# STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 1 S.C.R. 28
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-01-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2022
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-v-atul-kumar-dwivedi-ors-35783
- **Pages:** 77

## Headnote

Service Law: Recruitment/Selection - Process of 'scaling of
marks' or 'normalization' adopted in selection of candidates for
the State Police Force - Correctness of - Appropriate stage for
application of normalization - Held: On facts, more than 6.3 lakh
applicants had submitted online application forms whose
candidature was tested in written examinations held in 29 different
batches over 12 days - There was variability on account of the fact
that the candidates were tested on different dates over 12 days
through different sets of question papers - The Uttar Pradesh Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board could not possibly have gone
ahead with examination for 29 different batches with the same type
of questions as the subsequent batches would then have had
advantage of having seen the pattern of questions put to the earlier
batches - Thus, though the subjects were same, the question papers
would necessarily be different in terms of quality and approach -
In a situation such as that the "Scaling of Marks" had to be adopted
and that would always be the correct approach - Exercise
undertaken by the Board in adopting the process of normalization
at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of
Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law
- Power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and
there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at
any juncture of the process - Also, decisions made by expert bodies,
including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly
interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise
of power are made out - The U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector
(Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015 - Uttar
Pradesh Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules,
2008 - Rule 15(b) and 15(e) - Police Act, 1861.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
29
Service Law: Recruitment/Selection - Adoption of process of
'scaling of marks' or 'normalization' - When appropriate -
Discussed.
Administrative Law: Expert body - Held: Decisions made by
expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should
not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala
fide exercise of power are made out.
Interpretation of Statutes: Same expression appearing at
different places in a statute - Rule of construction - Held: It is the
context which must determine whether the same expression occurring
at two different places must be considered differently or in the same
light.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Cases of single examination where there are
multiple number of examiners may call for moderation to be
adopted by the examiner-in-chief or such body constituted for
the purposes. On the contrary, scaling of marks has been accepted
to be an appropriate method where candidates are tested in
different subjects. As against examiner variability in the same or
compulsory examination, subject variability has been found to be
a good ground to adopt "Scaling of Marks" as a method to put all
the candidates on an even keel. [Para 40][96-H; 97-A-B]
1.2. In the instant matters more than 6.3 lakh applicants
had submitted online application forms whose candidature was
tested in written examinations held in 29 different batches over
12 days. There was variability on account of the fact that the
candidates were tested on different dates over 12 days through
different sets of question papers. The Uttar Pradesh Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board could not possibly have gone
ahead with examination for 29 different batches with the same
type of questions as the subsequent batches would then have
had advantage of having seen the pattern of questions put to the
earlier batches. Thus, though the subjects were same, the
question papers would necessarily be different in terms of quality
and approach. In a situation such as that the "Scaling of Marks"
had to be adopted and that would always be the correct approach.
[Paras 39, 41]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 164,848. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 28
28
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI & ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2022)
JANUARY 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Service Law: Recruitment/Selection - Process of 'scaling of
marks' or 'normalization' adopted in selection of candidates for
the State Police Force - Correctness of - Appropriate stage for
application of normalization - Held: On facts, more than 6.3 lakh
applicants had submitted online application forms whose
candidature was tested in written examinations held in 29 different
batches over 12 days - There was variability on account of the fact
that the candidates were tested on different dates over 12 days
through different sets of question papers - The Uttar Pradesh Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board could not possibly have gone
ahead with examination for 29 different batches with the same type
of questions as the subsequent batches would then have had
advantage of having seen the pattern of questions put to the earlier
batches - Thus, though the subjects were same, the question papers
would necessarily be different in terms of quality and approach -
In a situation such as that the "Scaling of Marks" had to be adopted
and that would always be the correct approach - Exercise
undertaken by the Board in adopting the process of normalization
at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of
Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law
- Power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and
there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at
any juncture of the process - Also, decisions made by expert bodies,
including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly
interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise
of power are made out - The U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector
(Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015 - Uttar
Pradesh Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules,
2008 - Rule 15(b) and 15(e) - Police Act, 1861.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
29
Service Law: Recruitment/Selection - Adoption of process of
'scaling of marks' or 'normalization' - When appropriate -
Discussed.
Administrative Law: Expert body - Held: Decisions made by
expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should
not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala
fide exercise of power are made out.
Interpretation of Statutes: Same expression appearing at
different places in a statute - Rule of construction - Held: It is the
context which must determine whether the same expression occurring
at two different places must be considered differently or in the same
light.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Cases of single examination where there are
multiple number of examiners may call for moderation to be
adopted by the examiner-in-chief or such body constituted for
the purposes. On the contrary, scaling of marks has been accepted
to be an appropriate method where candidates are tested in
different subjects. As against examiner variability in the same or
compulsory examination, subject variability has been found to be
a good ground to adopt "Scaling of Marks" as a method to put all
the candidates on an even keel. [Para 40][96-H; 97-A-B]
1.2. In the instant matters more than 6.3 lakh applicants
had submitted online application forms whose candidature was
tested in written examinations held in 29 different batches over
12 days. There was variability on account of the fact that the
candidates were tested on different dates over 12 days through
different sets of question papers. The Uttar Pradesh Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board could not possibly have gone
ahead with examination for 29 different batches with the same
type of questions as the subsequent batches would then have
had advantage of having seen the pattern of questions put to the
earlier batches. Thus, though the subjects were same, the
question papers would necessarily be different in terms of quality
and approach. In a situation such as that the "Scaling of Marks"
had to be adopted and that would always be the correct approach.
[Paras 39, 41][96-F; 97-C-D]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
1.3. As a matter of fact, though, in an earlier decision, a
Bench of three Judges of this Court found the approach of "Scaling
of Marks" even in the same examination to be appropriate so as
to eliminate every scope for variation in the assessment
of answers and award of marks valued by different valuers.
[Para 42][97-E-F]
2. In the instant case, the clause "Detailed procedure for
written examination shall be determined by the Board and will
be displayed on its own website" as appearing in Rule 15(b) of
the Recruitment Rules [U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil
Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015], specifically
empowered the Board to devise or determine the procedure.
With deletion of Appendix-3 and specific empowerment in Rule
15(b), the Board could have multiple examinations instead of one
single examination. By very nature of such empowerment and in
the backdrop of conducting an examination for more than 6 lakh
candidates, the Board was entitled to adopt the process of 'scaling
of marks' or 'normalization'. Given the facts and circumstances,
the process of 'scaling of marks' or normalization was inevitable
in the instant matter and was necessarily required to be
undertaken. [Para 43][97-G-H; 98-A-B]
3.1. Going by the plain language of the concerned
provisions, what is clear is both provisions i.e. Rule 15(b) and
15(e) of the Recruitment Rules refer to the expression 'marks'.
Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules requires every candidate to
obtain minimum 50% marks in each of the subjects and states,
"candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above
subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment". Rule 15(e) requires
the Board to prepare a select list of each category of candidates,
"on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in written
examination under clause (b)". The provisions do not, on the
plain language employed, demand different yardstick or principle
to be adopted. [Para 45][98-F-H]
3.2. If one construes the expression 'marks' in Rules 15(b)
and 15(e) to be 'raw marks' at both the stages that will go against
the very basic idea which calls for applicability of 'scaling of marks'
or 'normalization' because of the variability arising from multiple
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
31
examinations. Thus, if 'raw marks' is to be the basis at both the
stages, the candidates would never be tested on an equal footing
or basis. This would, therefore, call for either of the following
two alternatives:- Either to consider expressions 'marks' in both
these provisions to be marks after the adoption of normalization,
or 'normalized score', or to accept the course suggested by the
respondents and construe expression 'marks' in Rule 15(b) to
be 'raw marks' and apply normalization at Rule 15(e) stage only
to consider inter se merit position. [Para 46][99-A-C]
3.3. However, if the submission advanced by the
respondents is accepted, it will lead to incongruities on three
counts. It may, as well, lead to a situation where a person, in the
final analysis i.e. after the 'scaling of marks' or 'normalization' is
adopted, may have failed to secure more than 50% "normalized
score" in a subject or subjects and yet he will be part of the Select
List. Secondly, those who may have secured more than 50%
'normalized score' but less than 50% 'raw marks' will be out of
reckoning as they would not be allowed to go beyond Rule 15(b)
stage. Lastly, such a course will necessarily imply that the
expression "Candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of
the above subject shall not be eligible for recruitment" [as
appearing in Rule 15(b)] will have to be treated differently as
against the preparation of a select list [in terms of Rule 15(e)]
"on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in written
examination under clause (b)". [Para 47][99-C-F]
3.4. It is relevant to note that the ineligibility referred to in
Rule 15(b) is as against 'recruitment'. The criteria for eligibility
is not just confined to the stages upto 15(c) and 15(d) but must
be fulfilled all through i.e. upto recruitment. Rule 15(e) makes
specific and clear reference to- marks obtained by each candidate
in written examination under clause (b). The verb used is 'obtain'
at both the places i.e. in Rule 15(b) and in Rule 15(e). At both the
stages the marks 'obtained' in written examinations referable to
clause (b), are the relevant criteria for (i) being eligible for
recruitment in terms of Rule 15(b) and for (ii) preparing the select
list under Rule 15(e). Adopting a different yardstick as suggested
by the respondents will certainly lead to incongruent situations
as stated. [Para 48][99-G-H; 100-A]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
4. It is true that the same expression appearing at different
places in a statute has, on some occasions, been construed by
this Court differently, depending upon the context in which such
expressions appear. Thus, it is the context which must determine
whether the same expression occurring at two different places
must be considered differently or in the same light. [Paras 49,
50][100-A-B; 102-E-F]
5. If one accepts the interpretation sought to be placed by
the respondents it would result in a situation where a person
having 'normalized score' of 50% marks or above may be out of
reckoning because his raw marks were less than 50%; and, there
are sizable number of such persons. At the same time, someone
whose 'normalized score' was well below 50% may still be part
of the Select List because his "raw marks" were above 50%.
[Para 51][102-F-G]
6. If the intent is to see that every candidate must have
obtained minimum 50% marks and those 'candidates failing to
obtain 50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be
eligible for recruitment' as mandated by Rule 15(b) of Recruitment
Rules or by paragraph 9 of the notification dated 28.6.2017, even
going by the context and purposive interpretation, the expression
'marks' must be given the same meaning at both the stages; and
the only possible meaning that can be ascribed is 'normalized
score'. Adopting different standards as suggested by the
respondents would result in anomalous situations. Such anomaly
will however stand removed if the expression 'marks' appearing
in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) stages is construed in the same light
and as 'normalized score'. [Para 52][102-G-H; 103-A-C]
7. In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board in
adopting the process of normalization at the initial stage, that is
to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules was quite
consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by
the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by
the High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence
of bona fides at any juncture of the process. Further, decisions
made by expert bodies, including the Public Services
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
33
Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless
instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made
out. [Para 53][103-C-E]
8. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside
and the results declared by the Board on 28th February 2019 shall
now be given effect as early as possible. However, the State and
the Board had permitted candidates from both the categories i.e.
who had secured more than 50% 'raw marks' as well as those
who had secured more than 50% 'normalized score'. Such
candidates had participated in all the further stages, namely, in
physical standard test, physical efficiency test, though some of
them from the first category were finally disqualified on the ground
that they had secured less than 50% 'normalized score'. The
State may consider making some allowance in favor of such
subsequently disqualified candidates either by granting some
weightage and/or age relaxation in the next selection. [Paras 54,
55][103-F-H; 104-A]
Sanjay Singh & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission,
Allahabad & Anr.(2007) 3 SCC 720 : [2007] 1
SCR 235; Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public
Service Commission and others (2016) 2 SCC 495;
Mahinder Kumar and Ors. v. High Court of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 87; Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P)
Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 632 : [1999] 2 SCR 177; and
Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. The District Magistrate,
Thana [1956] SCR 644 - relied on.
P.Singaravelan and others vs. District Collector,
Tiruppur and DT and others (2020) 3 SCC 133; P.C.G.
Govindan v. State of Gujarat and others (1987) 7 SCC
625; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through
its Chairman v. Omaditya Verma and others (2005) 4
SCC 424 : [2005] 3 SCR 166; State of Orissa and
another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das and others (2019)6
SCC 270 : [2019] 7 SCR 197; U.P. Public Service
Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit and others
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
(2003) 12 SCC 701 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 210; Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar
Yadav and another (2018) 3 SCC 706 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 1 SCR 235
relied on
Para 21 (g)
(2020) 3 SCC 133
referred to
Para 23
(1987) 7 SCC 625
referred to
Para 23
[2005] 3 SCR 166
referred to
Para 23
[2019] 7SCR 197
referred to
Para 23
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 210
referred to
Para 33
(2013) 11 SCC 87
relied on
Para 35
(2016) 2 SCC 495
relied on
Para 37
(2018) 3 SCC 706
referred to
Para 38
[1999] 2 SCR 177
relied on
Para 49
[1956] SCR 644
relied on
Para 49
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.228 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in W. A. No.23733 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 and 235 of 2022.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Vinod Diwakar, AAG, Vinay Navare, Pallav
Shishodia, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, V. Giri, P. S. Patwalia, Dr. A. M.
Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Kapil Sibal, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Dr. Rajiv
Dhavan, Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advs., Akshat Srivastava, Krishna M.
Singh, Rajiv Kumar, Sanjeev Gupta, D. K. Devesh, Ms. Pooja, Ravi
Shanker Jha, Durga Dutt, Rohit Priyadarshi, Dr. Sushma Singh, Rakesh
Kumar Singh, Somesh Kumar Dubey, Amarendra Choubey, Upendra
Narayan Mishra, Kousik Ghosh, Ms. Shuchi Singh,
Krishna Kant Dubey, Jainendra Kumar Ojha, Sanjay Kumar
Dubey, Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Prashant Shukla, Suyash Srivastava,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
35
Madhumay Mishra, Anurag Tripathi, Satyajeet Kumar, Priyank Upadhyay,
Manoj K. Mishra, Umesh Dubey, D. N. Dubey, Sudhir Rawat, Dr. Bheem
Pratap Singh, R. K. Singh, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ms. Ritu
Reniwal, Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Aman Rastogi, Sanjay Rastogi, Robin
Khokhar, Mahendra Kumawat, Arvind Aggarwal, Anas Tanwir, Sachin
Upadhyay, Shivendra Rathore, Ms. Garima Prasad, Sanjay Kapur, V.
M. Kannan, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Amit, Surendra Singh Rana, Ikshit
Singhal, Vipin Sandu, Ms. Vani Vyas, Jeetendra Kumar, Ashutosh
Chaturvedi, Maneesh Saxena, Anbarasan Nathar Paul, Raghvendra
Shukla, Ms. Bhanu Priya Sharma for M/s Mukesh Kumar Singh & Co.,
Tom Joseph, Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Sankalp Narain, Ms. Pallavi Pratap,
Ms. Prachi Pratap, Bhav Ratan, Ms. Madhavi Khanna, M/s Pratap &
Co., D. K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Abhishek Garg, Chanakya Gupta, M.
P. Parthiban, Md. Saquib Siddiqui, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Ms. Shagun
Thakur, Amod Kumar Bidhuri, Raghwendra Tiwari, Ms. Mamta Tiwari,
Ravi Mishra, Ajay Kumar, Abhishek Verma, Ms. Amrita Kumari, Abbula
Kalam, Satish Pandey, Abdul Qadir, Dr. Brij Bhushan K. Jauhari, Gaurav
Yadav, Lalit Chahar, Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Harsh Mahan, O. P. Singh,
Arvind Kumar Shukla, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Prashant Mishra, Prakhar
Saran, Tarun Agrawal,
Ms. Anuroop Chakravarti, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Ravi
Chandra Prakash, Abhishek Tripathi, Ms. Sushma Vyas, Adit Pujari, Ms.
Sujata Muni, Manish Kumar Gupta, Shashank Singh, Romil Pathak,
Arvind C., Vinay Bhardwaj, Amit Kumar, Prashant Chaturvedi, Anand
Sharma, Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, A. Dev Kumar, Vipin Sharma, Atulesh
Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Vishal Thakre, Abhay Singh Yadav, Rudra
Pratap Yadav, S. B. Khan, Sanjeev Malhotra, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Sanjay
Kr. Yadav, Rakesh Kumar, Divhyash Tiwari, Binod Kumar Singh, Ravi
Shanker Jha, Shish Pal Laler, Ravi Panwar, Anand Mishra, Amrendra
Kumar Singh, Ms. Shivangi Popli, Vivek Sharma, Ms. Rachana Sharma,
Kaushal Yadav, Sandeep Mishra, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Ms. Shweta
Yadav, Dr. Ajay Kumar, M. Shoeb Alam, Amit K. Ranjan, Pinkesh Kumar,
Mojahid Karim Khan, Ms. Akansha Rai, Ms. Apeksha Rai, Ms. Yashoda
Katiyar, Ms. Kritya Pandey, Krishna M. Singh, Vishal Singhal, Ravleen
Chhabra, Anand Nandan, Hassan Zubair Waris, Amit Pawan, Ms. Nidhi
Agarwal, Pankaj Sharma, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Manish Vashistha,
Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Danish Zubair Khan, Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Richa
Kapoor, Kunal Anand, Badri Prasad Singh, Shivendra Singh, Pradeep
Misra, Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advs. for the Appellants.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
Leave granted.
1. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated
11.09.2019 passed by the High Court1.
2. A notification was published by the State Government inviting
online application forms from male candidates for filling up 2400 posts
of Sub-Inspector of Police, 210 posts of Platoon Commander (PAC2)
and 97 posts of Fire Officer (Grade-II) in Uttar Pradesh Police. The
procedure for recruitment contemplated Online Written Examination,
Physical Standard Test and Physical Fitness Test whereafter the final
list of selected candidates would be published. The relevant portion of
the notification dealing with online written examination was as under:
"4. Procedure of Recruitment
This recruitment is done under Uttar Pradesh Sub Inspector and
Inspector (Police) Service (1st Amendment) Rulebook - 2015.
4.1 Online Written Examination
All the applicants whose application have been found to be correct
and accepted will be expected to take up a 400 marks online
written examination. This examination will contain question based
on 4 subjects listed below and will be based on multiple choice
type questions.
1 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Application No.23733 of 2018 and all
other connected matters.
2 Provincial Armed Constabulary.
Applicants who will fail to score a minimum of 50 percent marks
in the test will not be eligible for recruitment. Depending on the
number of applicants the written examination will be carried out
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
37
on one day and one session, or on one day multiple sessions or on
multiple days multiple sessions. For each session the question paper
will be different. The course for the online examination is in
Annexure-1. If after completion of online examination and being
invited by the board the applicant makes any objection then he
has to pay a pre-determined charge. If the objection has been
found to be true then the amount will be refunded."
2.1 Similar notification was published on the same date with respect
to 600 posts of Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police) for female candidates.
The recruitment procedure was dealt with in Para 4 of the notification
and the portion dealing with "Online Written Examination" was identical
to Para 4.1 quoted hereinabove.
3. In response to these advertisements, 6,30,926 applicants
submitted their online application forms. Considering the large number
of candidates who had offered their candidature, a notification was
published on 28.6.2017, the translated portion of which was as under:
"NOTICE/ RELEASE
No.PRPB-Anu-6-P-18/2016
Dated: June 28, 2017
1.
For the Males for the Direct Recruitment 2016 on the posts
of the Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police), Platoon Commander
PAC and Fire Brigade Second Officers and for filling up
2400 posts for the Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police), 210 posts
for the Platoon Commander PAC and 97 posts for the Fire
Brigade Second Officer from the Males candidates online
application was invited.
2.
Similarly for the Females for the post of Sub-Inspector
(Nagrik Police) under the Direct Recruitment - 2016 in the
Uttar Pradesh Police for the 600 posts for filing up the posts
for the Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police) from the Females
candidates online application was invited.
3.
For the Males on the posts of Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police),
Platoon Commander, PAC and Fire Brigade Second
Officers under the Direct Recruitment-2016 total 5,42,124
candidates and for the Females for the filling up the post
for the Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police) under the Direct
Recruitment-2016, 88,802 viz. total 6,30,926 candidates had
applied.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
4.
On the posts of Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police), Platoon
Commander PAC and Fire Brigade Second Officer in the
direct online written examination on the basis of the seniority
of the received marks this examination is being run/
organized. In accordance with the number of the candidates
the online written examination in more than one date in the
different sitting along with the different questions papers
the need has come for getting organized the same. The
question paper of every sitting will be different in which
there may not be possibility of equality and keeping in view
the same in the different questions paper by the candidates
the Normalisation of the received marks "MAH-MBA/
MMS CET 2015" by the used Standardized Equi-percentile
method it will be done.
5.
The construction of the question paper of the online written
examination will be as under:-
6.
In the question paper total 160 questions will be there. For
every question there will be four alternative answers, in
which the candidates will select one out of four alternative
answers which the candidate feels it correct. For every
question select only one answer and fill up online answer.
7.
For every correct answer 2.50 marks is fixed or for any
incorrect answer no negative marking will be done there.
8.
In any subject in case of cancelling of any question the
valuation procedure in the Writ Petition No.2669/2009 (MB)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
39
- Pawan Kumar Agrahari vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission by the Hon'ble High Court it will be done in
accordance with the established law and order.
9.
In every subject in receiving 50% marks the candidate who
failed to do so for the recruitment procedure he will not be
eligible.
10.
In the question paper leaving the general Hindi subject the
question paper of other subjects there will be in Hindi and
English Language. Any question in other native language
on the login screen it will be selected it may be seen. In
case of any doubts the English translation will be
acceptable......"
4. Paragraph 4 of the notification dated 28.06.2017 thus stated
that normalization of marks received, would be done as per "Standardized
Equi-percentile method" used in MAH-MBA/MMS CET 2015.
It may therefore be relevant at this stage to set out relevant
instructions pertaining to MAH-MBA/MMS CET 2015. The instructions
issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai for holding the online Common Entrance Test were:-
"Instructions for Registration for MAH-MBA/MMS-CET
2015 by candidate:
1.
MAH-MBA/MMS-CET 2015 shall be conducted only in
the ONLINE mode in multiple sessions. Competent
Authority, using standardized equi-percentile method, will
be equating scores across sessions.
...
...
..."
The information brochure dealt with issue of arriving at the equated
score as under:
"(i)
 Number of questions answered correctly by a candidate
in each objective test is considered for arriving at the
Corrected Score.
(ii)
The Corrected Scores so obtained by a candidate are made
equivalent to take care of the minor difference in difficulty
level, if any, in each of the objective test held in different
sessions to arrive at the Equated Scores.*
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
*Scores obtained by candidates on any test are equated to
the base form by considering the distribution of scores of
all the forms.
(iii)
testwise scores and scores on total is reported with decimal
points upto two digits.
Please note that the types of questions shown here are only
illustrative and not exhaustive. In the actual examination
you will find questions of a higher difficulty level on some
or all of these types and also questions on the types not
mentioned here."
5. Written examination was held between 12th to 23rd December,
2017 in 29 different sittings. In other words, 29 different batches of
students appeared for the written examination where the question papers
were different. After the completion of written examination, 11741
students were called for further stages to participate in "Physical
Standards Test" and "Physical Efficiency Test". This number comprised
of 5461 candidates who had secured more than 50% actual marks in the
written examination which shall hereafter be referred to as "raw marks";
while 5713 candidates had secured more than 50% marks after the process
of normalization as set out in para 4 of the Notification dated 28.06.2017
was adopted, which marks shall hereafter be referred to as "normalized
score".
All these 11741 candidates were allowed to take part in the further
stages of the process of selection.
6. In October, 2018, Writ Petition No.23733 of 2018 was filed in
the High Court by certain candidates who had secured more than 50%
raw marks submitting inter alia that the Board3 had wrongly applied the
normalization process by issuing call letters to all those candidates who
had not obtained more than 50% raw marks but had secured more than
50% normalized score. It was submitted that the candidates who had
not secured more than 50% raw marks but could cross 50% only with
the help of normalized score could not be included in the list of qualified
candidates and were required to be excluded from the process of selection.
In the affidavit in reply filed by the Member Secretary of the
Board3 to said writ petition, it was stated :-
3 Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
41
"10. That in the present selection all the candidates who has
obtained 50% marks either in the category of raw marks or after
the process of normalization in each of the subject such candidates
has been declared successful for next stage of recruitment such
as document verification and physical standard test and the
aforesaid process of normalization is being adopted by the Board
in accordance with law and as the present writ petition as framed
is devoid of any merits and the grounds taken therein have no
force and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
7. On 28.02.2019, the final result of the selection process was
declared which comprised of eight lists as under:-
"(i) List 1 - List of 2181 selected candidates for the post of Sub
Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander PAC and Fireman
Second Officer.
(ii) List 2 - A joint merit list of 2181 selected candidates for Sub
Inspector (Police), Platoon Commander PAC and Fireman Second
Officer.
(iii) List 3 - A joint merit list of 2181 selected candidates for Sub
Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander PAC and Fireman
- Second Officer categories.
(iv) List 4 - A list of 1943 candidates selected for Sub Inspector
(Civil Police).
(v) List 5 - 162 candidates selected for Platoon Commander PAC.
(vi) List 6 - List of 76 officers selected for Fireman Second Officer.
(vii) List 7 - List of non-selected candidates.
(viii) List 8 - List of candidates declared unsuccessful in the written
examination."
8. Thereafter, an application seeking amendment of Writ Petition
No.23733 of 2018 was filed and the following prayer was sought to be
added: -
"(iii-a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
and quash the impugned result dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure-8)
regarding List-B showing name of Petitioners Nos.1, 2, 4, 12, 21,
26, 41, 61, 62, 63, 70, 80, 81, 82, 84, 90, 94, 97, 98 and 99 as well
as other candidates failed in written exam."
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
The aforesaid amendment application was allowed by a Single
Judge of the High Court vide Order dated 06.03.2019.
9. Some of the unsuccessful candidates had also filed Writ Petition
SS No.6540 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Yadav and 49 Ors. v. State of U.P.
Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.) before the Lucknow
Bench of the High Court.
In the reply dated 23.03.2019, filed by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh to said Writ Petition,
it was submitted:-
"It is further submitted that the written examination has been
organized by the U.P. Public Service Commission by different
papers and same has been evaluated by the different examiners
and as such scaling system has been adopted by the U.P. Public
Service Commission. Hence the aforesaid judgment cited by the
petitioners is not applicable.
It is also relevant to mention here that selection in question has
been conducted online but in the aforesaid online examination there
is no difference in the subject, however, considering the huge
number of candidates online examination was held on different
dates and different shifts, as such different set of papers with
varying levels of difficulty have been used. It is further submitted
that for normalization of the Marks of the candidates who appeared
in different papers, Standardized Equi-percentile Method has been
applied. Where the Examination were held in different dates,
different shifts and different set of papers. The Normalization
process has been adopted in different National Examination,
therefore, the Normalization process adopted by board is legal
and justified."
10. In said Writ Petition No.6540 of 2019 and other connected
matters, a Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim order on
30.03.2019, the operative portion of which was:-
"As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of
listing, no appointment letter shall be issued to the selected
candidates pursuant to the select list / result dated 28.02.2019,
which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, however,
the process of selection which is being undertaken by the State
Authorities may go on."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
11. The aforestated Order dated 30.03.2019 was challenged by
some of the selected candidates by preferring Special Appeal (Defective)
No.210 of 2019 (Satyendra Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P.
Thru. Add. Chief Secy, Deptt. of Home and Ors).
The Division Bench of the High Court considered rival submissions
advanced by the concerned candidates and the State Government and
by its order dated 27.05.2019 modified the interim directions issued by
the Single Judge. The operative portion of the order passed by the Division
Bench was:-
"....After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the
opinion that the process of recruitment, which was initiated in the
year 2016 for which the final select list has been issued on
28.02.2019 could not be hampered on account of any order passed
by the Court. It is not in dispute that the introduction of the Rule
of Equi-percentile Methodology was notified by means of the notice
dated 28.06.2017 i.e. prior to the date when the examination was
held and none of the writ petitioners had assailed the said
Methodology. After having appeared in the examination and upon
declaration of the final select list, it would not be appropriate for
such candidates to hold the entire recruitment process to ransom.
However, without entering into the merits of making any
observations, this Court in the facts and circumstances deem
appropriate that subject to the directions given in this special appeal,
the respondent No.2 i.e. U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion
Board may issue the appointment letters, which shall be subject
to the final outcome of the writ petition pending before the learned
Single Judge.
The appellants and other selected candidates shall give their
undertaking before the appropriate authority concerned that they
shall not claim any lien or right over the appointment and their
appointments shall be purely subject to the outcome of the writ
petitions pending before the learned Single Judge. The appellants
shall ensure that they file their counter affidavit before the next
date of listing before the learned Single Judge, who shall upon
exchange of pleadings shall consider the issue involved shall decide
the writ petitions pending before it."
12. Consequently, selected candidates were sent for training.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
13. The Order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench
was challenged by some of the candidates by preferring Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.13551 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Yadav and Ors. vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) which came up before the Vacation
Bench of this Court on 12.06.2019 when following order passed by this
Court: -
"We do not find any cogent grounds to interfere with the order of
the Division Bench impugned. The selected candidates have given
an undertaking that they shall not claim any lien or right over the
appointments which shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
The special leave petition is not entertained.
We, however, request the Chief Justice of the High Court to
constitute a special Division Bench to expeditiously hear the writ
petition on day-to-day basis without granting necessary
adjournments and to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously
as possible preferably within thirty days from the date of
constitution of the Bench.
The special leave petition and pending applications are accordingly
disposed of."
14. Thereafter, a Special Division Bench was constituted at
Allahabad. Similarly, a Special Bench was also constituted at Lucknow
Bench of High Court. The Special Division Bench constituted at
Allahabad allowed Writ Petition No.23733 of 2018 and other connected
matters by its judgment and order dated 11.09.2019 which is presently
under challenge.
14.1 The rival submissions advanced by the parties, were
summarized by the Special Division Bench at Allahabad as under:-
"61. Having noted the rival contentions, at length, the submissions
of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in brief can be
summarized as follows:-
(i) the Selection Board has been conferred limited power under
the Recruitment Rules only to determine the procedure of written
examination;
(ii) the Selection Board is not vested with the power and authority
to determine the procedure of selection which has been prescribed
by the rule making authority;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
45
(iii) the eligibility condition of obtaining 50% marks by a candidate
is a condition precedent mandated under the Rules, which is not
subject to any alteration or substitution by normalized score;
(iv) normalization is a method of evaluation falling within the ambit
of written examination and not an eligibility condition, normalized
score at the best can be applied for preparing the select list in
order of merit;
(v) the Selection Board by eliminating the qualified candidates
having scored 50% marks in each subject by applying the
normalized score exceeded its power and authority vested by the
Recruitment Rules;
62. In rebuttal the submissions on behalf of the respondents, can
be briefly summarized as follows:-
(i) the Selection Board is vested with the power and authority to
equalize the marks obtained by a candidate in the backdrop of
written examinations held on multiple dates/multiple shifts with
different papers;
(ii) the Selection Board has inherent power to adopt a fair and just
procedure by equalizing the marks to place all the candidates on a
level playing ground;
(iii) the Selection Board has power to equalize the eligibility marks
(50%) prescribed under the Rules in an examination held in multiple
shifts with different standard of papers;
(iv) candidates appearing in difficult papers would be in
disadvantageous position as against candidates appearing in
relatively easier question papers. The word ''marks' used in Subclause (b) and (e) of Rule 15 would mean and include normalized
marks.
(v) petitioners after participating in the selection process cannot
turn around to challenge the same.
63. Rival submissions fall for consideration."
14.2 The questions that arose for consideration were formulated
as under: -
"(i) whether the Selection Board was within its power and authority
in applying the normalized percentile score to determine the
eligibility of the candidates or in the alternative whether the
Selection Board transgressed its authority to alter/substitute the
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
eligibility criteria (50% marks) mandated in Sub-clause (b) of Rule
15 by normalized score to non-suit, all such candidates from the
recruitment process who obtained 50% marks and above;
(ii) the scope of judicial review of the Standardized Equitable
Percentile Method adopted by the Selection Board."
14.3. In paragraph 66 of its judgment, the Special Division Bench
quoted Rule 15 of the Recruitment Rules4:
""Procedure for Direct Recruitment to the post of SubInspector:-
15. (a) Application form and call letter:-
A candidate shall fill only one application Form. The Board will
accept only online applications. The application of candidates, who
fill more than one form, may be rejected by the Board. The Head
of the Department, in consultation with the Board, shall fix an
application fee for any recruitment. Detailed procedure of filling
the Application Form and issuance of call letter shall be determined
by the Board and will be displayed on its own website.
The Government may change the number of vacancies for any
recruitment at any time before the first examination and may also
cancel any recruitment at any time or stage of recruitment without
assigning any reason therefor.
(b) Written examination
Candidates whose applications are found correct, shall be required
to appear for written test of 400 marks. In this written examination,
the Board will keep one objective type question paper of the
following subjects:-
4 The U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules,
2015 framed in exercise of powers under the Police Act, 1861.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
47
Candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above
subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment. The detailed
syllabus for the examination will be decided by Board and will be
displayed on its own website. The Board will decide at its own
level to conduct written examination on one date in a single shift
or in more than one shift or on more than one shift or on more
than one date in different shifts with different question paper.
Detailed procedure for written examination shall be
determined by the Board and will be displayed on its own
website.
(c) Scrutiny of documents and physical standard test:-
Candidates found successful in written examination under
clause (b) shall be required to appear in Scrutiny of
Documents and physical Standard Test. Keeping in view the
total number of vacancies, the Board shall decide at its own level,
the number of candidates on the basis of merit to be called for this
test.