# K. CHANNEGOWDA AND ORS v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2005] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 126
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2005-10-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 6172-6222 of 2005
- **Bench:** B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-channegowda-and-ors-v-karnataka-public-service-commission-and-ors-20756
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

Service Law:
Appointment of Gazetted Officers/Probationers-Competitive examination
C conducted by Public Service Commission-Allegation against the Commission
for showing favour to some candidates-Petition allowed by tribunal directing
evaluation afresh of the answer scripts in terms of guidelines-Challenge to--
High Court modified the order of the Tribunal directing evaluation of only
certain number of answer scripts-Appeals and cross appeals-Held:
D Allegations relate to a stage of moderation by the Chief Examiner and confined
to his conduct-Since the High Court examined the material on record
meticulously, it is not necessary to undertake the exercise again-Since Courts
below found conduct of the Chief Examiner improper and unfair, no reason
is found to interfere with their findings.
Evaluation of all the answer scripts-Necessity of-Held: Since sufficient
number of answer scripts randomly evaluated and moderated and no
conspicuous variation in the award of marks found by the Chief Examiner,
there was no need to get all the answer scripts evaluated
Scaling method of Evaluation-Preference of-Held: Sealing method is
more practical and effective-Scaling method of evaluation being applied in
many competitive examinations with the sole aim to bring about uniformity
of standard in the matter of award of marks by the examiners-As such, no
exception could be taken to the scaling method in principle.
The Government of Karnataka sent requisition to the Karnataka
Public Service Commission for selection of 415 Gazetted Probationers
(Group 'A' and 'B' posts). The Commission conducted the written
examination and selected the candidates for appointment for the said posts.
Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before the High
Court alleging serious irregularities in the evaluation of the answer scripts.
126
K. CHANNEGOWDA 1•. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
J 2 7
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the writ petitions were A
not maintainable and the petitioners may seek remedy before the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the
Commission to get all the answer scripts valued afresh by appointing fresh
examiners. On appeal, High Court modified the order of the Tribunal by
directing the Commission to have moderation/random review by the Head B
Examiner and Chief Examiner only in those subjects where the evaluation
had not been adequately done earlier. Aggrieved, some of the candidates
filed appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: I.I. Since the selection of two of the alleged favoured C
candidates has been cancelled, any observation or finding, if recorded by
this Court in respect of the matter, may prejudice the pending case of other
alleged favoured candidate, and therefore, no further comment is made
on this aspect of the matter. (139-G, H; 140-A]
1.2. This is not a case where the examination deserves to be cancelled. D
The finding recorded by the High Court that there is really no allegation
imputing unfairness in the matter of examination of answer scripts by the
examiners, is justified. The allegations, if any, relate to the stage of
moderation by the Chief Examiners, and in particular confined to the
conduct of the Chief Examiner. Besides, the High Court has very E
meticulously examined the material on record and it is not necessary to
undertake that exercise over again. (143-B, C(
1.3. The Tribunal as well as the Hi~h Court have concurrently held
that the conduct of the Chief Examiner was improper and unfair and no
reason is found to interfere with their concurrent finding. Hence, finding F
of the High Court is concurred with. However, it is clarified that the
finding recorded in these proceedings is only for the purpose of disposing
of these appeals and should not prejudice the case of the parties in the
pending enquiry. (146-B, C(
2.1. The Tribunal directed fresh evaluation of all answer scripts G
because the suggestion made by the Tribunal for production of the marks
ass

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 66,221. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

A
K. CHANNEGOWDA AND ORS.
v.
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
OCTOBER 6, 2005
B
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.)
Service Law:
Appointment of Gazetted Officers/Probationers-Competitive examination
C conducted by Public Service Commission-Allegation against the Commission
for showing favour to some candidates-Petition allowed by tribunal directing
evaluation afresh of the answer scripts in terms of guidelines-Challenge to--
High Court modified the order of the Tribunal directing evaluation of only
certain number of answer scripts-Appeals and cross appeals-Held:
D Allegations relate to a stage of moderation by the Chief Examiner and confined
to his conduct-Since the High Court examined the material on record
meticulously, it is not necessary to undertake the exercise again-Since Courts
below found conduct of the Chief Examiner improper and unfair, no reason
is found to interfere with their findings.
Evaluation of all the answer scripts-Necessity of-Held: Since sufficient
number of answer scripts randomly evaluated and moderated and no
conspicuous variation in the award of marks found by the Chief Examiner,
there was no need to get all the answer scripts evaluated
Scaling method of Evaluation-Preference of-Held: Sealing method is
more practical and effective-Scaling method of evaluation being applied in
many competitive examinations with the sole aim to bring about uniformity
of standard in the matter of award of marks by the examiners-As such, no
exception could be taken to the scaling method in principle.
The Government of Karnataka sent requisition to the Karnataka
Public Service Commission for selection of 415 Gazetted Probationers
(Group 'A' and 'B' posts). The Commission conducted the written
examination and selected the candidates for appointment for the said posts.
Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before the High
Court alleging serious irregularities in the evaluation of the answer scripts.
126
K. CHANNEGOWDA 1•. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
J 2 7
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the writ petitions were A
not maintainable and the petitioners may seek remedy before the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the
Commission to get all the answer scripts valued afresh by appointing fresh
examiners. On appeal, High Court modified the order of the Tribunal by
directing the Commission to have moderation/random review by the Head B
Examiner and Chief Examiner only in those subjects where the evaluation
had not been adequately done earlier. Aggrieved, some of the candidates
filed appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: I.I. Since the selection of two of the alleged favoured C
candidates has been cancelled, any observation or finding, if recorded by
this Court in respect of the matter, may prejudice the pending case of other
alleged favoured candidate, and therefore, no further comment is made
on this aspect of the matter. (139-G, H; 140-A]
1.2. This is not a case where the examination deserves to be cancelled. D
The finding recorded by the High Court that there is really no allegation
imputing unfairness in the matter of examination of answer scripts by the
examiners, is justified. The allegations, if any, relate to the stage of
moderation by the Chief Examiners, and in particular confined to the
conduct of the Chief Examiner. Besides, the High Court has very E
meticulously examined the material on record and it is not necessary to
undertake that exercise over again. (143-B, C(
1.3. The Tribunal as well as the Hi~h Court have concurrently held
that the conduct of the Chief Examiner was improper and unfair and no
reason is found to interfere with their concurrent finding. Hence, finding F
of the High Court is concurred with. However, it is clarified that the
finding recorded in these proceedings is only for the purpose of disposing
of these appeals and should not prejudice the case of the parties in the
pending enquiry. (146-B, C(
2.1. The Tribunal directed fresh evaluation of all answer scripts G
because the suggestion made by the Tribunal for production of the marks
assigned to the top 50 candidates in each category was not accepted by
. the Commission. However, before the High Court the relevant material
was produced and the High Court had the advantage of scrutinizing the
material placed before it. The successful candidates are, therefore, right
in their submission that if the material asked for had been produced before H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP..4 S.C.R.
A the Tribunal, perhaps the Tribunal would not have drawn an adverse
inference and directed a wholesale re-evaluation of all the answer scripts.
1146-D, El
2.2. The High Court has recorded reasons for directing re-evaluation
in only so!_lle of the subjects. In regard to other subjects the High Court
B has found that sufficient number of answer scripts were randomly
evaluated and moderated, and further there was no conspicuous variation
in the award of marks by the examiners and the Head Examiners.
Obviously, therefore, there was no need to get such answer scripts reevaluated. However, where sufficient number of answer scripts were not
C re-evaluated by Head Examiner/Chief Examiner as required by the Rules,
the High Court was certainly justified in. directing compliance of the Rules.
1146-G, H; 147-AI
3.1. The scaling method of evaluation of answer scripts is applied
only with a view to maintain a uniform standard in the marking of answer
D scripts. It is true that there is bound to be some difference in the marks
awarded by d.ifferent examiners in the same subject. But the need for
applying scaling method arises only in cases where the variation in marks
awarded exceeds a certain level. It is, therefore, not necessary that the
scaling method should be applied in all cases. The scaling method will be
applied only where the variation in marks is plus or minus a certain level
E or percentage. The High Court in the instant case has directed that scaling
method shall be applied only when it is found that average variation is
plus or minus 20 or more. Wherever the average variation is less than
plus or minus 20, general review of the marks awarded need not be done.
The scaling method is now being applied in many competitive examinations
F held in this country and the purpose of applying the scaling method is to
bring about a certain uniformity of standard in the matter of award of
marks by the examiners. No exception can be taken to the scaling method
in principle. 1147-C, E, F, GI
U.P. Public Services Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit and Ors.,
G AIR (2004) SC 163, relied on.
3.2. It will make no difference in the instant case if the scaling method
is not applied to subjects where valuation and revaluation has been upheld
by the High Court because the High Court has not found it necessary to
direct re-evaluation of answer scripts in those subjects where the average
H variation was not found to be more than plus or minus 20%. Thus, the
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
J 29
subjects in which the High Court has not directed re-evaluation are those A·
subjects where in any case the scaling method would not be applicable
because the average variation of marks has been found to be within the
prescribed parameter. Hence, the direction of the High Court to apply the
scaling method in re-evaluation of answer scripts pursuant to the order
of the High Court, is upheld. 1148-D, El
3.3. The submission of some of the candidates that there is nothing
which prevents the random re-evaluation of a larger percentage of answer
scripts, and thus there was no need to apply the scaling technique, must
B
be rejected because even if answer scripts more than the percentage
prescribed are reviewed by Head Examiner or Chief Examiner, that will C
not achieve the purpose for which the scaling technique is adopted, because
the scaling technique is confined to award of marks by examiners in the
same subject who are either too liberal or too strict in awarding marks
with the result that the average variation is more than plus or minus 20
marks. If the desired result is to be achieved all the answer papers
examined by a particular examiner will have to be re-evaluated. As D
between the two options, the scaling method is found to be more practical
and effective. 1148-F, G, H; 149-A]
4.1. The High Court has found as a fact that in some subjects random
review was not done to the extent prescribed in the guidelines (5% of top
level answer scripts and over all random review of 10%). No minutes or E
record were maintained to show whether moderation was done by the
Head Examiners/Chief Examiners in the manner required by the
guidelines. In these circumstances, one cannot find fault with the direction
of the High Court for re-evaluation of answer scripts in subjects in which
moderation/random review was not done in accordance with the p
guidelines. 1149-E, F]
4.2. The High Court in its judgment has noticed that the random
review prescribed under the guidelines was to be done in respect of 5%
of top level answer scripts and 10% over all ra
11idom review. Even the
memo filed by the Commission and accepted by the High Court assured G
that whenever random review done by the Qead Examiner was less than
10% of the answer scripts evaluated by any examiner in any subject, the
shortfall would be made up examiner-wise and subject-wise by random
review of answer scripts to the extent of shortfall. While doing so it would
be ensured that random sampling was not less than 5% of the top level H
.I
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A answer scripts. Thus, the direction of the High Court has not deviated from
the guidelines. 1149-G, H; 150-A, Bl
4.3. Since valuation of answer scripts commenced on May 17, 1999
while the examination was held between April 9, 1999 and May 3, 1999,
no question of the model answers being leaked out so as to be available to
B the examinees on the dates of examination. 1150-D]
5. The High Court has taken care to safeguard the interest of all
concerned and to rule out th1e possibility of unfairness in the re-evaluation
of the answer scripts. The directions made by the High Court are adequate
C to deal with the peculiar facts of this case. Hence, no interference with
the order of the High Court is called for. 1151-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6172-6222
of 2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated I I.I 0.2002 of the Karnataka High
D Court in W.P. Nos. 12573, 12574, 8702-8711, 9085-9091, 9250-9255, 1331011316, 13469, 13474-13484 and 21218 of 2002.
E
WITH
C.A. Nos. 6313 and 6223-6312 of 2005.
K. Ramamoorthy, P.P. Rao, M.L. Verma and K.N. Bhat, P. Narasimhan,
Ms. E.R. Sumathy, Sriram J. Thalapathy, N.K. Arulmuruganandham, K.R.
Barath, B. Ranganath, E.C. Vidyasagar, B.K. Choudhary, K. Lingaraja, Ashok
Kr. Upadhyay, Yatindra Sharma, X.M. Joseph, Satyajit Saha, Mrs.V.D.
F Khanna, Satya Mitra, Venugopala Gowda, S.N. Bhat, D.P. Chaturvedi, N.P.S.
G
Panwar, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K.Mishra, A. Rohen Singh, Ramesh Chandra
Pandey, Rajesh Mahale, Ms. N. Annapoorani and T.V. George for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted in all the matters.
In this batch of appeals the common judgment and order of the High
Court of Kamataka at Bangalore dated October 11, 2002 has been assailed.
The matter relates to the conduct of competitive examination by Kamataka
H Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Gazetted Probationers
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J.] 131
(Group 'A' and 'B' Posts). Some of the unsuccessful candidates approached A
Kamataka Administrative Tribunal with a grievance that the competitive
examination conducted by the Kamataka Public Service Commission was not
fair and impartial. The manner in which the examination was conducted and
the evaluation of the answer scripts by the examiners were suspect. In particular
allegations were made about the favours shown to one K. Rameswarappa, the B
appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP © No. 24322 of 2003 and two
of his relatives who had secured high positions and were ultimately selected.
The Kamataka Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated
February 6, 2002 allowed the applications filed before it, inasmuch as it
found certain irregularities committed in the conduct of the competitive C
examination, and in particular favours shown to the aforesaid Rameswarappa
and some of his relatives. The Tribunal ultimately directed the Kamataka
Public Service Commission to get all the answer scripts evaluated afresh after
. appointment of fresh examiners in accordance with the procedure contained
in the order. It also gave tertain directions in regard to the evaluation of the
answer scripts and the declaration of the· result.
D
The Kamataka Public Service Commission filed writ appeals before the
High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore challenging the findings recorded by
the Administrative Tribunal and the ultimate order passed by it. The High
Court after hearing the parties gave certain directions for the re-evaluation of
some of the answer scripts, though not all. The High Court was of the view E
that having regard to the findings recorded by it, it was not necessary to get
all the answer scripts evaluated over again. The judgment and order of the
High Court has been impugned in this batch of appeals.
The appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP ) Nos. 11589 to F
11639 of 2003 are the unsuccessful candidates who were not selected for
appointment. They contend that the entire examination should have been
scrapped in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High
Court.
The appellants in appeals arising out ofSLP) Nos.610-699 of2004 are G
the successful candidates who were selected for appointment by the Kamataka
Public Service Commission on the basis of the declared result. They contend
that for no fault of theirs' the answers scripts are sought to be re-evaluated,
particularly when the High Court was able to identify the culprits and the
beneficiaries of the irregularities committed in the evaluation and moderation
of the answer scripts. They contend that apart from the persons against whom H
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A a clear and categoric finding has been recorded, there is no need to order
fresh evaluation of the answer scripts in 15 optional subjects and also in
general studies.
The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP © No. 24322 of 2003
is one Dr. Rameshwarappa against whom findings have been recorded by the
B Kamataka Administrative Tribunal which have been affirmed by the High
Court. He has challenged the findings recorded against him and has prayed
for setting aside the judgments and orders of both the Kamataka Administrative
Tribunal and the High Court.
c
The facts of the case may be briefly noticed.
On February 4th, 1998 the Government of Karnataka sent requisition
to the Kamataka Public Service Commission for the selection of 415 candidates
for appointment to the post of Gazetted Probationers (Group 'A' and 'B'
posts). Pursuant to the said requisition, the Karnataka Public Service
D Commission issued an advertisement on March 9, 1998 inviting applications.
As many as 85598 applications were received in response to the said
advertisement and out of them 79130 applications were found to have been
validly made by eligible candidates. In accordance with the rules for selection
to the said posts, a preliminary examination was held followed by the main
examination. The preliminary examination was held on August 30, 1998 in
E which 56228 candidates appeared. Result of the preliminary examination was
declared on November 16, 1998 and on the basis of the aforesaid result 9857
candidates were found eligible to take the main examination. The main
examination was held between April 9, 1999 and May 3, 1999. The answer
scripts were evaluated between May 17, 1999 and June 18, 1999. On January
F 12, 2000 the result was declared and as many as 2397 candidates qualified
for the personality test. In the months of July and August, 2001 the personality
test was held and the provisional list of selected candidates was declared on
September 28, 200 I.
In February, 2000 eight candidates who had failed in compulsory papers
G of Kannada and/or English filed writ petitions before the High Court alleging
serious irregularities in evaluation of the answer scripts. The writ petition
came up before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who by a reasoned
order dated March 21, 2000 referred the aforesaid writ petitions to the Division
Bench.
H
In the meantime 24 other candidates filed writ petitions before the High
K. CHANNEGOWDA ''·KARNA TAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH,!.] J 3 3
Court. Those writ petitions were also clubbed with writ petitions filed by A
eight candidates earlier and another Writ Petition No. 7022 of 2000 filed by
another candidate. Ultimately the Division Bench held that the writ petitioners
may seek remedy before the Kamataka Administrative Tribunal and that writ
petitions were not maintainable. The High Court transferred all the 33 writ
petitions filed in the High Court to the Kamataka Administrative Tribunal. B
Nine other petitioners had directly approached the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal. In this manner 42 matters were heard and disposed of by the
Kamataka Administrative Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated February
6, 2002.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Karnataka Administrative C
Tribunal, the Karnataka Public Service Commission preferred writ petitions
before the High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore being Writ Petition Nos.
12548-12589 of2002 which have been disposed of by the impugned common
judgment and order.
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal concluded that the valuation of D
the answer scripts could not be regarded as fair. In the facts and circumstances
of the case no distinction could be made between answer scripts validly
valued and those not validly valued. It was, therefore, necessary that all the'
answer scripts should be re-evaluated. Accordingly, it directed the Karnataka
Public Services Commission to get all the answer scripts valued afresh by
appointing examiners who are in no way interested in the candidates taking E
the examination. The examiners were to be appointed after verifying their
declaration that none of their relatives specified in the format of the declaration
was a candidate. The Commission was directed to erase all the code numbers
and give fresh code numbers to the answer scripts relating to the compulsory
as well as the optional subjects. It, further, directed that all answer scripts p
wherein more than 60% marks were awarded must be valued by a set of two
examiners. In case there was a difference exceeding 5% of the marks in
evaluation by the two examiners, the matter must be referred to the third
examiner. It also directed that Karnataka Public Service Commission shall
permit re-evaluation of answer scripts of all those candidates who seek such
re-evaluation within the time to be specified, and on such payment as may G
b~ determined. It further obliged the Commission to furnish to all candidates
marks obtained by them in all the papers.
The High Court, however, modified the directions of the Tribunal. It
came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A not necessary to get all the answer scripts re-evaluated. It directed moderation/
random review by the Head Examiner and Chief Examiner only in regard to
subjects where the same had not been adequately done earlier. This had to
be done in the manner suggested by the Public Service Commission in para
(b) of its memo dated March 27, 2002 which reads as follows :-
B
c
D
" .....•.. on the basis of random review of answer scripts done in respect
of answer scripts evaluated by each Examiner average variation shall
be arrived at Wherever the average variation is less than plus or
minus 20, general review of the marks awarded 'need not be done.
However where the average difference is plus or minus 20 or more
the marks awarded by such examiner shall be increased or deceased
by that average in respect of each of the answer scripts evaluated by
that Examiner. In case the average variation is less than plus or minus
20 but variation in respe1;t of individual answer scripts is plus or
minus 20 or more those answer scripts would be subjected to third
valuation."
The entire process of moderation was directed to be done under the
supervision of the Secretary of Kamataka Public Service Commission. It was
left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service
Commission to have the moderation done either at a two tier level (Head
Examiner and Chief Examiner) or at only one level. The Secretary of the
E Karnataka Public Service Commission was directed to select and prepare a
fresh panel of Head/Chief Examiners for this purpose. The process of
interviews and selection carried out during the pendency of the applications
before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was declared to be illegal. The
Commission was further directed to re-evaluate the compulsory papers (English
F and/or Kannada) of those candidates who had approached the High Court or
Tribunal for such re-evaluation before the date of judgment. After re-evaluation
and moderation as directed, the Commission shall prepare the list of candidates
to be called for personality test in accordance with the Rules.
It would thus be seen that whereas the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
G directed that all the papers be evaluated by the examiners. afresh, the High
Court confined it to re-evaluation and moderation of some papers, and that
too only in those subjects wherein that was considered necessary, applying
the scaling method. A significant finding recorded by the High Court is that
there was hardly any material to raise any suspicion about the fairness of the
examiners in examining the answer scripts. Some doubts arose when reH
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNA TAK.A PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J.] J 3 5
evaluation/moderation was done by the Head Examiner/Chief Examiner in A
respect of some of the subjects. The High Court, therefore, gave directions
for a limited re-evaluation and moderation confined to some subjects only,
and did not consider it necessary to order a total re-evaluation of answer
scripts of all subjects, or cancellation of the examination itself.
It will be necessary at this stage to notice the salient findings recorded B
by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The
Tribunal after noticing the submissions urged on behalf of the parties observed
that during the course of argument it enquired of the Karnataka Public Service
Commission about its willingness to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the
applicants before it. The senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission C
submitted that the Commission was not willing to undertake that exercise.
The Tribunal subsequently suggested, after arguments were concluded, to the
Commission that it may produce the marks list of the top 50 candidates in
each category indicating the marks assigned by the Head Examiner and the
Chief Examiner as the case may be, but the Commission filed a memo
declining to produce the information sought by the Tribunal for administrative D
reasons and having regard to the limited scope of judicial review in such
matters. It was also explained by counsel appearing for the Commission that
the Secretary of the Commission had gone for a training to Mussorie for a
period of 6 to 8 weeks and that the keys of the almirahs where the records
had been kept were with him, and therefore the required information could E
not be produced readily.
The Tribunal also sought clarification from the Commission about the
allegations made against some of the candidates namely Rameshwarappa and
his relatives. The Commission confirmed the fact that Rameshwarappa and
his relatives were seated in the same hall to take the examination. They had p
opted for same optional subjects and their answers were valued by the same
examiner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal formulated the
following contentions of the Petitioners which required examination by it :
"(i) That they are highly qualified persons having secured very high
professional degrees such as their chosen fields and in that back
ground it is inconceivable that they should have been failed in
Compulsory papers, the expected standards of which are not more
than SSLC standards.
G
H
A
B
c
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
(ii) That the valuation of the papers by the examiners are apparently
erratic as not to be regarded as fair to all the candidates as for example,
members of the one family like sister, brother and brother-in-law
securing top ranking in the final examination indicating thereby
manipulation of marks secured by them, bearing no connection
between the marks given and the quality of answers; that one of the
senior employees of the KPSC whose son had appeared for the
examination had participated in the examination process including
evaluation of the answer scripts casting a serious doubt as. to the
fairness in valuation of the answer scripts.
(iii) That one of the model answers had been leaked-out prior to the
examination affecting the fairness of the examination process''.
Repelling the submission urged on behalf of the Karnataka Public Service
Commission that a candidate cannot seek revaluation of his answer s~ripts
merely on his own perception of good performance, the Tribunal observed
D that the mere fact that a candidate may think that he has performed extremely
well and yet not awarded marks which he rightly deserved, may not by itself
justify the revaluation of the answer scripts. However, in the light of other
allegations of unfairness and arbitrariness, if found to be true, re-examination
of the answer scripts may be justified. Reliance placed by the Karnataka
Public Service Commission on the decision of this Court in Maharashtra
E State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Educatio~ and Anr v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors., AIR (1984) SC 1543 did not,
according to the Tribunal, support the case of the Commission. That decision
was distinguished on the ground that in that case the Rules specifically
prohibited the authorities to entertain a claim of revaluation. In the instant
F case it observed that the Rules were silent on this aspect of the matter and,
therefore, in the absence of any express prohibition the Karnataka Public
Service Commission certainly had the power to order fresh evaluation of
answer scripts if it was satisfied that there was evidence of unfairness and
mal practice in the valuation of answer scripts. In the interest of fairness, the
Commission may exercise such authority wherever necessary.
G
As regards allegations of unfairness in valuation of answer scripts, the
Tribunal noticed that in the case of Remeshwarappa and his relatives the
answer scripts were first valued by the Examiner and then by the Chief
Examiner who awarded very high marks to them which really enabled them
to get high positions in the merit list resulting in their ultimate selection. The
H Tribunal noticed the marks awarded to Rameshwarappa and his relatives
...
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH,J.l J 37
Nagaraja and Triveni which demonstrated that very high marks were awarded A
by the Chief Examiner and in some cases 80% marks were awarded as
against 30% awarded by the Examiner. The Tribunal commented on the
manner in which the Chief Examiner increased the marks awarded to these
candidates. This also disclosed that the model answers prepared to maintain
uniformity in the award of marks was not adhered to, because in that event B
there could not be possibility of such a huge difference in the award of marks
by the Examiner and the Chief Examiner. Th is reflected on the fairness in the
valuation of the answer scripts and demonstrated that the answer scripts were
not valued on the basis of the model answers prepared as per the accepted
standard.
The Tribunal further commented on the refusal of the Karnataka Public c
Service Commission to accept a suggestion of the Tribunal that all the answer
scripts of the applicants should be revalued. In fact the suggestion of the
Tribunal that the marks list of the top 50 candidates in each category be
produced showing the marks awarded to them by the Examiners, Head
Examiner and the Chief Examiner was not accepted. The Tribunal did not D
find the explanation given by the Commission to be convincing. The Tribunal
went to the extent of holding that the refusal of the Karnataka Public Service
Commission to produce the marks assigned to top 50 candidates gave rise to
an adverse inference that if such tabulated statement of marks was produced
it would have gone against the Commission.
E
The Tribunal also commented on the conduct of some of the officials
who shouldered heavy responsibility in the conduct of the examination. Apart
from the Secretary of the Commission, one Sadyojathaiah, who was Incharge
Secretary for a few months, did not declare that his son was also taking the
examination. In fact his daughter also took the examination but was F
unsuccessful. This only showed that the declaration made by the Examiners/
officials were not scrutinized and enquired into with the result that the wards/
relatives of some of the officials closely associated with the conduct of the
examination also participated in the competitive examination. May be that
they did not act unfairly, but what was important was that the examination
must be seemed to have been conducted fairly.
G
A contention was raised before the Tribunal that the model answers
were known even before the examination was conducted and that such a
· model answer relating to the compulsory subject, namely Kannada language
prepared by the Karnataka Public Service Commission was filed in a batch H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A of applications. The Karnataka Public Service Commission averred that these
model answers were prepared only a couple of days prior to commencement
of the valuation, but it did not deny that the model answer filed with the
applications purporting to be the model answer for the Kannada language
subject was in fact not the model answer prepared by the Commission. Though
B the Tribunal did not record a categoric finding of fact that such a model
answer was available to the candidates even before the conduct of the
examination, it commented on the fact that the model answer was available
to a candidate who annexed it with his application which demonstrated that'
the Commission was not able to maintain secrecy in such matters.
c
The Tribunal also held that the Karnataka Public Service Commission
could not deny revaluation of answer scripts if sought by any candidate who
is aggrieved by the valuation of his answer scripts. To deny a candidate the
right to seek revaluation amounted to denial of fairness to him. Therefore, in
the absence of a specific rule prohibiting re-evaluation, it would be obligatory
on the Karnataka Public Service Commission to grant such re-evaluation
D within a specified time after the announcement of the result. It referred to
earlier instances where the Public Service Commission had permitted reevaluation of the answer scripts.
On such findings the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the award of
marks to the candidates did not appear to be fair resulting in the vitiation of
E the merit list. But the Tribunal following the principles laid down in Anamica
Mishra and Ors. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors.,
(1990] (Suppl.) SCC 692 held that the entire examination need not be set
aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. Fairness could be ensured
if the answer scripts were revalued after taking necessary precautions to
F ensure fairness. It, therefore, passed an order for fresh valuation of all the
answer scripts laying down guidelines which have been earlier referred to in.
this judgment.
We may observe at this stage that the Tribunal after considering the
material on record came to the conclusion that in respect of atleast three
G candidates namely, Rameshwarappa, Nagaraja and Triveni who were high
rank holders, the marks awarded by the Chief Examiner was much more than
the marks awarded to them by the examiner. That is how, they managed to
secure high positions in the competitive examination. The findings of the
Tribunal are also borne out by the report of the Sub committee constituted
H by the Commission to investigate the matter. The Committee found that
'
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH, J] J 39
serious irregularities were committed by one Prof. K.S. Shivanna, Chief A ·
Examiner when he reviewed the marks awarded to Rameshwarappa, Nagaraja
and Triveni. The said Rameshwarappa was employed as Deputy Director of
Food and Civil Supplies while Nagaraja was his wife's brother and Smt.
Triveni and Smt. Hemalatha were two sisters of his wife. The report of the
Sub-committee discloses that their academic record was average. All of them B
had chosen the same optional subjects. In General Studies Paper I and II and
History Papers I and II all of them had chosen the very same questions for
answering and their answers were also identical. The Sub-committee found
that Prof. Shivanna had been appointed Chief Examiner to examine answers
written in Kannada medium in the subjects General Studies and History. He
had evaluated 127 answer scripts as Chief Examiner. It was discovered that C
in respect of the aforesaid four candidates he had even awarded marks for
totally wrong answers. He later claimed that by oversight such mistakes were
committed. He described as bona fide errors the awarding of more marks
than the maximum prescribed. It was found that six other candidates had
been shown such favourable treatment by Prof. Shivanna, out of whom two
were ultimately selected but the remaining four could not get selected. The D
evidence collected by the Sub-committee established that the aforesaid
Rameshwarappa used to visit the then Secretary of the Commission very
frequently, while Prof. Shivanna was his research guide for the Ph. D
programme. It also appeared from the material collected by the Sub-committee
that after the evaluation of answer scripts, all the three had undertaken a joint E
foreign trip. The Sub-committee came to the conclusion that Sri Monappa the
then Secretary of the Commission had parted with the· code numbers of the
candidates to Prof. Shivanna, who was willing to oblige Rameshwarappa and
some others. The Sub-committee found that Prof. Shivanna who was Chief
· ..,.__ Examiner in respect of answer scripts in Kannada medium, in the subjects
General Studies and History, also picked up answers given in English medium F
as in the case of Nagaraja and Triveni. He sought to explain this by saying
that since Prof. Raju Naidu, Chief Examiner of English medium was away,
those papers had been brought to him and he had accordingly moderated
those papers.
We do not wish to go into the details of the findings recorded by the
Subcommittee because we are informed that a proceeding is pending against
Sri Rameshwarappa. The selection of the alleged favoured candidates has
G
also been cancelled. Any observation made by us, or finding recorded in
respect of the matter, may prejudice the case ofRameshwarappa in the pending
proceeding, and, therefore, we do not wish to make any further comment on H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A this aspect of the matter. The findings of the Sub committee have been
noticed' by us, as also by the High Court, in the context of the challenge to
the validity and fairness of the competitive examination only for that limited
purpose and not with a view to finding the guilt or otherwise of Sri
Rameshwarappa.
B
In the writ petitions preferred before the High Court against the order
of the Tribunal, while the selected candidates challenged the order for fresh
moderation in some subjects, the unsuccessful candidates challenged the
fairness of the examination and prayed for cancellation of the examination
itself. The Kamataka Public Service Commission justified its stand before the
C Tribunal.
We have earlier noticed that the Tribunal after conclusion of the hearing
of the matter, had suggested to the Commission on November 11, 2001 that
it may produce the marks awarded to the top SO candidates in each category,
by the Head Examiner and the Chief Examiner. The Commission expressed
D its inability to give the aforesaid information having regard to the scope of
the proceeding before the Tribunal. It was also stated that since the Secretary
of the Commission was away on training at Mussorie for a period of six to
eight weeks and the keys of the Almirah in which the records were kept were
with him, the information could not be produced immediately. However,
before the High Court the Commission voluntarily produced the marks obtained
E by the top 50 candidates in each category, and with necessary particulars.
The Commission also furnished the particulars of marks obtained by all the
candidates who were ultimately selected for the personality test disclosing
the marks awarded to them by the Examiner and thereafter the Head Examiner
or Chief Examiner after moderation. The High Court directed the Commissfon
p to produce the list of candidates in whose cases the variation in marks was
plus or minus 20 or above (out of 300 marks) in a subject and also to furnish
the particulars of cases where the Chief Examiners had done random reevaluation with particulars of difference in marks. Accordingly, the
Commission had produced necessary statements as required by the Court.
The rele~ant part of the Memo filed before the Court is as follows : -
G
H
"The Commission has placed before this Hon'ble Court subjectwise
abstract of total number of answer scripts valued, number of answer
scripts moderated by the Head Examiner and/or Chief Examiner and
cases where the marks awarded in moderation is plus or minus 20 or
more vis-a-vis the marks awarded by the Examiner. The total number
•
'
)
r
l.
K. CHANNEGOWDA v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [SINGH,].] J 4 J
of tases where the variation is plus or minus 20 or more has been A
identified as 661. Keeping in mind anxieties expressed and
apprehensions stated during the hearing of the writ petitions and the
suggestions that fell from the Bench of this Hon'ble of this Hon'ble
Court, the Commission has examined the entire issue in the light of
the scheme laid down by the Commission regarding valuation of the B
answer scripts. The endeavour of the Commission has been to find a
solution which would be in line with the scheme ,of examination
prescribed by the Commission.
Keeping the above objective in mind and in deference to the
suggestions thatemerged during the hearing of the writ petitions, the C
Commission is making the following offer:
(a) Wherever the random review done by the Head Examiner is less
than IO per cent of the answer scripts evaluated by any examiner in
any subject, the short fall would be made up examinerwise and
subjectwise by random review of answer scripts to the extent of D
shortfall. While doing so, .it will be ensured that random sampling
shall not be less than 5 per cent of the top-level answer scripts.
(b) The Commission has always been of the view that review referred
to at para 3 of the scheme of valuation is not analogous to scaling
technique. It has been understood by the Commission as review of E
marks of particular answer script taken up for random review by the
Head Examiner.