AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners in these writ petitions are applicants to the post of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and
Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR), which are notified by Ext.P1 notification dated 21.07.2018. They contend that the selection is liable to be
conducted on the basis of a Computer Based Examination as well as Physical Standard Test, Physical Efficiency Test and Detailed Medical
Examination. The notification specifies that the results will be declared based on the performance of the candidates in the Computer Based
Examination and that the Physical Standard Test, Physical Efficiency Test and Detailed Medical Examination will be of qualifying nature.
It is stated that Sub-clause XIII of Clause 11 of Ext.P1 mandates that the cut off marks in the Computer Based Examination for eligibility to
selection will be 35% for General and Ex-Serviceman and 33% for SC/ST/OBC. It is contended that after the notification was issued in July, 2018 and
the Computer Based Examination was notified for 11.02.2019, Ext.P2 general order was issued with regard to normalization of scores of candidates
for the examinations which are conducted in multi-shifts to take into account variation in the difficulty levels. It is stated that Ext.P3 corrigendum was
also issued stating that the Computer Based Examination pursuant to Ext.P1 will be conducted on different dates between 11.02.2019 and 11.03.2019
and that the normalization of scores as provided in Ext.P2 would apply to the said examinations as well.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they had acquired the cut off marks required as provided in Ext.P1 and that the application of
the normalization procedure to a selection which was already ongoing is completely unjustified. Relying on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in
Atul Kumar Dwivedi and others v. State of U.P. and others [2019 (10) ADJ 214], it is contended that a normalization procedure which is introduced
after notification has been issued cannot be applied to an ongoing selection. The decisions of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh and others v. U.P. Public
Commission, Allahabad and others [AIR 2007 SC 950 ]and of a Division Bench of this Court in Keshav Mohan v. University of Kerala [2009 (4)
KLT 573] and of the High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar and Others v. Union of India [2017 (6) SLR 781] are also relied on.
It is submitted that due to the normalization procedure, several persons, who had acquired lesser raw marks than the petitioners, had been included
in the short list for the conduct of the further tests and medical examinations, as is evident from the details uploaded on the website of the 2nd
respondent on 05.07.2019. It is contended that the petitioners, who were qualified on the basis of the raw marks secured by them, have been
eliminated from the selection procedure only because of the normalization procedure which had been brought into effect after the selections had
commenced and that the entire exercise is vitiated.
A counter affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. It is submitted that since the selection of a large number of
candidates is under challenge in the writ petitions, the writ petitions which are filed without impleading any of such candidates even in a representative
capacity is not maintainable. It is further submitted that 54,953 tentative vacancies were initially advertised and the number of vacancies was
subsequently revised to 58,373. It is submitted that a total number of 1739 vacancies were available in the State of Kerala. It is stated that about 52.4
lakh candidates had appeared in the computer based examination and therefore the said examination had to be conducted in multiple shifts from
11.02.2019 to 11.03.2019. The examination was conducted on 18 days in 54 shifts, about 30.41 lakh candidates appeared for the examination. It is
stated that since the question papers for the different shifts were different, there was difference in the difficulty levels of the different shifts.
Grievances and complaints had been received by the Commission in this regard. To address the issue of unfair competition, the Commission decided to
normalize the score of candidates for the examinations conducted in multiple shifts. It is stated that the process of normalization is a statistical and
scientific method for moderation or scaling of marks depending upon the difficulty levels of different shifts and Ext.P2 notice was uploaded on the
website of the Commission intimating such normalization. A corrigendum was also issued as Ext.P3 well before the start of the computer based
examination intimating the normalization and mentioning that the shortlisting of candidates will be done on the basis of the normalized marks scored by
the candidates. It is stated that the normalization of scores was uniformly applied to all candidates and there was no change in the criteria of selection
or the minimum cut off marks prescribed. Accordingly, the results were declared on 20.06.2019 and 5,34,052 candidates were shortlisted for the
PET/PST. Therefore, only candidates in the ratio of 10 times the number of vacancies subject to the condition of having scored minimum of 35% /
33% marks in the computer based examinations had been shortlisted for the PET/PST. Subsequently, it was noticed that the final answer keys of 13
questions was wrong and the result of the computer based examination was amended and revised result was declared on 12.09.2019.
In the revised result, 5,35,169 candidates were declared qualified for the next stage. For the State of Kerala 2088 female candidates were
shortlisted against 215 vacancies and 12,380 male candidates were shortlisted against 1524 vacancies. It is stated that the petitioners would be eligible
for inclusion in the shortlist only on the basis of the normalised scores obtained by them in the computer based examinations. It is contended that the
petitioners, who do not have a case that they fall within the 10 times number of vacancies on account of their performance in the computer based
examination, would have absolutely no claim for inclusion in the shortlist and the contentions raised are absolutely without merits.
The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court inS iraj K.H v. High Court of Kerala [2006 (6)
SCC 395] to contend that it is open to the authority conducting the selection to prescribe benchmarks for a written test or oral test in order to achieve
the purpose of getting the best available candidates. It is further submitted that the appropriate method for bringing about uniformity in evaluation is a
matter, which is completely within the competence of the Staff Selection Commission and the method adopted by the selection board is not subject to
judicial review, unless mala fides are pleaded and established. It is contended that shortlisting of candidates was absolutely essential in a selection of
this nature which involved large number of candidates and that the process of normalization or scaling of marks is a permissible procedure which
ensures fairness and non discrimination in the matter of selection.
Relying on the decisions cited by the petitioners themselves, the learned ASGI would contend that the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) has also
clearly held that scaling of marks is a permissible procedure in a selection where examinations are conducted on different days in different shifts and
with different question papers.
I have considered the contentions advanced on either side at considerable length. The contention of the petitioners is that the normalization of
marks which does not find a place in the notification published by the Staff Selection Commission cannot be put into operation for the ongoing
selection.
Having considered the contentions advanced in the counter affidavit, I find that the selection was a nation wide procedure in which more than 30
lakh candidates participated in the computer based examinations. It is stated that the examination was conducted on 18 days in 54 shifts. Since it was
found that there were discrepancies in the level of difficulty of the papers in the different shifts, the Staff Selection Commission found it necessary to
adopt a normalization procedure. Such procedure was duly notified and a corrigendum was also issued to the selection notice. In the absence of any
allegations of mala fides, I am of the clear opinion that the modalities for conduct of the selection and for the assessment of candidates are matters
which are well within the powers of the Staff Selection Commission and a normalization procedure would not normally be open to judicial review. The
reliance placed by the petitioners on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court are completely misconceived, in view of the fact that the said case
involved a case where specific criteria and cut off marks prescribed by the Recruitment Rule itself, which had been violated by the Public Service
Commission while conducting the selection.
The decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh and others (supra) also considers the issue of scaling of marks of persons who secured very high
marks and the equalization of marks of those who secured lower marks. That is not the issue in these writ petitions. What is raised in these writ
petitions is the legality of a normalization of marks which is made applicable to all the participants in the computer based examinations by applying a
uniform formula. I am of the opinion that the issue with regard to a normalization which has been applied to the entire selection procedure cannot be
successfully called into question by the petitioners, especially without impleading any of the shortlisted candidates in the writ petitions. The formula or
the method by which the normalization has been carried out by the Staff Selection Commission, according to me, does not require an examination at
the hands of this Court in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
In the result, the prayers sought for cannot be granted. The writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the cut off marks have been lowered after final hearing of this writ petition. Needless to say, the lowering of cut
off marks, if any, shall apply across the board. In view of the participation of the petitioners in the further selection on the basis of interim orders of
this Court, such of the petitioners who have secured the marks required for inclusion in the shortlist shall be eligible for being considered for selection.