VISITORS

Monday, 18 April 2016

UPSC is doing contempt of Supreme Court & Supreme Court is doing contempt of people.Are they hand in glove ?

UPSC is doing contempt of Supreme Court by not providing xerox of answersheets under RTI and Supreme Court is doing Contempt of People by not acting against such contempt and helping UPSC by again accepting same SLP where already it had given categorical decisions regarding providing xerox of answersheets under RTI and delaying matter since 6-7 yrs . Whether Supreme Court judges are hand in glove with UPSC .Are they getting some benefit from UPSC ? We need to keep watch on IAS/IPS result how many relatives of judges are getting selected in these exams ? How many High Court jugdes are getting selected as supreme court judges who help UPSC to delay the cases going against UPSC and giving wrong decisions inspite of all documentary proofs against UPSC and thus delaying matter and ruining careers of lakhs of aspiring students..........

Saturday, 13 February 2016

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT SAYING PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAVE TO PROVIDE XEROX/SCAN COPIES ANSWERSHEETS TO STUDENTS UNDER RTI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.823-854 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos. 15919- 15950 of 2011) Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. …..Appellants Versus The State Information Commission & Anr. ….Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5433 of 2014) Public Service Commission U.P. …..Appellant Versus Raghvendra Singh .. Respondent J U D G M E N T M.Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted. 2. In these two appeals the short question which needs consideration is as to whether the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by impugned judgment has rightly held that the respondents are entitled not only to get information with regard to the scan copies of their answer sheet, 1 Page 2 tabulation-sheet containing interview marks but also entitled to know the names of the examiners who have evaluated the answer sheet. 3. The information sought for by the respondents were denied by the State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority. However, the State Information Commission allowed the second appeal and held that there is no fiduciary relationship in case of answer scripts. Further, the interview marks cannot be considered as personal information, since the public authority had already decided to publish them. 4. Both the High Courts of Kerala and Allahabad have taken the view, following the earlier decisions of this Court that no fiduciary relationship exists between the appellants and the respondents and, therefore, the information sought for have to be supplied to them. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments passed by the 2 Page 3 Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and Allahabad. 6. So far as the information sought for by the respondents with regard to the supply of scanned copies of his answer-sheet of the written test, copy of the tabulation sheet and other information, we are of the opinion that the view taken in the impugned judgment with regard to the disclosure of these information, do not suffer from error of law and the same is fully justified. However, the view of the Kerala High Court is that the information seekers are also entitled to get the disclosure of names of examiners who have evaluated the answer-sheet. 7. The view taken by the Kerala High Court holding that no fiduciary relationship exists between the University and the Commission and the examiners appointed by them cannot be sustained in law. The Kerala High Court while observing held:- “16.What, if any , is the fiduciary relationship of the PSC qua the examinees? Performance audit of constitutional institutions would only 3 Page 4 strengthen the confidence of the citizenry in such institutions. The PSC is a constitutional institution. To stand above board, is one of its own prime requirements. There is nothing that should deter disclosure of the contents of the materials that the examinees provide as part of their performance in the competition for being selected to public service. The confidence that may be reposed by the examinees in the institution of the PSC does not inspire the acceptability of a fiduciary relationship that should kindle the exclusion of information in relation to the evalution or other details relating to the examination. Once the evaluation is over and results are declared, no more secrecy is called for. Dissemination of such information would only add to the credibility of the PSC, in the constitutional conspectus in which it is placed. A particular examinee would therefore be entitled to access to information in relation to that person’s answer scripts. As regards others, information in relation to answer scripts may fall within the pale of “third party information” in terms of section 11 of the RTI Act. This only means that such information cannot be accessed except in conformity with the provisions contained in section 11. It does not, in any manner, provide for any immunity from access. 17. We shall now examine the next contention of PSC that there is a fiduciary relationship between it and the examiners and as a consequence, it is eligible to claim protection from disclosure, except with the sanction of the competent authority, as regards the identity of the examiners as also the materials that were subjected to the examination. We have already approved TREESA and the different precedents and commentaries relied on therein as regards the concept of fiduciary relationship. We are in full agreement with the law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Centre of Earth Science 4 Page 5 Studies (supra), that S.8 (1)(e) deals with information available with the person in his fiduciary relationship with another; that information under this head is nothing but information in trust, which, but for the relationship would not have been conveyed or known to the person concerned. What is it that the PSC holds in trust for the examiners? Nothing. At the best, it could be pointed out that the identity of the examiners has to be insulated from public gaze, having regard to issues relatable to vulnerability and exposure to corruption if the identities of the examiners are disclosed in advance. But, at any rate, such issues would go to oblivion after the conclusion of the evaluation of the answer scripts and the publication of the results. Therefore, it would not be in public interest to hold that there could be a continued secrecy even as regards the identity of the examiners. Access to such information, including as to the identity of the examiners, after the examination and evaluation process are over, cannot be shied off under any law or avowed principle of privacy.” 8. We do not find any substance in the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court on the question of disclosure of names of the examiners. 9. In the present case, the PSC has taken upon itself in appointing the examiners to evaluate the answer papers and as such, the PSC and examiners stand in a principalagent relationship. Here the PSC in the shoes of a Principal 5 Page 6 has entrusted the task of evaluating the answer papers to the Examiners. Consequently, Examiners in the position of agents are bound to evaluate the answer papers as per the instructions given by the PSC. As a result, a fiduciary relationship is established between the PSC and the Examiners. Therefore, any information shared between them is not liable to be disclosed. Furthermore, the information seeker has no role to play in this and we don’t see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the public at large. We would like to point out that the disclosure of the identity of Examiners is in the least interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal the examiner’s identity will give rise to dire consequences. Therefore, in our considered opinion revealing examiner’s identity will only lead to confusion and public unrest. Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the decision of the Kerala High Court with respect to the second question. 6 Page 7 10. In the present case the request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him. It is not something which a public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given marks according to their performance in the exam. This practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for the competitive exams, but, the request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and impartially and, similarly, the Examiners have faith that 7 Page 8 they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job properly. This may, further, create a situation where the potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in the same state or in the same level will try to contact the disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means in the potential exam. 11. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and modify the judgment only to the extent that the respondents-applicants are not entitled to the disclosure of names of the examiners as sought for by them. …………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal) …………………………….J. (Arun Mishra) New Delhi February 4, 2016 

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF XEROX COPY OF ANSWERSHEET AND RAW/MODERATED MARKS IN UPSC EXAM WILL MOST PROBABALY DECIDED BY SUPREME COURT ON 11/11/2014


Court No. 6


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA



.C.A. No. 5924/2013JOINT DIRECTOR AND CPIO & ANR.
Vs.
T.R.RAJESH
MR. GAURAV AGRAWAL
MS. BINU TAMTA
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
MR. RENJITH. B
MRS. SUDHA GUPTA
MR. VIKRANT SINGH BAIS
WITH
C.A. No. 6159/2013U.P.S.C. ETC.
Vs.
ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
MS. BINU TAMTA
PETITIONER-IN-PERSONCAVEATOR-IN-PERSON
MR. JAGDISH KUMAR CHAWLA
MR. MUNAWWAR NASEEM
MR. PANKAJ KUMAR
MR. SUMIT KUMAR
MR. VIKRANT SINGH BAIS
RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16680/2014UPSC
Vs.
MADHULIKA KUMARI
MS. BINU TAMTA
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16529/2014UPSC
Vs.
PRANJALYA PARTH LATHE
MS. BINU TAMTA
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16656/2014UPSC
Vs.
SHRI J ARUN KUMAR
MS. BINU TAMTA
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16670/2014UPSC
Vs.
ANKIT KUMAR
MS. BINU TAMTA

S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16632/2014UPSC
Vs.
RAVI KANT NIRALA
MS. BINU TAMTA

Friday, 4 July 2014

AAJ TAK exposes fraud in UP PSC under the name of scaling. SAME FRAUD IS BEING DONE IN UPSC'S CIVIL SERVICES EXAM , AND THEY CALL IT AS STATISTICAL MODERATION.

Whatever AAJ TAK is showing today on its channel regarding fraud in UPPSC under the name of scaling . same fraud is done in UPSC's Civil Services Exam. We have given proofs  to India Today Group. Even they have published in India Today (PLEASE SEE post 'INDIA TODAY' EXPOSES  FRAUD IN IAS/IPS exam http://tsanewindia.blogspot.in/2011/12/india-today-exposes-fraud-in-iasips.html. )

Only here difference is that some other group is getting its benefit. Media Friends told us that Uparase bahut pressure hai ye news dabaneke liye.......
http://aajtak.intoday.in/story/sting-operation-uppsc-accused-of-favouring-a-particular-caste-1-770219.html


Saturday, 20 July 2013

cases going against UPSC in Supreme Court regarding civil services exam

1.UPSC vs Angesh kumar
2.UPSC vs T.R.Rajesh


    Civil Appeal     5924/2013          

STATUS      PENDING
Cause Title
JOINT DIRECTOR AND CPIO & ANR.
Vs.
T.R.RAJESH
Advocate Details
 Pet. Adv.MS. BINU TAMTA
 Res. Adv.MR. RENJITH. B

Subject Category
SERVICE MATTERS RECRUITMENT/TRANSFER/COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

Listing Details
Last Listed on03/09/2013
  Designed,Developed and Maintained by NIC Computer Cell,Supreme Court of India
 Print PDF
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/caseno_new_alt.asp

Thursday, 21 February 2013

SLP FILED IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AGAINST FAULTY MODERATION SYSTEM IN CIVIL SERVICES MAIN EXAM.


SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The present petition poses for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court wherein the High Court erred in adopting a hypertechnical approach and without applying its mind to the factual matrix of the case, dismissed the  Review petition preferred by the petitioner in limnie, on the basis of technicalities stating that, “the candidates who have successfully cleared have not been impleaded as respondents, the petitioner is simply intending to keep the issue alive and declining the request to adjourn the matter, dismissed the Review petition for non prosecution”.

The High Court failed to appreciate that the method of moderation of marks applied by UPSC in evaluating answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination is unreasonable and arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

The Courts below failed to appreciate that the method of scaling of marks applied by UPSC in evaluating answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination was held to be arbitrary and illegal by Supreme Court in the decision reported as Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. U.P. Public Services Commission: (2007) 2 Scale 1. To bring home the point that scaling was being applied by UPSC in evaluating answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Main Examination particular emphasis may be placed on the averment contained in the additional affidavit filed by UPSC in the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1271/2006 titled 'Neel Ratan v. Union of India and Ors.' that 'the Commission, therefore, considers the statistical position of each subject to find out if the valuation has been strict or liberal by the Head Examiner/Paper Setter and does statistical moderation by linear transformation wherever considered necessary'.

The courts below failed to appreciate that the aforesaid averment when read in conjunction with the report titled "Statistical moderation of teachers assessment" commissioned by the qualifications and curriculum authority, United Kingdom and prepared by John Wilmut and Jennifer Tuson (which report was filed and particularly relied by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal), brings out that statistical moderation of marks by linear transformation is nothing but linear scaling of marks.

The Courts below failed to appreciate the overwhelming material produced by the petitioner strongly suggesting that there may have been manifold irregularities in the Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC in the years 2007-2009 and faced with such a situation, it was incumbent upon the Courts below  to direct UPSC to produce the answer-sheets of the petitioner pertaining to Main Examination and redress the doubts raised by the petitioner regarding the sanctity of the said examination(s).

The Courts below failed to appreciate the flaws/facts shown by petitioner in Moderation/Examination System such as mix up of Roll Numbers of other examinations, faulty randomisation, lack of Model Answersheets/Instuction sheet, overwriting  on marks given by original examiner multiple times, disproportionate selection from each subject and disproportionate selection from all slots of roll numbers, inadequate sample size, faulty sampling method and overall neglect to basic requirements to use any statistical method for statistical moderation/scaling, in disregard to the law held by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 in CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors regarding providing candidates photocopy of their answersheets by denying same on various grounds.

The Courts below failed to appreciate that in recent past, a number of instances have come to light intimating serious irregularities in the conduct of the examinations. Those instances show that the UPSC is not infallible and that the recruitment process of UPSC is not full proof. It is further submitted that where many instances have come to public knowledge, there may be several others which may not come into light due to the closed system of recruitment process and this itself hurts the integrity of the highest agency of recruitment in India.

That with respect to  the allegations pertaining to method adopted by UPSC for evaluation of answer sheets of candidates pertaining to the Main Examination being arbitrary and illegal, following averments were made in the application. It is respectfully submitted that the said lower marks of the Petitioner may be due to the manner of evaluation applied by the Respondent for evaluation of Answer-Books of Main's Examination which includes the scheme of Moderation as disclosed by the Respondent in several cases including the case of Subash Chandra Dixit v. U.P. Public Service Commission S.L.P. (civil) 23723/2002 before Hon'ble Supreme Court and before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Neel Ratan v. union of India and Ors. CWP No. 1271 of 2006.

This Hon’ble Court in the case of Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission:                            (2007) 3 SCC 720 petitions under Article 32 of Constitution of India were filed before Supreme Court by the unsuccessful candidates who appeared in the examinations conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as the "UPPSC") in the year 2003 for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). It was held by this Hon’ble Court that the material placed does not disclose that the Commission or its expert committee have kept key factors in view in determining the system of scaling. We have already demonstrated the anomalies/absurdities arising from the scaling system used. The Commission will have to identify a suitable system of evaluation, if necessary by appointing another committee of experts.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF EVENTS:
                                 Every year, Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UPSC") conducts Civil Services Examination for the purposes of recruitment to Indian Administrative Service and other allied services.

                                 The Civil Services Examination comprises of two successive stages; namely,
(i)                  Civil Services Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) for the selection of candidates for appearing in the main examination, and

(ii)                Civil Services Main examination (Written and Interview) for the selection of candidates for the various services and posts.

                                 The Preliminary Examination consists of two papers of objective type (multiple choice questions) in two subjects, namely, General Studies and one subject to be selected from the list of optional subjects set out in paragraph 2 of the plan of examinations notified by the UPSC and carries 150 and 300 marks respectively. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not considered and counted for determining the final order of merit of the successful candidates at the main examination.

                                 The candidates who are declared successful in the Preliminary Examination are required to appear at the Main Examination which consists of written examination as well as viva voce test. The written examination consists of nine papers; namely, two papers each for two optional subjects, two papers pertaining to General Studies, one paper pertaining to English, one paper pertaining to Regional Language and one paper pertaining to an essay written by the candidate. The marks pertaining to English and Regional Language are not counted for purposes of ranking in the examination. The papers pertaining to optional subjects and General Studies carry 300 marks whereas the paper pertaining to essay carries 200 marks, thus totaling 2000 marks in all. The viva voce test carries 300 marks. The marks obtained by a candidate in the Main Examination (written as well as viva voce) determine his final ranking. The successful candidates are allotted various services having regard to their ranking in the examination and the preferences expressed by them for various services and posts.

2007-2009              The petitioner herein is one of the few civil services aspirants, who appeared in Civil Services Examinations conducted by UPSC in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. The petitioner successfully cleared the Preliminary Examination in the year he sat, but not recommended finally  after the Main Examination.

2009                        Aggrieved by the marks awarded to him in the Main Examination, the petitioner namely, Prashant Ramesh Chakkrawar and Pranav Kumar Vatsa, filed O.A. No. 1565/2010 under Section 19, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 along with other civil services aspirants before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi inter-alia, alleging that the possibility that there were irregularities in the Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC in the years 2007-2009 cannot be ruled out inasmuch as various irregularities have been detected in the Civil Services Examinations conducted in the past several years and that the process adopted by UPSC for evaluation of answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Main Examination is arbitrary and illegal.

13.05.2009             The Ld. Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No. 1565/2010 filed by the petitioner herein, so as to keep parity with other similar cases.

18.09.2010             The petitioner filed WP (C) No. 6586/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of judicature at New Delhi against the order dt. 13.05.2009.

28.09.2010             The above writ petition was listed alongwith a batch of matters having similar issues and after the course of hearing, the judgment was reserved by the Hon’ble High Court without issuing notice to the respondents.

05.10.2010             (Impugned Order) The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at New Delhi dismissed all the writ petitions including WP (C) No. 6586/2010 by a common order.

29.07.2011             (Impugned Order) A Review petition RP Nos. 490/2010 was preferred by the petitioner here before the Hon’ble High Court which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court for non-prosecution.

                                 Hence, the instant SLP.
                                


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.                     OF 2011.

(Petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India against the impugned Final Judgment and order dated 29.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at New Delhi RP Nos. 490/2010 in WP (C) No. 6586/2010).


WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF


IN THE MATTER OF:-
DR. PRASHANT RAMESH CHAKKARWAR   
----       PETITIONER
AND

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (UPSC)  & ORS.                                                                                                                          
 ----  RESPONDENTS




FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE


    ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: MR. AMIT SHARMA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(ORDER XVI RULE 4(1)(a))

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.                  OF 2011.
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

BETWEEN                                            POSITION OF PARTIES

                                                             IN THE            IN THIS           
                                                       HIGH COURT      HON’BLE COURT

DR. PRASHANT RAMESH CHAKKARVAR,
S/O MR. RAMESH D. CHAKKARWAR
RAMESH SADAN, VASANT NAGAR,
UMARKHED, DIST. YAVATMAL,
MAHARASTRA.

                                     --                PETITIONER        PETITIONER

AND

1.      UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DHOLPUR HOUSE
SHAHJAHAN ROAD,
NEW DELHI-69

2.      UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
NEW DELHI.

-- RESPONDENTS       RESPONDENTS


TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.


                                                           THE HUMBLE PETITION OF
                                                           PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

 


           MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-


1.      That the petitioner is filing this Special leave petition against the impugned orders dated 05.10.2010 in WP (C) No. 6586/2010 and dated 29.07.2011 in RP Nos. 490/2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at New Delhi.


2.      QUESTIONS OF LAW:-


A.        Whether the High Court erred in adopting a hypertechnical approach and without applying its mind to the factual matrix of the case, dismissed the  Review petition preferred by the petitioner in limnie, on the basis of technicalities?

B.       Whether the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to take all the facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself whether a case for interference is made out or not?

3.   DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4 (2)
That the petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by him against the impugned Order.

4.      DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6

That the Annexures produced alongwith the Special Leave Petition are the true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in the Court below against whose orders the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5.      That the petitioner is filing said special leave petition interalia amongst the following:-

                                  GROUNDS

A.       BECAUSE the High Court erred in adopting a hypertechnical approach in the instant case and without applying its mind to the factual matrix of the case, dismissed the  Review petition preferred by the petitioner in limnie, on the basis of technicalities stating that, “the candidates who have successfully cleared have not been impleaded as respondents, the petitioner is simply intending to keep the issue alive and declining the request to adjourn the matter, dismissed the Review petition for non prosecution”.

B.       BECAUSE the High Court failed to appreciate that the method of moderation of marks applied by UPSC in evaluating answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination is unreasonable and arbitrary and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

C.      BECAUSE the Courts below failed to appreciate that the method of scaling of marks applied by UPSC in evaluating answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination was held to be arbitrary and illegal by Supreme Court in the decision reported as Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. U.P. Public Services Commission: (2007) 2 Scale 1. To bring home the point that scaling was being applied by UPSC in evaluating answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Main Examination particular emphasis may be placed on the averment contained in the additional affidavit filed by UPSC in the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1271/2006 titled 'Neel Ratan v. Union of India and Ors.' that 'the Commission, therefore, considers the statistical position of each subject to find out if the valuation has been strict or liberal by the Head Examiner/Paper Setter and does statistical moderation by linear moderation wherever considered necessary'.

D.      BECAUSE the courts below failed to appreciate that the aforesaid averment when read in conjunction with the report titled "Statistical moderation of teachers assessment" commissioned by the qualifications and curriculum authority, United Kingdom and prepared by John Wilmut and Jennifer Tuson (which report was filed and particularly relied by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal), brings out that statistical moderation of marks by linear transformation is nothing but linear scaling of marks.


E.       BECAUSE the Courts below failed to appreciate the overwhelming material produced by the petitioner strongly suggesting that there may have been manifold irregularities in the Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC in the years 2007-2009 and faced with such a situation, it was incumbent upon the Courts below  to direct UPSC to produce the answer-sheets of the petitioner pertaining to Main Examination and redress the doubts raised by the petitioner regarding the sanctity of the said examination(s).

F.       BECAUSE the Courts below failed to appreciate some of the flaws/facts       shown by  petitioner in moderation/examination system as explained below:

                                      i.      It is evident from the additional affidavit given by UPSC in Writ      Petition (C) No. 1271/2006 that the UPSC applies a system of moderation/scaling on the marks awarded by the examiners in the compulsory as well as optional subjects on various grounds like assumed interexaminer and intersubject variability. It may be noted that the official Gazette of the Ministry of Personnel supplied along with the form for the Civil services (main) examination 2008 nowhere mentions that any system of moderation/scaling would be applied to change the marks awarded by the examiner to the candidates. Introducing such a practice at the back of the petitioner and without his knowledge places him at a gross disadvantage and leaves vide scope for a lot of questions to be raised As is evident from the additional affidavit given by UPSC in Writ Petition (C) NO. 1271/2006 the examiners of the various subjects meet before evaluation of answer books of the written papers to set the standards and weightage for various aspects of answers and also carry out sample evaluation. This leaves no scope for subjectivity contrary to the claims of UPSC and thus no need for moderation/scaling in the written examination.

Further, as per the statement given by UPSC in WP (C) 2929/2007 dated 4.05.2007 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the UPSC does not prepare any answer keys for the mains (UPSC in decision to  Appeal no CIC/WB/A/2007/00694 of 2008 has also clarified that No Instruction sheets as an alternative to Model answers are maintained by UPSC). This is contrary to the norms of evaluation fixed as per UPSC affidavit in WP (C) 1271/2006.

Further, this goes contrary to the basic premise of application of interexaminer moderation i.e. examiner's deviation from the norms fixed for evaluation (which are evidently missing as per the statement given in WP (C) 2929/2007.) The norms of evaluation, thus, evidently do not exist in writing. No examiner can remember in ditto the oral discussion of norms for a period of evaluation extending over days and months. Even on intersubject moderation there is no clarity on who shall decide the variation as claimed in the difficulty level of different optional subjects. It is pertinent to note that the various choices offered to the candidate within a single question paper of a single optional subject ultimately leads to 288 different combinations of same question paper with atleast one question different, from which the candidate has complete freedom to choose any one combination. Nobody probably takes into account the choice made by an individual candidate which may vary from too difficult to too easy within the same paper because of such large number of combinations.

Thus, to decide on the difficulty level from overall appearance of the paper or from maximum marks scored in different subjects will place those candidates at disadvantage who have consciously chosen most difficult set due to an inherent in depth knowledge of the subject. Similarly there were 3888 different sets of question papers for the subject of General Studies I and 324 different sets for the subject of General Studies II from which the candidates had complete freedom to choose anyone set respectively. To decide upon the subjective liberality/strictness of marking based on a limited number of samples drawn from each examiner which will not be representative of the complete number of sets of question papers again amounts to treating unequals as equals and thus violates the fundamental rights of the candidates.  Further, perusal of the book on scaling –“Scaling Techniques What Why and How” by Natarajan and Gunasekaran will in itself demonstrate the defects in application of moderation/scaling. The above stated book accepts in the preface itself that scaling is an unknown concept in India, has to be applied only on mass conducted examinations where standards for various examiners are different. The book accepts at page 8,46,76, 80 of 1986 edition Association of Universities press, that only one university all over India has ever applied the system and that too where answer books exceed lakhs and lakhs of candidates, with number of examiners exceeding thousands . This is completely different from the situation in Civil Services (main) 2008 Examination where total candidates were around 9000. The perusal of the above stated book demonstrates that the system is applied only to determine pass/fail cutoff of candidates and that too in mass conducted examinations like those of matriculation. Further, it would also be clear from the same book that the system of moderation/scaling has to be applied only where candidates from different universities/institutes/boards following different standards are to be admitted to a single institute or course based on the marks scored by them in their respective institutes. At page 34, 1986 edition the authors admit that candidates writing an examination in English are at an inherent disadvantage qua those candidates writing in mother tongue.

Thus, there should not have been a need to further downscale applicant's marks as he wrote his examination in English. The book in its preface accepts that scaling has to be applied uniformly on all candidates. Further, research papers on statistical moderation prove that the method lacks credibility, validity, transparency, accountability and acceptability. Also it has been given up all over the world as a method of bringing parity between various examinations. UPSC, by its own admission in an affidavit submitted in WP (C) 1271/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, uses the method of Linear Transformation for moderation. However, in SLP 23723/2002 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, UPSC in a counter affidavit discredited the same system. Also as per UPSC’s own admission in the affidavit in SLP 23723/2002, Kothari Commission while recommending use of scaling, had recommended a continuous review of the system. Such a review has probably never taken place. Even if such a review is shown to have been done, in view of the facts stated, it remains incomplete and faulty.

                                     ii.      Further it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner through the letters from UPSC dated 8/3/07 & 31/5/07 in response to a request under RTI Act 2005 that UPSC has been indulging in a mix up of roll no. of various examinations conducted by UPSC each year. Under such circumstances a lot of doubts and questions remain unanswered regarding the credibility of the whole system. Further, under such circumstances the randomization of roll numbers and thus of answers sheets and thus normal distribution essential for application of any statistical method becomes absolutely faulty. This in itself is a sufficient ground to strike down the application of scaling as well as moderation. Since the process from filing of the application form to allotment of the roll no. is all computerized as the application form is computer readable and a special column exists on the form to disclose the information regarding the examination for which the candidate is applying, there is no question of any mix up of roll no. of various examinations. Occurrence of such a mix up itself demonstrates some sort of manipulation going on in the UPSC.

As per the information, the roll no. allotted for Civil Services Examination each year are much more than the total number of candidates who apply for the same. This renders the whole process an exercise full of maladies. As per the information evident from the selection lists of 2001-2006, out of the total selections each year, almost half of the selections take place from 1st 50,000 roll no and almost 70% of the selection is from 1st 1,00,000 roll no leaving the remaining 3,00,000 candidates whose roll no fall beyond 1,00,000 high and dry. This also proves lack of proper randomization and that the method of selection is faulty. This major fault has been highlighted also in the WP (C) 165 of 2005 in the Supreme Court Of India decided on 9/1/2007 Sanjay Singh and Anr. Vs U.P. Public Service Commission where the scaling applied using the same method as done by UPSC i.e. Linear Transformation was struck down on this ground as taking candidate capacity to be equal the selection should be proportionate in each block. Proper randomization is the first and a very essential step for application of any statistical method like moderation or scaling. Also it may be noted that as explained at page 148 in the book "Scaling Techniques What Why and How" randomization does not lead to any increase in the roll no. An explanation for increase in roll no due to randomization as given by UPSC vide letter dated 31/5/07) leads to the conclusion of faulty randomization. This, therefore, precludes the application of any statistical method as the result will be completely wrong under such circumstances.

                                   iii.      Further, UPSC in its additional affidavit in WP (C) 1271/2006, has explained the purpose of intersubject moderation as to bring in a parity between various subjects by removing the variations in difficulty level in various subjects and the variation in the checking of these papers. Thus, it becomes evident that the purpose of such methodology is to provide a level playing field for the candidates opting for different optional subjects. However, on the contrary, as is evident from the information provided under RTI Act 2005 by UPSC regarding no. of candidates selected with various optionals from 2003-2006 there is vide variation between selections from various optionals. Though the selections from each optional should have been proportionate considering the equal distribution of candidate capacity between various subjects. Contrary to this the selections vary from 0 % in one to upto 50 % in other and even as high as 75 %. Overall there is a very high proportion of selection from languages as optionals. This is contrary to the observations in the book “Scaling Techniques What Why and How” that candidates attempting the examination in their mother tongue are at an inherent advantage and thus need to be downscaled. Also the analysis of data of Civil Services(Main) Examination-2007  shows that no parity is achieved between all optional subjects  after applying statistical moderation by Linear Transformation Method as the Mean marks ranges from 210(Physics) to 333(Maithili Literature), Minimum marks ranges from 0 to 376(Arabic literature) , Maximum marks ranges from 258(French literature) to 406 (Zoology).  Thus, the whole process has lost its way in the maze of statistics applied without proper application of mind. Further, as per the disclosure by UPSC in its Counter-Affidavit given in  UPPSC v. Subhash Chandra Dixit & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 23723/2002  in Hon'ble Supreme  Court, the method of sampling used to apply moderation is-10 topmost scorers and 10 selected at random in respect of each examiner. It may be noted that as per the book “Scaling Techniques What Why and How” at page no. 138 at least 25 scripts have to be sampled at random for a system to work properly. While in the present case the random samples are too less. Further, it may be noted that taking 10 topmost samples amounts to selective sampling which is absolutely prohibited in statistics as it introduces a bias in the statistical analysis. Also the method of sampling is faulty as no two methods of sampling can be combined in statistical techniques. Even on these counts moderation and scaling are faulty.

                                  iv.      The petitioner submits that he had given several representations to the Respondent requesting  for the revaluation of answer books and permission to inspect the same and to provide him copies of the same along with instructions given to the respective examiners. However these were rejected. The silence of the Official Gazette and the notification in the present matter demands liberal interpretation and thus balance in favour of the petitioner. That the Respondent has rejected all the representations of the petitioner on the ground that as per practice of the Commission re-evaluation of answer sheets is not allowed. This is completely contrary to the silence of the official gazette on this fact. Also, as is evident from the news report of dainik bhaskar dated 25/07/02 , Union Public Service Commission has not been free from faulty evaluation. The report makes it evident that there has been a policy of re-evaluation by which Sh. Nitin Verma was shifted from 278th rank to 28th rank.

                                    v.      In response to RTI application of petitioner requesting the photocopy of answersheets after  decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.  allowing candidates to demand photocopy of their answersheets under RTI act 2005, respondent has denied the same.

                                  vi.      As per Affidavit given by respondent to petitioner dated 27/06/2011 , it is claimed that marks given to candidate by original examiner  are masked/overwritten multiple times during moderation process. This itself is prima-facie evidence of manipulation  and is against the norms of Standard Evaluation System. Even in Board Examinations the marks given by Examiner and Head Examiner are written in separate columns with  different coloured  ink pen.


G.      BECAUSE the Courts below failed to appreciate that in recent past, a number of instances have come to light intimating serious irregularities in the conduct of the examinations. Some of them are explained below:

(a)   In the 1985 Examinations, when the result was declared, it was found that none from Bhopal Center was selected for interview. The candidates from that Center made representations to the UPSC. When the Press took up the matter, the UPSC conducted inquiries and it was found that the answer-sheets of General Studies-II of all 95/97 candidates of that Center were lost and were untraceable. As such, fresh examination was held for these candidates as a result of which, 25 of them were called for interview. Out of these 25, 22, were finally declared successful. This has been accepted by the Respondent before this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 816 of 1997.
(b)   In 1985, the C.B.I. registered a case under Sections 420, 464, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. as also under the Prevention of Corruption Act against one, Ratipal Saroj and four employees of UPSC, Shri Saroj was selected in Civil Service Examinations, 1985 and was declared as No. 3 in the merit list. A letter was written by certain candidates of Allahabad Centre to the Prime Minister declaring their suspicion and requested him to look into the matter. The C.B.I. inquiries revealed that Shri Saroj joined the UPSC as Section Officer and then was promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary. He was well known to a number of officers in UPSC to whom he had been supplying various articles from time to time. It was alleged that he replaced his answer sheets with the new ones in the UPSC in collusion with the officers. In this examination he got very good marks and stood third in the examination. A copy of news item reported by the Tribune News Service, downloaded from the Internet and other paper cuttings showing irregularities in the recruitment of the respondent is annexed as annexure A-4.
(c)   In 1985, the C.B.I. filed another case under Section 420 and 120-B of the I.P.C. against Sanjay Bhatia and others. The accusation against him was that he produced false Caste certificate showing himself to be a Scheduled Caste and he got himself selected for I.P.S.
(d)   In 2001, one Nitin Verma was initially declared to be on 278th rank. However, after re valuation he was declared to be holding 28th rank. Translated copy with original of Daily "Dainik Bhasker" dated 25.7.2002 showing this fact is filed herewith as annexure A-5.
(e)   Mr. Brijees Sher Arzoo Roll No. 306429 who was reported absent in the paper of Urdu literature I & II as his optional in Civil Services (Main) Examination 2005 contrary to his actual score of 176 out of 300 and 190 out of 300 respectively.
(f)     In 2006, the lines of SC and ST candidates for Civil Service Main Exam. 2005 were deliberately exchanged thereby affecting the entire list. True copy of news report to this effect published in "Hindustan" daily dated 8.6.2006.
(g)   Even in 2006, re-examination of Public Administration paper in Civil (Services Preliminary) Examination, 2006 has been held due to discrepancy in tallying the number of question papers at one of the examination centres. True copy of the news report to this effect containing in "The Hindu" dated 17.5.2006.
(h)   The news report contained in the Indian Express dated 16.7.2006 shows that even before the declaration of result a candidate namely Sunita Dogra claimed herself to be successful in the UPSC which also show flaw in the system.
(i)        There are general allegations against many officers of the UPSC, that they got the question out in order to get their wards and relatives qualified for the Civil Services examination. There are other allegations causing suspicion on account of the fact that the wards of I.A.S. officers are invariable selected in these examinations. The other allegations are that in Rau's Circle (Rau Study Circle for 1985 Examination, a guess paper was given to the students with 11 questions out of which 8 questions appeared in the actual question paper. Further, during the investigations by the C.B.I. into the matter of Saroj and Sanjay Bhatia, two other candidates, namely, Mrindula Sinha and Suresh Chandra were also found to be involved. It has also been reported in the Press that with the manipulations of the UPSC officials, answer-sheets had been substituted in some other cases.
(j)      The irregularity may also be seen in the case of Chittranjan Kumar wherein, when he requested the Respondent for rechecking the papers of Hindi paper II, the Respondent responded vide letter dated 16.6.2009 that the total number of answer-sheets used by him was 2. When he further applied for details of the number and serial No. of the copies, the Respondent replied vide letter dated 22.7.2009 and thereby stated the number of answer-sheets of Hindi paper II was 3. However, in fact that the candidate had written four answer-sheets in Hindi Paper II. The Respondent further did not mention the map submitted with the paper of History Paper-I.
(k)   In case of petitioner, Dr.Prashant Chakkarwar, it was claimed in reply of UPSC dated 8/2/2010  that his answersheets have been double checked/double scrutinised in response to his complaint application dated 30/09/2009 and reminder dated 19/1/2010. Thus, UPSC have double checked/double scrutinised petitioner’s answersheets nearly  80 days after weeding out of answersheets of Civil services(Main) Examination-2008 (Answersheets of Civil Services Main   Examinition -2008 have been destroyed/weeded out by UPSC on  17/11/2009,as claimed by UPSC in its reply to Shri.Manish  Sitaramji Kamatkar dated 9/4/2010).
(l)      Gross violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 in CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors regarding providing candidates photocopy of their answersheets . Malafide intention  of UPSC can be seen in case of Ravi Jindal, a candidate of Civil Services Main Examinition-2005,  wherein  UPSC in letter dated 14/9/2011 said that the said judgement is being studied and futher information will be provided in due course of time and then in letter  dated 24/10/2011 UPSC claimed that as he didn’t approached the CAT , PB, New  Delhi on time ,so his copies are destroyed as per normal retention schedule. But, here they forgot that they had brought the answersheets of candidate in Hon’ble High Court of Delhi  on 3/09/2007 ( that means nearly ten months after the expiry of Normal retiontion Schedule). Malafide intention of UPSC can also be seen in case of Ashish Gupta and Sonia Chahar ,wherein UPSC replied to Ashish Gupta and Sonia Chahar that their answersheets have  been  destroyed, but to  Shi Chittaranjan Kumar ,they replied that his answersheets are intact. (all of them are candidates of Civil Services Main Examination-2008 and party in O.A. No:1252/2009 CAT,PB,New Delhi.). This example itself proves that UPSC thinks itself above all institutions of this Country, including Hon’ble Supreme Court and reflects the adamant attitude of UPSC.

H.      BECAUSE these instances show that the UPSC is not infallible and that the recruitment process of UPSC is not full proof. It is further submitted that where many instances have come to public knowledge, there may be several others which may not come into light due to the closed system of recruitment process and this itself hurts the integrity of the highest agency of recruitment in India.

I.          BECAUSE with respect to the allegations pertaining to method adopted by UPSC for evaluation of answer sheets of candidates pertaining to the Main Examination being arbitrary and illegal, following averments were made in the application. It is respectfully submitted that the said lower marks of the Petitioner may be due to the manner of evaluation applied by the Respondent for evaluation of Answer-Books of Main's Examination which includes the scheme of Moderation as disclosed by the Respondent in several cases including the case of Subash Chandra Dixit v. U.P. Public Service Commission S.L.P. (civil) 23723/2002 before Hon'ble Supreme Court and before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Neel Ratan v. union of India and Ors. CWP No. 1271 of 2006.


J.        BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission: (2007) 3 SCC 720 petitions under Article 32 of Constitution of India were filed before Supreme Court by the unsuccessful candidates who appeared in the examinations conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as the "UPPSC") in the year 2003 for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). It was held by this Hon’ble Court that the material placed does not disclose that the Commission or its expert committee have kept key factors in view in determining the system of scaling. We have already demonstrated the anomalies/absurdities arising from the scaling system used. The Commission will have to identify a suitable system of evaluation, if necessary by appointing another committee of experts.


K.       BECAUSE  the Courts below erred in holding that the UPSC had stated on oath before Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh's case (supra) that it is not applying the method of scaling of marks in evaluating answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination. A perusal of the report relied upon by the petitioner merely brings out that linear scaling of marks is one of the methods of statistical moderation and is not the same as linear scaling as alleged by the petitioner. It may be highlighted that no argument can be advanced that scaling, ipso facto, results in imperfection. Scaling as a concept has various hues for example, linear scaling and equi-percentile scaling. Each has its own indices and formula. In a given situation, the desired result may fail but only at the extremities of the spectrum (as was discovered by Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh's case (supra). Thus, without showing to the court the scaling formula applied and indices used by teachers in UK to achieve common standards of assessment of marks, the deficiency found in applying scaling in UK cannot be a ground to question moderation, applying linear scaling by UPSC.

L.       BECAUSE the Courts below erred in holding that UPSC has been continuously conducting Civil Services Examination every year starting from 1949 to till date. The petitioner had pointed out ten incidents of detection of irregularities in Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC over the past "seven decades". A few stray incidents of irregularities detected in the Civil Services Examination conducted in the past seven decades do not vitiate the sanctity of Civil Services Examination. No materials whatsoever has been placed on record by the petitioner in the present case suggesting that there were irregularities in the Civil Services Examinations conducted by UPSC in the year 2007-2009.


M.     BECAUSE the Courts below erred in holding that the affected candidates are not before the Court and in their absence, their appointments cannot be set aside. It was further held that the petitioner approached the Tribunal after a period of more than one year from the date of declaration of results in respect of Civil Services Examinations in question. Till the time the petitioner in question approached the Tribunal, the selections and appointments in pursuance of declaration of results had already been made. The petitioner in question did not implead as respondents the persons who already stood appointed and were likely to be adversely affected by the success of the petitioner before the Tribunal. It does not stand to reason to upset the appointments made much prior to the date of filing of applications by the petitioner in question before the Tribunal. The delay in approaching the Tribunal by the petitioner in question was most fatal to the case set up by them before the Tribunal.

N.      BECAUSE it is further submitted as per own admission of the respondent in case of Neel Ratan v. union of India CWP No. 1271 of 2006, statistical moderation is done by liner transformation of marks. It is respectfully submitted though the Respondent has not clarified anywhere what is liner transformation and how it is different from linear scaling, the Applicant has tried to find out the materials on the concerned issue and have been able to find out at least two reports which suggest that the said linear transformation of marks is same as liner scaling, except the name.


O.      BECAUSE it is further submitted that in the case of Subash Chandra Dixit v. U.P. Public Service Commission S.L.P. (civil) 23723/2002 the Respondent Commission had stated that they follow equi-percentile method of scaling and not linear scaling. However, the Respondent Commission has in the case of Neel Ratan has stated in their Additional Affidavit dated 10.3.2006 that they do statistical moderation by Linear transformation in subjective papers of Civil Services Examination. Meanwhile, as the above reports show, the Linear Transformation is the Linear Scaling only, and therefore, the Respondent Commission is applying the same method of Linear Scaling in the present case which it has been found to be improper by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. UPSC: (2007) 2 Scale 1.

P.       The Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate the plea of Cousel for Petitioner  to tag the matter alongwith batch of similar pending matters {WP(C) 5743/2007, WP(C) 7183/2009,  WP(C)7328/2009, WP(C)7381/2009, WP(C)8179/2009, WP(C)11187/2009 } in Regular list , denying the plea ,after brief argument by the Cousel the matter was reserved for orders without issuing notice to the Respondent on 28.9.2010.



6.      GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

That if the operation of the impugned order is not stayed in favour of the petitioner, irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the petitioner.

7.  MAIN PRAYER
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the special leave petition against the impugned orders dated 05.10.2010 in WP (C) No. 6586/2010 and dated 29.07.2011 in RP Nos. 490/2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at New Delhi.  

8.      INTERIM RELIEF

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned orders, till the disposal of the present appeal.

DRAWN BY:                                                                             FILED BY




RAJ KAMAL                                                                            AMIT SHARMA

        (ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)
DRAWN ON:                                                                          FILED ON