown as “articles or things”. Similarly, Item (30) of the said
Schedule is “fish”, which is an animate object, but it has been
shown under the heading “articles or things”. On the strength of
the meaning assigned to articles and things in the Fifth Schedule
of the Act, it was urged that hatching of chicks is also production
of “articles or things”. It is, no doubt, true that processed seeds
F and fish have been described under the heading “articles or things”
in the Fifth Schedule. Generally, the same words in a statute have
the same meaning whenever used in that statute, but they may
also have a different meaning in different provisions of the same
statute. In Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. Distt. Magistrate,
G Thana17 :
“But it is contended by Mr Chatterjee that the expression
‘grounds on which the order has been made’ occurring in

16
(1999) 3 SCC 632
17
H (1956) SCR 644
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 101
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Section 3(3) is, word for word, the same as in Section 7, that A
the same expression occurring in the same statute must receive
the same construction, that what Section 3 requires is that on
the making of an order for detention, the authority is to formulate
the grounds for that order, and send the same to the State
Government under Section 3(3) and to the detenu under Section
B
7, and that therefore it was not sufficient merely to send to the
State Government a report of the materials on which the order
was made. Reliance was placed on the following passage
in Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes, Edn. 10, p. 522:
‘It is, at all events, reasonable to presume that the same
meaning is implied by the use of the same expression in C
every part of an Act.’
The rule of construction contended for by the petitioners is
well settled, but that is only one element in deciding what the
true import of the enactment is, to ascertain which it is
necessary to have regard to the purpose behind the particular D
provision and its setting in the scheme of the statute. ‘The
presumption’, says Craies, ‘that the same words are used in
the same meaning is however very slight, and it is proper “if
sufficient reason can be assigned, to construe a word in one
part of an Act in a different sense from that which it bears in E
another part of an Act”’. (Statute Law, Edn. 5, p. 159) And
Maxwell, on whose statement of the law the petitioners rely,
observes further on:
‘But the presumption is not of much weight. The same word
may be used in different senses in the same statute, and F
even in the same section.’ “
19. The same word, if read in the context of one provision of the
Act, may mean or convey one meaning and another in a different
context. The legislature in its wisdom had chosen to place
processed seeds and fish under the heading articles or things in G
the Fifth Schedule as the legislature is competent to give artificial
meaning to any word. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
meaning assigned to the words “articles or things” in the Fifth
Schedule cannot be assigned to the words “articles or things”
used in Sections 32-A and 80-J of the Act.
H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A 20. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon several decisions
under the Sales Tax Acts, Central Excise Act and the provisions
of other statutes for the contention that “article” includes goods
and goods could be an animate object and, viewed in this light, the
hatching of eggs would come within the meaning of the word
“produce” which is of a wider import than the word “manufacture”.
B
No doubt, several Sales Tax Acts have included animate things
for the purpose of levying tax on sales. But the meaning assigned
to a particular word in a particular statute cannot be imported to a
word used in a different statute.
21. We, therefore, reject the submissions of the learned counsel
C for the assessee. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the
decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case
of CIT v. Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd.18 does not lay
down the correct view of law, whereas we approve the decision
of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Deejay
D Hatcheries 19.
22. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the assessee is
neither an industrial undertaking nor is it engaged in the business
of producing “articles or things”. Consequently, the assessee is
not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32-A of the
E Act and deductions under Sections 80-HH, 80-HHA, 80-I and
80-J of the Act.”
50. Thus, 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.
F 51. If we accept the interpretation sought to be placed by the
learned counsel for the respondents it would result in a situation where a
person having ‘normalized score’ of 50% marks or above may be out of
reckoning because his raw marks were less than 50%; and, there are
sizable number of such persons. At the same time, someone whose
‘normalized score’ was well below 50% may still be part of the Select
G List because his “raw marks” were above 50%.
52. If the intent is to see that every candidate must have obtained
minimum 50% marks and those ‘candidates failing to obtain 50% marks

18
(1988) 174 ITR 231 (AP)
19
H (1995) 211 ITR 652 (Bom)
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI 103
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

in each of the above subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment’ as A
mandated by Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules or by paragraph 9 of the
notification dated 28.6.2017, even going by the context and purposive
interpretation, the expression ‘marks’ must be given the same meaning
at both the stages; and the only possible meaning that can be ascribed is
‘normalized score’. Adopting different standards as suggested by the
B
learned counsel for the respondents would result in anomalous situations.
Such anomaly will however stand removed if the expression ‘marks’
appearing in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) stages is construed in the same light
and as ‘normalized score’. The submissions advanced by the learned
Additional Advocate General and other learned counsel for the appellants,
therefore, merit acceptance. C
53. In conclusion, the 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. The power exercised by the Board was well within
its jurisdiction and as emphasized by the High Court there were no D
allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at any juncture of the
process. One more facet of the matter is the note of caution expressed
by this Court in paragraph 20 of its decision in Sunil Kumar and others
v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others.14 As observed by
this Court, the decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public
Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless E
instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out.
54. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the challenge
raised on behalf of the State and allowing these appeals and setting
aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court presently under
challenge. The results declared by the Board on 28th February 2019 F
shall now be given effect as early as possible.
55. It must, however, be observed that the State and the Board
had permitted candidates from both the categories i.e. who had secured
more than 50% ‘raw marks’ as well as those who had secured more
than 50% ‘normalized score’, as detailed in paragraph 5 hereinabove. G
Such candidates had participated in all the further stages, namely, in
physical standard test, physical efficiency test, though some of them
from the first category were finally disqualified on the ground that they
had secured less than 50% ‘normalized score’. The State may consider
making some allowance in favor of such subsequently disqualified H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.

A candidates either by granting some weightage and/or age relaxation in
the next selection.
56. Before parting, we must acknowledge the valuable assistance
provided by all the learned counsel who appeared for the parties in the
instant matters.
B The appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms without any order as
to costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H