Unauthorised scaling in judicial recruitment found arbitrary, while existing selections were protected and limited relief was granted.

Recruitment to judicial service must be governed by the rules prescribing selection on marks finally awarded; an examination authority cannot substitute actual marks with an unauthorised scaling formula. The Court held that a writ under Article 32 was maintainable because the challenge targeted the legal principle in the earlier decision, not its operative final order. It also found the scaling system arbitrary and irrational for this examination because it produced extreme anomalies and unequal treatment. Existing selections and appointments made on the 2003 examination were protected, but limited consequential relief was granted only to eligible petitioners on the stated criteria.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions under Article 32 were barred as an impermissible challenge to an earlier decision of the Court. (ii) Whether the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001 permitted substitution of actual marks by scaled marks in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination. (iii) Whether the scaling system adopted by the Commission was arbitrary, irrational and unsuitable for the examination in question, and whether the earlier approval of scaling required reconsideration. (iv) Whether the selections already made pursuant to the 2003 examination were liable to be disturbed, and what relief, if any, should be granted to the petitioners.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions under Article 32 were barred as an impermissible challenge to an earlier decision of the Court.

Analysis: A petition under Article 32 is not barred merely because it seeks reconsideration of the ratio decidendi of an earlier judgment. The bar applies where the final order in the earlier judgment is itself challenged or sought to be set aside. A later petition raising a constitutional grievance may be examined on merits even if the issue was covered earlier, and the earlier reasoning may be re-examined if the Court considers it necessary. The challenge here was directed to the legal principle governing the earlier decision, not to its operative order as between the earlier parties.

Conclusion: The petitions were maintainable; the objection based on the earlier decision was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001 permitted substitution of actual marks by scaled marks in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.

Analysis: The Judicial Service Rules constituted the governing code for recruitment to judicial service and provided for selection on the basis of marks finally awarded in the written examination and interview. Where those rules specifically occupied the field, the general procedure rules of the Commission could not override them. The rules did not contain any provision authorising scaling or substitution of actual marks by scaled marks. The expression used in the relevant rules contemplated marks actually and finally awarded, not a transformed score on an artificial scale. Moderation could form part of the valuation process, but scaling, as applied, had no place in the rule structure.

Conclusion: Scaling was contrary to the governing Judicial Service Rules and could not be sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the scaling system adopted by the Commission was arbitrary, irrational and unsuitable for the examination in question, and whether the earlier approval of scaling required reconsideration.

Analysis: Scaling is a recognised method where different subjects are compared on a common base, but its usefulness depends on the underlying assumptions being satisfied. For the examination in question, the batches sent to different examiners were not shown to be sufficiently comparable, and the formula used produced extreme anomalies. Candidates with zero raw marks received substantial scaled marks, high raw marks were equalised at the top end, and low raw marks were reduced to zero, thereby treating unequals alike. The method did not cure examiner variability of the strict-or-liberal type, and the empirical results disclosed arbitrariness at the extremes. In consequence, the earlier approval of scaling could not continue to govern this kind of examination.

Conclusion: The scaling system was held to be arbitrary and irrational for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination, and the earlier approval of the method was held no longer to be valid for that context.

Issue (iv): Whether the selections already made pursuant to the 2003 examination were liable to be disturbed, and what relief, if any, should be granted to the petitioners.

Analysis: The defect identified related to the method of evaluation, not to mala fides or a wholesale irregularity in the selection process. The selected candidates had already been appointed and were functioning, and the impact of the impugned scaling method was confined mainly to extreme cases. The Court therefore moulded relief prospectively so that existing selections and appointments were not unsettled. Individual relief was confined to petitioners whose raw marks, when combined with interview marks, exceeded those of the last selected candidate in the relevant category and who had approached the Court within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The prior selections and appointments were left undisturbed, but limited individual relief was granted to eligible petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded only in part: the scaling method was disapproved for future use in this recruitment, while the selections already made under the 2003 examination were protected and only limited consequential relief was granted to qualifying petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing recruitment rules require selection on the basis of marks finally awarded, an examination authority cannot superimpose a scaling formula that is not authorised by those rules, and a statistical method that produces demonstrable arbitrariness and unequal treatment cannot be sustained for that selection process.

---