In Brief
The U.P. Public Service Commission applied a scaling method to both compulsory and optional subjects in the P.C.S. Examination, 2004 and Backlog Examination, 2004 to award marks to candidates, reducing some candidates' marks. The High Court had quashed the results as arbitrary and contrary to an earlier Supreme Court judgment (Sanjay Singh) which held that moderation—not scaling—is appropriate for examiner variability with compulsory papers. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that scaling for compulsory subjects was arbitrary but set aside the direction to redeclare results. Since appointed candidates had worked for ten years in good faith reliance on an interim order and prior judicial approval of scaling, disturbing appointments would cause substantial injustice. The Court moulded relief to avoid displacement of innocent appointed candidates while upholding the legal principle that the method was improper."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.