SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusTHE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.

                       [2016] 12 S.C.R. 1070


A               SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.
                                 v.
                  THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE
                 COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.
B
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 8606-8610Of2015)
                        OCTOBER 14, 2015
           [RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
c       ServicE~ law: Competitive Examination -      Whether the
    Court in Sanjay Singh had laid down any principle or direction
    regarding the methodology that has to be adopted by the
    Commission while assessing the answer-scripts of the
D   candidates in a public examination and specifically whether
    any such principle or direction has been laid down governing
    public examinations involving different subjects in which the
    candidates are to be tested - Held: This Court in Sanjay
    Singh could not be understood to have laid down any binding
E   principle of law or directions or even guidelines with regard
    to holding of examinations; evaluation of papers and
    declaration of results. by the Commission - What was held,
    was that scaling is a method which was generally unsuitable
    to be adopted for evaluation of answer papers of subjects
F   common to all candidates and that the application of the said
    method to the examination in question had resulted in
     unacceptabli~ results - Sanjay Singh did not decide that to
    such an examination i.e. where the papers are common, the
    system of moderation must be applied and to an examination
G    where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is the only
     available option - The decision, therefore, has to be
     understood to be confined to the facts of the case, rendered
     upon a consideration of the relevant Service Rules
H   prescribing a particular syllabus.
                                  1070
     SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE                  1071
                   COMMISSION

Judicial review: Public Service Commission - Decisions by A
- Scope of interference - Held: In the instant case, absence
of plea of malafide and uniform application of principles
adopted by the Commission - Not an appropriate case for
exercise of power ofjudicial review.
                                                              B
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
     HELD: 1. In the judgment Sanjay Singh, this Court
was· considering the validity of the selections held for
appointment in the U.P. Judicial Service on the basis of      c
a competitive examination in which the Rules prescribed
five (05) papers all of which were compulsory for all the
candidates. There is no dispute that the U.P. Public
Service Commission in the said case had scaled down
the marks awardect. to the candidates by following the        D
scaling method. This Court, after holding that the Judicial
Service Rules which governed the selection did not
permit the scaled down marks to be taken into
consideration, went into the further question of the
correctness of the adoption of scaling method to an           E
examination where the papers were compulsory and
common to all the candidates. This Court in Sanjay Singh
could not be understood to have laid down any binding
principle of law or directions or even guidelines with
regard to holding of examinations; evaluation of papers       F
and declaration of re&ults by the Commission. The
decision, therefore, has to be understood to be confined
to the facts of the case, rendered upon a consideration
of the relevant Service Rules prescribing a particular
                                                              0
syllabus. [Paras 14, 20) [1080 D - G; 1084 C - D; G]
     2. The requirement of adoption of moderation of
marks to a particular kind of examination and scaling to
others are, at best, opinions, exercise of which requires
an in-depth consideration of questions that are more          H
1072      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 12 S.C.R.

 A suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public
   examinations involving wide and varied subjects/
   disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant
   solution by adoption of any singular process or by a
   strait jacket formula. Not only examiner variations and
 8 variation in award of marks in different subjects are
   issues to be answered, there are several other questions
   that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the
   strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary
 c examination format is one such fine issue that was
   coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh. A conscious
   choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the
   time of his entry to the University thereby restricting his
   choice of papers in a public examination; the standards
 0 of inter subject evaluation of answer papers and
   issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in,
   different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration:
   All such questions and, may be, several others not
   identified herein are required to be considered, which
 E 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
 F free exercise of the judicial power which by its very nature
    will have to be understood to be, normally, limited to
    instances of arbitrary or malafide exercise of power. In
    the instant case, the contempt proceedings against the
    Public Service Commission for violation of order dated
 G
    261h August, 2011 in C.W.J.C. N0.3892 of2011 had failed.
    The Public Service Commission made all attempts to
    gather relevant information from the Union Public
    Service Commission and other State Public Service
 H Commissions to find out the practice followed in the
    other States. The information received was fully
     SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE                    1073
                   COMMISSION

discussed in the light of the particulars of the                 A
examination in question and thereafter a conscious
d~cision was taken by the resolution dated 15th January,
2013, details of which have been already extracted. In
the light of the above and what has been found to be the
true ratio of the decision in Sanjay Singh, it cannot be         B
held that in the present case the action taken by the
Bihar Public Service Commission deviated either from
the directions of the High Court (dated 261h:August, 2011
in C.W.J.C. No. 3892 of2011) or the decision of this Court       c
in Sanjay Singh. Also, the absence of any plea of malafide
and the uniform application of the principles adopted by
the Commission by its resolution dated 151h January,
2013 would lead to the conclusion tha~ the present would
not be an appropriate case for exercise of the power of          D
judicial review. The absence of reasons in the said
resolution cannot justify such interference when the
decision, on scrutiny, does not disclose any gross or
palpable unreasonableness. [Paras 21, 22] [1084 H; 1085
A-H, 1086 A-D]                                                   E

    Sanjay Singh and Anr. · vs. U.P. Public Service
    Commission, Allahabad and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 720:
    2007 (1) SCR 235;U.P. Public Service Commission
    vs, Subhash Chandra Dixit (2003) 12 SCC 701:                 F
    2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 210 - referred to.
                   Case Law Reference
  2007 (1) SCR 235               referred to.      Para 4
  2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 210        referred to.     Para 17        G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
8606-8610 of 2015.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2014 of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case H
Nos. 9674, 9574, 8331, 8554, 8554 of 2013 and
1074         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2880 of 2013 in Civil Writ
   Jurisdiction Case NO. 3892 of 2011.

           With C.A. Nos. 8611 and 8612 of 2015.

           P. P. Rao, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr.Advs., Ravi Chandra
 B
       Prakash, Durga Dutt, Purushottam S. Tripathi, Mukesh Kr.
       Singh, Swarenendu Chatterjee, M. P. Srivignesh, Ananya
       Sarkar, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Ranjan Kumar, 0. P. Bhadani,
       Rakesh Kumar Singh, AshokAnand, Chinmay Deshpande,
 c     Advs. for the Appellants.

       Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Ratnakar Dash, Arvind Varma, Sr.
   Ad vs., Navin Prakash, Meetu Singh, Bhumika Chowdary,
   Kabir Ghosh, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Varsha Poddar, H.
   P. Sahu, K. K. Jaipuriar, Quaiser Ali, Aditi Kochhar, Kopal
 D Shrivastava,Abhishek Choudhary,Atulesh Kumar, Gaurav Kr.,
   Anurag Ojha, Satya Mitra, Shekhar Kumar, Rajeev Narayan,
   Jannie Joy, Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Shefali Jain, Anil Kumar
   Tandale, Kulbir Singh Malik, Dr. Sushi! Balwade, Neeraj Kr.
   Gupta, Anil Kumar, Ad vs., for the Respondents.
 E
           The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          RANJAN GOGOi, J.1. Leave granted.

  F        2.Applications for lmpleadment/ Intervention are allowed.

           3. The refusal of the High Court to interfere with the result
       of the 53rd to 55th Combined (Mains) Competitive
       Examinations, 2011 held by the Bihar Public Service
 G     Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") in
       May-June, 2012 is the subject matter of challenge in the
       present appeals.

            4. The principal basis on which interference of the High
  H    Court was sought is that in finalizing the results of the
       Examination the Commission had moderated the marks
        SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE                       1075
             COMMISSION [RANJAN GOGOi, J.f

awarded by the examiners who had scrutinized the answer-              A
sheets of the candidates instead of scaling down the said
marks which process was required to be undergone in view of
the fact that the examinations, so far as the optional papers
are concerned, were in different subjects. It is contended that
the course adopted was contrary to the earlier order of the           8
High Court dated 261h August, 2011 passed in a proceeding
registered and numbered as C.W.J.C. No.3892 of 2011
besides being contrary to the law laid down by this Court in
Sanjay Singh and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service                      c
Commission, Allahabad and Another1•

     5. To appreciate the first contention advanced the operative
part of the order dated 26 1h August, 2011 passed by the High
Court in the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. N0.3892 of 2011
                                                                      D
may be reproduced hereinbelow:

       "16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent
       Nos. 2 and 3 would be well-advised to frame Rules, may
       be after supplanting the existing Rules with respect to
       conduct of examinations, incorporating therein the system E
       of moderation, as well as the system of scaling of raw
       marks. The Commission shall draw guidelines from the
       judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh Vs.
       U.P.PSC (supra), as well as the Rules of the Union Public
       Service Commission, and other Public Service F
       Commissions, etc. This Court will be pleased if the entire
       process is completed within a period of six months from
       today. Till then, the judgment of the Supreme Court in ·
       Sanjay Singh (supra), will guide the affairs of the G
       Commission, with respect to all the examinations where
       the candidate has the choice of optional subjects, in so
       far as these two concepts are concerned."
       6. It is contended that the method adopted i.e. moderation
                                                                      H
1
    (2007) 3 sec   no
1076         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A     is in clear breach of aboye directions issued by the High Court
       in its earlier order which Is also between the same parties. No
       deviation, therefrom, by the Public Service Commission was
       permissible.

 B         7. Insofar as the decision in Sanjay Singh (supra) is
     concerned, it is urged that this Court had clearly and
     categorically held the system of moderation is applicable only
     to cases where the candidates take a common examination
     i.e. where there are no optional subjects and all the papers in
 C which the candidates appear are the same. In a situation where
     the subjects are different, according to the learned counsel, it
     has been held in Sanjay Singh (supra) that it is the scaling
     method which has to be upheld and in such situations the
     system of moderation would not be relevant. As the Combined
 D
     Civil Services Examination held by the Public Service
     Commission involved taking of examination by the candidates
      in different subjects/papers, the results declared are vitiated
     as the same has been finalized by following the moderation
 r·: method. This, in short, is the plea advanced on behalf of the
      appellants.

         8. In reply, it is urged on behalf of the Commission that the
    format format of the Civil Services Examination is covered by
 F the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and the Bihar Junior
    Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951. Appendix 'D' thereto·
    lays down the syllabus for the combined competitive
    examination. It is urged that apart from 4 (four) compulsory
    papers, the optional papers are divided into four categories/
 G groups i.e. Groups 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. While Group 'A' deals
    with Literature, Group 'B' deals broadly with Humanities
    subjects whereas Group 'C' deals with Law and Public
  • Administration; Group 'D' deals with Science papers/subjects.
    Under the Rules, apart from the compulsory papers, a
 H candidate has to take three optional papers out of which not
     SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE                     1077
          COMMISSION {RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

more than two papers can be from any one single group. It is     A
pointed out that the above position must be kept in mind while
scrutinizing the action taken by the Commission after the High
Court had passed the orde~ dated 26th August, 2011 in
C.W.J.C. No.3892of2011. It is urged that after the said order
was rendered the Commission had sought information from          B
the Union Public Service Commission as well as from certain
State Public Service Commissions like Karnataka and
Maharashtra. The entire issue including the information
received from the Union Public Service Commission and the        c
State Public Service Commissions, as referred to above, was
discussed in detail in a meeting of the Commission held on
15th January, 2013 and a resolution was adopted that for
evaluation of the answer-sheets of the Combined Competitive
Examination so as to achieve uniformity in the results, the'     D
following procedure would be adopted.

    "(i) The Chief Examiner acts as a coordinator and guide
    for the Examiners working under him and is also respon-
    sible for objectivity and uniformity in evaluation done by   E
    different Examiners.

    (ii) Before the start of evaluation of any subjecU paper,
    the Chief Examiner/ Examiners shall hold a in-depth, de-
    tailed and minute discussion with the Examiners with re- F
    gard to all questions of the question paper and with a pur-
    pose of having uniformity in evaluation, a clear-cut stan-
    dard of evaluation shall be explained with regard to
    through and prescribed answer of each question and pro-
    cess of marking.                                            G

    (iii) The Chief Examiner shall must examine all answer-
    books getting marks of more than 60% (sixty percent) and
    below 30% (thirty percent). At least 15% of evaluated
    answer-books shall be examined by him.                   H
1078         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A          8. Afte'f due consideration of above facts, it is the opinion
       of the Commission that the uniformity in evaluation has been
       ensured by adopting the method of moderation in the evalua-
       tion of answer-books of different subjects/papers of 53rd to 55th
       Combined Joint (Main) Competitive Examinations. Therefore,
 8     further actions be taken for publication of result of the said
       examinations."
       9. It may be also pointed out in th is regard that the gist of
   the information received from the Union Public Service
 c Commission and the State Public Service Commissions have
   been recorded in the said resolution which is, inter alia, to the
   effect that neither the Commission nor the Karnataka or
   Maharashtra Public Service Commissions had adopted or
   adopts the system of scaling.
 D
          1O. Insofar as the order of the High Court dated 26th August,
     2011 in C.W.J.C. N0.3892of2011 is concerned, it is pointed
     out that with regard to non-implementation of the said directions
     a contempt petition was filed before the High Court which was
  E dismissed by order dated 161h October, 2012. It is urged that
     on a cumulative consideration of the format of the examination;
     the practice followed by the Union Public Service Commission
     and different State Public Service Commissions and other
     relevant facts the Bihar Public Service Commission, by its
  F resolution dated 151h January, 2013, had taken a conscious
     decision details of which have been extracted above. The
     Commission also specifically denies that this Court in Sanjay
     Singh (supra) had laid down any principle of law to the effect
  G that in a public ex:imination involving different subjects the
     scaling method has to be necessarily adopted to bring
      uniformity in the results. It is pointed out that this Court had
      merely observed that scaling is one of the available methods
      which could be apRlied in such situations i.e. where the
  11 examination is in different subjects. It is also pointed out that
      in Sanjay Singh (supra) the difficulties and preconditions
     SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE                     1079
          COMMISSION [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

necessary in the practical application of the principle of scaling A
down had also been noticed. On the basis of the said facts, it
is submitted that there will be no scope for this Court to
understand that any binding principle, direction or guidelines
has been laid down in Sanjay Singh (supra) so as to bind the
Commission to any specific course of action while conducting 8
a public examination, the format of which prescribes different
subjects.

    11. It is furt;her contended on behalf of the Commission
that being an autonomous body the Commission would be C
authorized and competent to take its independent decision,
of course, having due regard to judicial directions and
pronouncements and so long such decisions are taken bona
fide and are not a]bitrary the scope of judicial review to
                                                                  0
scrutinize the decisions of the Commission would be
circumscribed. In this regard it is also pointed out that, ·
admittedly, it is not the case of the appellants-writ petitioners
that any mala fide is attributable to the Public Service
Commission in the conduct of examination and the declaration E
of the results.

     12. Having considered the rival submissions advanced
before us, we are of the view that the question that calls for an
answer in the present case is whether this Court in Sanjay F
Singh (supra) 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 G
public examinations involving different subjects in which the
candidates are to be tested. Closely connected with the
aforesaid question is the extent of the power of judicial review
to scrutinize the decisions taken by another constitutional
authority i.e. the Public Service Commission in the facts of the H
1080       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 12S.C.R.


 A present case.

        13. Before adverting to the aforesaid issue we may briefly
   indicate our views with regard to the order of the High Court
   dated 261h August, 2011 in CWJC No. 3892 of 20911 on the
 B basis of which the action of the Commission is sought to be
   faulted. Reading the operative directions, reproduced
   hereinabove, we fail to find any direction of the High Court
   which would bind the Commission to any particular course of
   action. There is sufficient discernible flexibility in the said order
 C leaving it open for the Commission to modulate its action as
   the facts surrounding the particular examination(s) that is
   involved may require.

         14. We have read and considered the judgment in Sanjay
 D Singh (supra). In the said case, this Court was considering
   the validity of the selections held for appointment in the U.P.
   Judicial Service on the basis of a competitive examination in
   which the Rules prescribed five (05) papers all of which were
   compulsory for all the candidates. There is no dispute that the
 E 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 not permit the
 F 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:
 G
          ''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
 H
          subjects, that is, where candidates take examination in
      SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE                        1081
           COMMISSION [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

     different subjects. To solve the problem of inter se merit      A
     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
                                                                     11
     methods of statistical scoring. Standard score method,
     linear standard score method, normalized equipercentile
     method are some of the recognized methods for scaling."
     (Para 24)

       It was furthermore observed:                                  c
      "Scaling process, whereby raw marks in different
      subjects are adjusted to a common scale, is a
      recognized method of ensuring uniformity inter se among
      the candidates who have taken examinations in different        D
      subjects, as, for example, the Civil Services
      Examination." (Para 25)

     15.After holding as above, this Court, on due consideration
of several published works on the subject, took note of the          E
preconditions, the existence or fulfillment of which, alone, could
ensure an acceptable result if the scaling method is to be
adopted. As in Sanjay Singh (supra) the U.P. Public Service
Commission had not ensured the existence of the said
preconditions the consequential effects in the declaration of        F
the result were found to be unacceptable. It was repeatedly
pointed out by this Court (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 :
                                                                     {j
   "45. We may now summarize the position regarding scaling
   thus:
   (i) Only certain situations warrant adoption of scaling
   techniques.
                                                                     H
   (ii) There are number of methods of statistical scaling,
1082       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A      some simple and some complex. Each method or system
        has its merits and demerits and can be adopted only under
        certain conditions 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
 B
        examiner is approximately the same as the distribution of
        marks in the batch of answer scripts sent to every other
        examiner.
        (iv) In the linear standard method, there is no guarantee
 c      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 the selection process.
 D
         (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
 E       valuation)."
        16. 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
  F paragraph this Court had observed as follows:

           "We have already demonstrated the anomalies/
           absurdities arising from the scaling system used. The
           Commission will have to identify a suitable system of
  G        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 modifications."
           (Para 46)
  H
          17. In Sanjay Singh (supra) an earlier decision of this
         I·.
     .     SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE                    1083
                COMMISSION [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

 Court approving the scaling method i.e. U.P. Public Service A
 Commission Vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit2 to a similar
 examination was also noticed. In paragraph 48 of the judgment
 in Sanjay Singh (supra) it was held that the scaling system
 adopted in Subhash Chandra Dixit (supra) received this
 Court's approval as the same was adopted by the Commission B
 after an indepth expert study and that the approval of the scaling
 method by this Court in Subhash Chandra Dixit(supra) has
 to be confined to the facts of that case.

      18. Finally, in paragraph 51 of the report in Sanjay Singh      C
 (supra) 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 different or better system if the present
 system is found to be defective"
                                      .                               D
      19. In Sanjay Singh (supra) 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 by adoption of the scaling method. This,
 according to this Court, ought not to have been done inasmuch E
 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 compulsory. To come to the F
 aforesaid conclusion, this Court had necessarily to analyze
 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 i[l the examination in question before
 recording the consequences that had resulted on application o
 of the scaling method. The details in this regard have already
 been noticed. (Paras45 and 46)
               .
     20. The entire of the discussion and conclusions in Sanjay
 Singh (supra) was with regard to the question of the suitability H
 2
     (2003) 12     sec ?01
1084       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A of the scaling system to an examination where the question
   papers were 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 Singh (supra) lay down any binding and
 8 inflexible requirement of law with regard to adoption of the
   scaling method to an examination where the candidates are
   tested in different subjects as in the present examination?
   Having regard to the context in which the conclusions were
 c reached and opinions were expressed by the Court it is difficult
   to understand as to how this Court in Sanjay Singh (supra)
   could be understood to have laid down any binding principle
   of law or directions or even guidelines with regard to holding
   of examinations; evaluation of papers and declaration of results
 0 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 thatthe application of the said method to
   the examination in question had resulted in unacceptable
 E results. Sanjay Singh (supra) 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
 F precedent or principle in Sanjay Singh (supra) to the above
    effect 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
 G consideration of the relevant Service Rules prescribing a
    particular syllabus.

       21. We cannot understand the law to be imposing the
   requirement of adoption of moderation to a particul~r kind of
   examination and scaling to others. Both are, at best, opinions,
 H exercise of which requires an indepth consideration of
      SUNIL KUMAR v. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE                        1085
           COMMISSION [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

questions that are more suitable for the experts in the field.       A
Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied
subjects/disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant
solution by adoption of any singular process or by a strait jacket
formula. Not only examiner variations and variation in award
of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there      8
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 was
coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh (supra). A conscious          c
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 different subjects are all relevant      D
areas of consideration. All such questions and, may be, several
others not identified herein are 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       E
or have acted in less than a responsible manner in the past
cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the judicial power
which by its very nature will have to be understood to be,
normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or malafide exercise
of power.                                                             F

     22. To revert. in the instant case, we have noticed that the
contempt proceedings against the Puqlic Service Commission
for violation of order dated 26th August, 2011 in C.W.J.C.
N0.3892 of 2011 had failed. We have also noticed that the G
Public Service Commission made all attempts to gather
relevant information from the Union Public Service
Commission and other State Public Service Commissions to
find out the practice followed in the other States. The
information. received was fully discussed in the light of the H
1086         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A particulars of the examination in question and thereafter a
   conscious decision was taken by the resolution dated 151h
   January, 2013, details of which have been already extracted.
   In the light of the above and what has been found to be the true
   ratio of the decision in Sanjay Singh (supra), we cannot hold
 8 that in the present case the action taken by the Bihar Public
   Service Commission deviates either from the directions of the
   High Court (dated 261hAugust, 2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 3892 of
   2011) or the decision of this Court in Sanjay Singh (supra).
 c Also, the absence of any plea of mala fide and the uniform
   application of the principles adopted by the Commission by
   its resolution dated 151hJanuary, 2013 would lead us to the
   conclusion that the present would not be an appropriate case
   for exercise of the power of judicial review. The absence of
 0 reasons in the aforesaid resolution, on which much stress has
   been laid, by itself, cannot justify such interference when the
   decision, on scrutiny, does not disclose any gross or palpable
    unreasonableness.                                    ·

 E      23. On the aforesaid conclusions that we have reached
   we have to dismiss the appeals. We, therefore, do not consider
   it necessary to go into the question as to whether it was
   necessary for the appellants to implead the selected
   candidates as party respondents to the present proceedings,
 F an issue on which elaborate arguments have been advanced
   and several precedents have been cited at the bar. For the
   same re~sons the weighty arguments advanced by both sides
   on the power of the Court to mould the relief in a given case
   will have to await consideration in a more appropriate case.
 G
            24. Consequently and in the light of the above, the appeals
       are dis missed, however, without any order as to cost. All interim
       orders are vacated.
       Devika Gujral                                    Appeals dismissed.
 H