Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

AIR 2007 Supreme Court 950
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 165 OF 2005
[With W.P. (C) Nos.172, 409, 466 and 467 of 2005]
D.D. 09.01.2007
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Sri. Y.K.Sabharwal,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K.Thakker &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V.Raveendran
Sanjay Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs.
U.P. Public Service Commission,
Allahabad & Anr. ... Respondents
Examination:
Whether scaling of marks is contrary to the Rules? – Yes.
1003
P.S.C. conducted examination for filling 347 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Preliminary
Examination was of objective type – Main Examination was of descriptive type which consisted of 5
papers each carrying 200 marks – The marks assigned by the Examiners in the Main Examination
were subjected to statistical scaling and the result of written examination based on scaled marks were
declared – Final results were declared based on aggregate of scaled marks in the Main Examination
and the interview marks – On the recommendation of the Commission appointments were made –
Unsuccessful candidates challenging the statistical scaling system adopted by the Commission in the
writ petition before Supreme Court on the ground that it was contrary to Uttar Pradesh Judicial
Service Rules and which resulted in meritorious students being ignored and less meritorious candidates
being awarded higher marks and selected – Seeking for a direction to the Commission to adopt the
system of scaling and to declare the result on the basis of actual marks obtained and to declare the
decision of the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit 2003 (12) SCC 701
upholding the system of scaling adopted by the Commission does not lay down the correct law –
Supreme Court after considering the decision in Dixit’s case and examining the scaling system adopted
by the Commission held that the scaling of marks is contrary to the Rules and the scaling system
adopted is arbitrary and irrational and consequently allowed the writ petition in part granting reliefs to
the petitioners and overruling the decision in Dixit’s case [2003 (12) SCC 701].
Held:
As the field is occupied by Rule 20(3) and Note (i) of Appendix-II of Judicial Service Rules, they
will prevail over the general provision in Rule 51 of PSC Procedure Rules which enables 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 Judicial Service Rules. It is well settled that courts will not add words to a statute or read into the
statute words not in it.
Further held:
Uttar Pradesh PSC
The marks assigned by the examiner are not necessarily the marks finally awarded to a candidate.