IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. L.P.A No. 1692 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.9.2011. Ravinder Singh & others --Appellants Versus State of Punjab & others --Respondents 2. L.P.A No. 1694 of 2011 Daljeet Singh --Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellants. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) In view of the common legal and factual background, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. These appeals arise out of judgement dated 24.8.2011 passed by this Court in CWP Nos. 8866, 5302 and 953 of 2011, whereby a direction was issued to the Punjab Public Service Commission to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners as also the material relied upon by them objectively and to take an appropriate policy decision with an abound object to select the best merited persons. Respondents were even permitted to avail the services of subject experts. Facts leading to filing of these appeals are precisely noticed hereunder:- Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued an advertisement inviting applications for combined competitive examination to fill up 143 posts in the various Civil State Services including Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch). Vide an L.P.A No. 1692 of 2011 -2- Addendum dated 22.12.2009 the vacancies were increased to 180. The appellants, who being eligible applied for the advertised posts. It is admitted case of the petitioners that under the rules governing the combined competitive examination the selection is comprised of three phases (1) Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) (2) Main Examination (3) Viva Voce. The syllabus for the said examination has been prescribed and notified through an Information Brochure issued by the Commission. As many as 23 subjects have been notified allowing choice to the candidates to opt for optional subjects out of the notified subjects. Preliminary examination was held on 19.12.2010. All the appellants participated in the said examination. On declaration of the result of the preliminary examination the appellants have not been able to qualify. The appellants, accordingly, filed above mentioned writ petitions before this Court. Though, various issues were raised in the writ petitions, however, the appellants' main grouse was in respect to non-adoption of the system of scaling or moderation of marks for different subjects in the preliminary examination. It was pleaded by the appellants before the Writ Court that there are some scoring subjects, whereas some subjects are not securing in the sense that in some optional subjects the appearing candidates can secure mathematical marks, whereas in some subjects the candidates are in disadvantageous position as the subjects do not fetch mathematical or good marks. It is further pleaded that though, the appellants are toppers in the subjects opted by them and despite they being toppers in their respective subjects, they could not make a grade to qualify the preliminary examination, whereas candidates who had opted some other optional subjects have qualified the examination steeling march over the appellants. L.P.A No. 1692 of 2011 -3- It is further contended that due to non-adoption of moderation/scaling of marks, candidates from various subjects could not qualify and the selection is primarily from very few subjects. The Writ Court vide the impugned order while accepting the formula of scaling adopted by the Union Public Service Commission, declined to interfere in exercise of power of judicial review observing that the issue sought to be raised essentially falls within the domain of subject experts/expert body. Consequently, the Writ Court asked the Commission to consider the contention of the appellants objectively to ensure selection of meritorious persons. The Commission was further granted liberty to seek advise of the experts. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has forcefully and vehemently argued that it was obligatory upon the Commission to have adopted the method of scaling and moderation of marks on account of large number of optional subjects and the fact that all subjects cannot be treated alike, thus, necessitating moderation and scaling of marks on the pattern adopted by the Union Public Service Commission. We have perused the impugned order and heard learned counsel for the appellants. Undoubtedly the appellants participated in the preliminary examination opting subjects of their own choice and have failed. It is only after that they were declared failed that the writ petitions came to be filed. It is also an admitted fact that the holding of the competitive examination for selection to various administrative posts is governed and regulated by statutory rules namely the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2009. These rules were duly notified to all L.P.A No. 1692 of 2011 -4- the candidates. There is no provision for scaling/moderation of marks under the rules either at the stage of preliminary examination or the main examination. The appellants did not challenge the rules but simply relied upon the mode and method of examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. Once statutory rules are framed for the conduct of the competitive examination, it has to be conducted only in accordance with such statutory rules and not otherwise. Undisputedly, examination has been conducted in accordance with rules. Thus, there is no violation in conducting the examination. To ask for scaling and moderation dehorse the rules is impermissible. Learned Single Judge did acknowledge the desirability of scaling, if, so advised by the experts and it is for this purpose the Commission was asked to consider the question. Learned Single Judge, however, rightly declined any affirmative directions in this regard in absence of rules. There is another aspect of the matter which is sufficient to deny relief to the appellants herein. The appellants have appeared in the preliminary examination, which is objective type. Marks in the objective type test are awarded in mathematical manner i.e for every correct answer some marks are awarded irrespective of the subjects. Scaling or moderation is desirable only where the answers in some of the subjects comprise of theory and in comparison to the subjects, where the marks can be awarded mathematically, the scaling is necessitated to bring the candidates at the level of playing field. However, this principle has no relevance in objective type test, where every candidate is entitled to some marks for correct answer. L.P.A No. 1692 of 2011 -5- We do not feel that there is any scope of interference particularly at the level of preliminary examination. No merit, appeals are dismissed. A copy of this judgement/order be placed on the record of each connected file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 13.9.2011. lucky