JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. on 18 December 2019

984

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 18 S.C.R.

AJHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

v.

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 9441 of 2019)

BDECEMBER 18, 2019

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Service Law – Jharkhand Eligibility Test – Eligibility of thecandidates for appointment as lecturers – Jharkhand Public ServiceCCommission (JPSC) issued advertisement on 19.07.2006 invitingapplications for Jharkhand Eligibility Test – The test consisted ofthree papers; the first two papers were multiple choice questionsand third paper was a descriptive type question paper – Candidatesobtaining 50% marks in Paper I and II were eligible to take test inpaper III – The writ petitioner obtained 50% marks in papers I andDII – Thereafter, writ petitioner appeared in paper III – The JPSCfixed a cut off percentage of 60 for paper III which the writpetitioner did not attain and he was declared unsuccessful – Writpetition – High Court held that JPSC could not fix the minimummarks for paper III – On appeal, held: There were no minimumEmarks provided for paper III in the advertisement – It was for themoderation committee to decide what should be the cut-off marks –This could be done by the moderation committee even at a laterstage – This was not a change brought about but an additionalaspect brought in while determining the merit of the candidates whowere found fit to be eligible for consideration for appointment ofFlecturers – High Court erred in holding that the JPSC could not fixthe minimum marks for paper III – Therefore, judgment of the HighCourt set aside.

Disposing of the appeals, the CourtGHELD : 1. A perusal of Clause 4.1 of the scheme clearlyindicates that the moderation committee has been constitutedonly for the purpose of deciding the cut-off marks in each subjectfor declaring the result. The advertisement clearly indicates thatonly those candidates who obtained 50% marks in Paper I and II

H

would be eligible to take the test in Paper III. The minimumqualifying marks in case of General/OBC candidates was 50%.At this stage, there was no need to fix the qualifying marks forPaper III. That need will arise only when the moderationcommittee meets and decides what should be the level ofcompetence expected from the people who are to be consideredfor appointment as Lecturers. It is for the moderation committeeto decide what should be the cut-off marks. There could be thesubject where all the people who qualified Paper I and II getvery low marks in Paper III and the moderation committee maybe justified in lowering the standards and prescribing lowerqualifying standards. On the other hand, there may be a subjectwhere there are many candidates who do extremely well in PaperIII and the moderation committee may decide to fix a higherminimum standard. The constitution of a moderation committeeis normally done only to do this sort of moderation. [Para 6][988-C-F]

2. As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules ofthe game were changed after the selection process had started,this Court is of the considered view that this is not the case as faras the present case is concerned. There were no minimum marksprovided for Paper III in the advertisement. This could be doneby the moderation committee even at a later stage. This is not achange brought about but an additional aspect brought in whiledetermining the merit of the candidates who are found fit to beeligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.[Para 7][988-F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9441of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2016 of the High Courtof Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (C) No. 3705 of 2015.

With

Civil Appeal No. 9442 of 2019.

Sunil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Vikas, Jamnesh Kumar, Parth AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AShekhar, Himanshu Shekhar, Anil K. Jha, Chandra Anand Jha, Advs. forthe appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

B1. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued anadvertisement on 19.07.2006 inviting applications from candidatesdesirous of competing in the Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET). This test isnot meant for selection to any post but is conducted to determine theeligibility of the candidates for appointment as lecturers in universitiesand colleges of the State of Jharkhand. This test called the State LevelCEligibility Test (SLET) is conducted as per the guidelines laid down bythe University Grants Commission (UGC).

2. The test consists of three papers – the first two papers aremultiple choice questions to be answered on an Optical Mark Reader(OMR). One test is of a general subject and one test is of the subject forDwhich the candidate applies. The third paper is a descriptive type questionpaper dealing only with the subject selected by the candidate. Relevantportion of the advertisement reads as follows:

“A candidate who does not appear in Paper-I will not be permittedto appear in Paper-II and Paper-III. Paper-III will be evaluatedEonly for those candidates who are able to secure the minimumqualifying marks in Paper-I and Paper-II as per the table given inthe following:- CATEGORYMINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS

F

G

H

3. The writ petitioner obtained 50% marks in Papers I and II buthe did not do as well in Paper III. The JPSC fixed a cut off percentageof 60 for Paper III which the writ petitioner did not attain and as such hewas declared not successful and, therefore, ineligible to be consideredfor appointment as lecturer.

4. Aggrieved by the said action, the writ petitioner filed a writpetition before the High Court which allowed the same. The appeal filedby the JPSC before the writ court was also allowed mainly on the groundthat the Public Service Commission could not have fixed qualifying marksof 60% and this amounted to changing the rules of the game after theadvertisement had been issued and process of selection had started. Itheld that once the candidate had obtained 50% marks, the candidatecould not be disqualified and the JPSC was not bound by the instructionsof the UGC in this regard. The High Court also directed that the case ofthe writ petitioner would be considered on the basis of performance.The High Court held that no cut off marks had been provided for PaperIII.

5. We have heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counselappearing for the JPSE who drew our attention to the scheme framedby the UGC for the SLET. The scheme has a provision for constitutionof a moderation committee which will help in deciding the cut off marksin each subject for declaring the result. The relevant portion of the schemereads as follows:

“Moderation Committee: The committee will help in deciding thecut-off marks in each subject for declaring the result. TheCommittee will consist of the following:

1. Chairman of Steering/Advisory Committee.

2. State Government Representatives.

3. Two Professors of the different State Universities in rotation.

4. One Professor from outside the State.

5. Member Secretary (State agency)

6. One nominee of the U-CAT out of two nominated by UGC.

7. Member Secretary, (UGC Official) U-CAT, UGC.”

Mr. Sunil Kumar contends that the moderation committee, keepingin view the various factors, decides what should be the cut off marks in A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aeach subject and this does not have to be decided at the stage of issuanceof advertisement. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Vikas, learnedcounsel appearing for the original writ petitioner, submits that theadvertisement does not envisage any minimum cut-off marks for PaperIII. He further submits that this is only an eligibility test and the field ofchoice becomes larger if more people are held eligible. Both sides haveBchallenged the judgment of the High Court and we are deciding both theappeals by this common judgment.

6. A perusal of Clause 4.1 of the scheme clearly indicates that themoderation committee has been constituted only for the purpose ofdeciding the cut-off marks in each subject for declaring the result. TheCadvertisement clearly indicates that only those candidates who obtained50% marks in Paper I and II would be eligible to take the test in PaperIII. The minimum qualifying marks in case of General/OBC candidateswas 50%. At this stage, there was no need to fix the qualifying marksfor Paper III. That need will arise only when the moderation committeeDmeets and decides what should be the level of competence expectedfrom the people who are to be considered for appointment as Lecturers.It is for the moderation committee to decide what should be the cut-offmarks. There could be the subject where all the people who qualifiedPaper I and II get very low marks in Paper III and the moderationcommittee may be justified in lowering the standards and prescribingElower qualifying standards. On the other hand, there may be a subjectwhere there are many candidates who do extremely well in Paper IIIand the moderation committee may decide to fix a higher minimumstandard. The constitution of a moderation committee is normally doneonly to do this sort of moderation.F

7. As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules of thegame were changed after the selection process had started, we are ofthe considered view that this is not the case as far as the present case isconcerned. There were no minimum marks provided for Paper III in theadvertisement. This could be done by the moderation committee even atGa later stage. This is not a change brought about but an additional aspectbrought in while determining the merit of the candidates who are foundfit to be eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.

8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that theHigh Court erred in holding that the JPSC could not fix the minimumHmarks for Paper III. Hence, we set aside the judgment of the High JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v.MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

Court dated 09.11.2016. The Civil Appeal No. 9441 of 2019 @ SpecialLeave Petition (Civil) No.14926 of 2017 filed by the Jharkhand PublicService Commission is allowed and C.A. No. 9442 of 2019 @ SpecialLeave Petition (Civil) No.31106 of 2017 filed by the other side (writpetitioner) is dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H