Mahadev Teggi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another - Court Judgment

DR. K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J.,

1. These writ petitions are directed against common order dated 6-1-2012 dismissing all the applications in Nos.4962 to 5055 of 2010 and connected cases, on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (in short, ‘KAT’) at Bangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petitions maybe stated as under:

The petitioners are applicants before the KAT. The petitioners along with others had approached the KAT for the following reliefs:

(i) to declare Note 4 of Clause A in Section I of Section Schedule to the Recruitment Rules providing the selection of candidates for the main examination in order of merit on the basis of performance in the preliminary examination as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and

(ii) to direct the respondents to select the candidates for the main examination by adopting a methodology by which candidates including applicants choosing different optional subjects are given a fair and equal change of selection to the main examination.

3. Contention of the Karnataka Public Service commission (KPSC) is that no case is made out to interdict the process stipulated by rules and rewrite the Rules. Further, the concept of scaling and proportional representation, as of now are not provided by the rules.

4. In view of the pleadings and arguments addressed by the learned Counsels for the parties, KAT had formulated the following points for its consideration:

(i) Whether the present method of selecting candidates for the main examination on the basis of the marks obtained in preliminary examination can be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it is not as fool proof as scaling or moderation method?

(ii) Whether award of full marks to questions key answers of which were found to be not appropriate, amounted to discrimination?

(iii) Whether para 7.1 of the impugned notification dated 27-1-2010 need reading it down as providing for consideration of all candidates who obtain minimum marks, for the main examination?

(iv) What order?

5. The KAT, for the reasons stated in the impugned common order, has answered Point Nos.(i) and (ii) in the affirmative and Point No.(iii) stating that it does not require that the Rule to be interpreted in a different way and dismissed all the applications. This is impugned in this batch of writ petitions by few of the applicants.

6. Sri C.M. Nagabhushan, learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Goutham and Rajeswar, submitted that the Tribunal has held that the suggestion of the candidates for adopting scaling method has been conveyed to KPSC that the Commission would examine the same for future recruitments, but erred in holding that the present method of recruitment for the posts of Gazetted Probationers Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and also erred in holding that the present process cannot be faulted as unconstitutional. He has cited the following decisions:

(i) Kanpur University and Others v Samir gupta and others (AIR 1983 SC 1230 : (1983) 4SCC 309), on the point where it is proved that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect the students are entitled to relief asked for. In case of doubt unquestionably the key answer has to be preferred. But, if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.

(ii) Pankag Sharma v State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others ((2008) 4 SCC 273 : (2008) 1 SCC (L and S) 1020 : 2008 AIR SCW 2332 (2), on the point that it cannot be said that by not granting benefit of additional marks to ‘selected’ candidates which were given to ‘unselected’ candidates, injustice had been done to ‘selected’ candidates; and on the point that in Kanpur University’s case, combined Pre-Medical Test was taken by the University for admission to medical course. Objective type of question were set up and four options were indicated, three being wrong. It was held that the Court will presume key answers to be correct and proceed to examine accordingly. But if any of the key answers is proved to be ‘demonstrably wrong’ or is such that ‘no reasonable body well-versed in the subject would regard as correct’, it would be unfair to penalize students for not giving an answer that accords the key answer. In such a situation, a Court of law can issue an appropriate direction;

(iii) Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v State of Haryana and Others (AIR 1987 SC 454 : (1985) 4 SCC 417), on the point that where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination following by a viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filed;

(iv) Sanjay Singh and Another v Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another (AIR 2007 SC 950 : (2007) 3 SCC 720 : (2007) 1 SCC (L and S) 870 : 2007 AIR SCW 707), on the point that the fact that scaling is a standard method of assessment, when a common base has to be found for comparative assessment of candidates taking examinations in different optional subjects, is not in dispute. In fact, the Commissioner may continue to adopt the said system of scaling, where a comparative assessment is to be made of candidates having option to take different subjects. The question is whether scaling, in particular, linear standard scaling system as adopted by the Commission, is a suitable process to eliminate ‘examiner variability’ when different examiners assess the answer scripts relating to the same subject.

7. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri Reuben Jacob, for respondent 2-KPSC, submitted that final selection list has been prepared after the dismissal of the application by KAT and the same is ready. He further submits that as per notification bearing No.E(1) 11961/2009-10/PSC, dated 27-1-2010, applications were called for the post of filling up vacancies of 268 posts of Gazetted Probationers-Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’ in accordance with Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997, but the petitioners did not challenge the notification and Rules, and they appeared for the preliminary examination and thereafter resorted to litigate the matter and the KAT has rightly held that there is no error in the present method of selecting candidates for the main examination on the basis of marks obtained in the preliminary examination and not applying the method of scaling and awarding of full marks to questions when key answers of which were found to be not appropriate, is not amounting to discrimination. He has cited the following decisions.—

(i) University of Cochin v N.S. Kanjoonjamma and Others (AIR 1997 SC 2083 : (1997) 4 SCC 426 : 1997 SCC (L and S) 976 : 1997-II-LLJ-228 (SC))

(ii) Dhananjay Malik and Others v State of Uttranchal and Others (AIR 2008 SC 1913 : (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L and S) 1005)

(iii) Madan Lal and Others v State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others (AIR 1995 SC 1088 : (1995) 3 SCC 486)

(iv) Marripati Nagaraja and Others v Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others ((2007) 11 SCC 522: 2007 AIR SCW 6861)

(v) Chandrashekar S. Salimath v Director of Collegiate Education of Karnataka and Others (1996 (7) Kar.L.J.552 : ILR 1996 Kar.2921)

(vi) Punjab University v Narinder Kumar (AIR 2000 SC 3457 : (1999) 9 SCC 8)

(vii) P.U. Joshi and Others v Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others (AIR 2003 SC 2156 : (2003) 2 SCC 632: 2003 SC (L and S) 191)

(viii) State of Karnataka and Another v B. Suvarna Malini and Another (ILR 2001 Kar.3737 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 606 : (2001) 1 SCC 728 : 2001 SCC (L and S) 309

(ix) Asif Hameed and Others v State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others (AIR 1989 SC 1899 : 1989 Supp.(2) SCC 364)

(x) The Director, National Institute of Technology, Surathkal, Dakshina Kannada v. N.S. Harsha and Others (2003 (7) Kar.L.J.533 (DB) : ILR 2004 Kar.4215 (DB)

(xi) Sanjay Kumar Manjul v Chairman, Union Public Service Commission (AIR 2007 SC 254 : (2006) 8 SCC 42 : 2006 SCC (L and S) 1780 : 2006 AIR SCW 6023)

(xii) Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v Baloji Badhavath ((2009) 5 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L and S) 999

(xiii) Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and Others v Union of India and Others (AIR 1986 SC 515 : (1985) 1 SCC 641 : (1986) 159 ITR 856 (SC))

8. Apart from the above decisions, learned Counsel for respondent 2 has contended that the petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the selected candidates are not made parties to these writ petitions. In this regard, he relies on an unreported decision of Circuit Bench at Dharwad dated 29-11-2010 made in W.P. Nos.13810 of 2005 connected with 14421 of 2005 (S-CAT) (Lalan Kumar Jha and Others v Sri Abdul Siddiq) and another decision in (All India SC and ST Employees Association and Another v A. Arthur Jeen and Others (AIR 2001 SC 1851: (2001) 6 SCC 380).

9. Contention of the learned Counsel for respondent 2 that the selected candidates were not made as parties and therefore this batch of writ petitions are liable to be rejected, holds no water, as the select list is not yet published and therefore the candidates, who are going to be selected, are not necessary parties for adjudication of this case. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for respondent 2 that the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, falls to the ground.

10. Insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the scaling method, which was approved by the Apex Court, shall be adopted by KPSC for present recruitment itself.

11. Admittedly, the petitioners have appeared for the preliminary examination without challenging the notification dated 27-1-2010 (at Annexure-A1) and the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. Hence, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the KPSC has followed the Rules while selecting the candidates for the post of Gazetted Probationers Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’. In pursuance of the impugned order dated 6-2-2012, the KPSC has finalised the selection process and list is ready. Further, in pursuance of the direction given by KAT, Government of Karnataka, by notification bearing No. DPAR 14 SRR 2011, dated 28-9-2011, has amended the 1997 Rules relating to preliminary examination and KPSC on the basis of the amended Rules, has issued a notification dated 3-11-2011, calling for applications to fill up 352 posts of Gazetted Probationers of Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’. Hence, we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

12. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are hereby rejected.