{"id":210184,"date":"2005-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005"},"modified":"2016-05-13T03:24:55","modified_gmt":"2016-05-12T21:54:55","slug":"k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service … on 6 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service … on 6 October, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: B Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6172-6222 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nK. Channegowda and others \t\t\t\t\t     \n\nRESPONDENT:\nKarnataka Public Service Commission and others.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/10\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. Singh & Arun Kumar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.11589-11639 of 2003)
\nWITH<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6313 OF 2005
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24322 of 2003)<\/p>\n
Dr. K. Rameshwarappa \t\t\t\t\t\t      Appellant<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
Karnataka Public Service Commission and
\nanother\t\t\t\t  \t\t\t\t    Respondents<\/p>\n
\t\t\tAND<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6223-6312 OF 2005
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 610-699 of 2004}<\/p>\n
M. R. Ravi and others \t \t\t\t\t\t      Appellants<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
Karnataka Public Service Commission and
\nOthers\t\t\t\t  \t\t\t\t    Respondents<\/p>\n
B.P. SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tSpecial leave granted in all the matters.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this batch of appeals the common judgment and order of the High
\nCourt of Karnataka at Bangalore dated October 11, 2002 has been assailed.
\nThe matter relates to the conduct of competitive examination by Karnataka
\nPublic Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Gazetted
\nProbationers (Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ Posts).  Some of the unsuccessful
\ncandidates approached Karnataka Administrative Tribunal with a grievance
\nthat the competitive examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service
\nCommission was not fair and impartial.  The manner in which the
\nexamination was conducted and the evaluation of the answer scripts by the
\nexaminers were suspect.  In particular allegations were made about the
\nfavours shown to one K. Rameswarappa, the appellant in Civil Appeal
\narising out of SLP ) No. 24322 of 2003 and two of his relatives who had
\nsecured high positions and were ultimately selected.\n<\/p>\n
The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order
\ndated February 6, 2002 allowed the applications filed before it, inasmuch as
\nit found certain irregularities committed in the conduct of the competitive
\nexamination, and in particular favours shown to the aforesaid
\nRameswarappa and some of his relatives.  The Tribunal ultimately directed
\nthe Karnataka Public Service Commission to get all the answer scripts
\nevaluated afresh after appointment of fresh examiners in accordance with the
\nprocedure contained in the order.  It also gave certain directions in regard to
\nthe evaluation of the answer scripts and the declaration of the result.\n<\/p>\n
The Karnataka Public Service Commission filed writ appeals before
\nthe High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging the findings recorded
\nby the Administrative Tribunal and the ultimate order passed by it.   The
\nHigh Court after hearing the parties gave certain directions for the re-
\nevaluation of some of the answer scripts, though not all.  The High Court
\nwas of the view that having regard to the findings recorded by it, it was not
\nnecessary to get all the answer scripts evaluated over again.  The judgment
\nand order of the High Court has been impugned in this batch of appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants in the appeals arising out of SLP ) Nos. 11589 to
\n11639 of 2003 are the unsuccessful candidates who were not selected for
\nappointment.  They contend that the entire examination should have been
\nscrapped in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants in appeals arising out of SLP ) Nos.610-699 of 2004
\nare the successful candidates who were selected for appointment by the
\nKarnataka Public Service Commission on the basis of the declared result.
\nThey contend that for no fault of theirs’ the answers scripts are sought to be
\nre-evaluated, particularly when the High Court was able to identify the
\nculprits and the beneficiaries of the irregularities committed in the
\nevaluation and moderation of the answer scripts.  They contend that apart
\nfrom the persons against whom a clear and categoric finding has been
\nrecorded, there is no need to order fresh evaluation of the answer scripts in
\n15 optional subjects and also in general studies.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP ) No. 24322 of 2003 is
\none Dr. Rameshwarapppa against whom findings have been recorded by the
\nKarnataka Administrative Tribunal which have been affirmed by the High
\nCourt.  He has challenged the findings recorded against him and has prayed
\nfor setting aside the judgments and orders of both the Karnataka
\nAdministrative Tribunal and the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts of the case may be briefly noticed.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn  February 4th, 1998 the Government of Karnataka sent requisition
\nto the Karnataka Public Service Commission for the selection of 415
\ncandidates for appointment to the post of Gazetted Probationers (Group ‘A’
\nand ‘B’ posts).  Pursuant to the said requisition, the Karnataka Public
\nService Commission issued an advertisement on March 9, 1998 inviting
\napplications.  As many as 85598 applications were received in response to
\nthe said advertisement and out of them 79130 applications were found to
\nhave been validly made by eligible candidates.  In accordance with the rules
\nfor selection to the said posts, a preliminary examination was held followed
\nby the main examination.  The preliminary examination was held on August
\n30, 1998 in which 56228 candidates appeared.  Result of the preliminary
\nexamination was declared on November 16, 1998 and on the basis of the
\naforesaid result 9857 candidates were found eligible to take the main
\nexamination.  The main examination was held between April 9, 1999 and
\nMay 3, 1999.  The answer scripts were evaluated between May 17, 1999 and
\nJune 18, 1999.  On January 12, 2000 the result was declared and as many as
\n2397 candidates qualified for the personality test.  In the months of July and
\nAugust, 2001 the personality test was held and the provisional list of
\nselected candidates was declared on September 28, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn February, 2000 eight candidates who had failed in compulsory
\npapers of Kannada and\/or English filed writ petitions before the High Court
\nalleging serious irregularities in evaluation of the answer scripts.  The writ
\npetition came up before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who by a
\nreasoned order dated March 21, 2000 referred the aforesaid writ petitions to
\nthe Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the meantime 24 other candidates filed writ petitions before the
\nHigh Court.  Those writ petitions were also clubbed with writ petitions filed
\nby eight candidates earlier and another Writ Petition No. 7022 of 2000 filed
\nby another candidate.  Ultimately the Division Bench held that the writ
\npetitioners may seek remedy before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
\nand that writ petitions were not maintainable.  The High Court transferred all
\nthe 33 writ petitions filed in the High Court to the Karnataka Administrative
\nTribunal.  Nine other petitioners had directly approached the Karnataka
\nAdministrative Tribunal.  In this manner 42 matters were heard and disposed
\nof by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal vide its judgment and order
\ndated February 6, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Karnataka Administrative
\nTribunal, the Karnataka Public Service Commission preferred writ petitions
\nbefore the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore being Writ Petition Nos.
\n12548-12589 of 2002 which have been disposed of by the impugned
\ncommon judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Karnataka Administrative Tribunal concluded that the valuation
\nof the answer scripts could not be regarded as fair.  In the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case no distinction could be made between answer
\nscripts validly valued and those not validly valued.  It was, therefore,
\nnecessary that all the answer scripts should be re-evaluated.  Accordingly, it
\ndirected the Karnataka Public Services Commission to get all the answer
\nscripts valued afresh by appointing examiners who are in no way interested
\nin the candidates taking the examination.  The examiners were to be
\nappointed after verifying their declaration that none of their relatives
\nspecified in the format of the declaration was a candidate.  The Commission
\nwas directed to erase all the code numbers and give fresh code numbers to
\nthe answer scripts relating to the compulsory as well as the optional subjects.
\nIt, further, directed that all answer scripts wherein more than 60% marks
\nwere awarded must be valued by a set of two examiners.  In case there was a
\ndifference exceeding 5% of the marks in evaluation by the two examiners,
\nthe matter must be referred to the third examiner.  It also directed that
\nKarnataka Public Service Commission shall permit re-evaluation of answer
\nscripts of all those candidates who seek such re-evaluation within the time to
\nbe specified, and on such payment as may be determined.  It further obliged
\nthe Commission to furnish to all candidates marks obtained by them in all
\nthe papers.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court, however, modified the directions of the Tribunal.  It
\ncame to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was
\nnot necessary to get all the answer scripts re-evaluated.  It directed
\nmoderation\/random review by the Head Examiner and Chief Examiner only
\nin regard to subjects where the same had not been adequately done earlier.
\nThis had to be done in the manner suggested by the Public Service
\nCommission in para (b) of its memo dated March 27, 2002 which reads as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
“..on the basis of random review of answer scripts
\ndone in respect of answer scripts evaluated by each
\nExaminer average variation shall be arrived at.\n<\/p>\n
Wherever the average variation is less than plus or
\nminus 20, general review of the marks awarded need
\nnot be done.  However where the average difference is
\nplus or minus 20 or more the marks awarded by such
\nexaminer shall be increased or deceased by that
\naverage in respect of each of the answer scripts
\nevaluated by that Examiner.  In case the average
\nvariation is less than plus or minus 20 but variation in
\nrespect of individual answer scripts is plus or minus
\n20 or more those answer scripts would be subjected to
\nthird valuation.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe entire process of moderation was directed to be done under the
\nsupervision of the Secretary of Karnataka Public Service Commission.  It
\nwas left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service
\nCommission to have the moderation done either at a two tier level (Head
\nExaminer and Chief Examiner) or at only one level.  The Secretary of the
\nKarnataka Public Service Commission was directed to select and prepare a
\nfresh panel of Head\/Chief Examiners for this purpose.  The process of
\ninterviews and selection carried out during the pendency of the applications
\nbefore the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was declared to be illegal.
\nThe Commission was further directed to re-evaluate the compulsory papers
\n(English and\/or Kannada) of those candidates who had approached the High
\nCourt or Tribunal for such re-evaluation before the date of judgment.  After
\nre-evaluation and moderation as directed, the Commission shall prepare the
\nlist of candidates to be called for personality test in accordance with the
\nRules.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt would thus be seen that whereas the Karnataka Administrative
\nTribunal directed that all the papers be evaluated by the examiners afresh,
\nthe High Court confined it to re-evaluation and moderation of some papers,
\nand that too only in those subjects wherein that was considered necessary,
\napplying the scaling method.  A significant finding recorded by the High
\nCourt is that there was hardly any material to raise any suspicion about the
\nfairness of the examiners in examining the answer scripts.  Some doubts
\narose when re-evaluation\/moderation was done by the Head Examiner\/Chief
\nExaminer in respect of some of the subjects.  The High Court, therefore,
\ngave directions for a limited re-evaluation and moderation confined to some
\nsubjects only, and did not consider it necessary to order a total re-evaluation
\nof answer scripts of all subjects, or cancellation of the examination itself.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt will be necessary at this stage to notice the salient findings recorded
\nby the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court.  The
\nTribunal after noticing the submissions urged on behalf of the parties
\nobserved that during the course of argument it enquired of the Karnataka
\nPublic Service Commission about its willingness to re-evaluate the answer
\nscripts of the applicants before it.  The senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Commission submitted that the Commission was not willing to
\nundertake that exercise.  The Tribunal subsequently suggested, after
\narguments were concluded, to the Commission that it may produce the
\nmarks list of the top 50 candidates in each category indicating the marks
\nassigned by the Head Examiner and the Chief Examiner as the case may be,
\nbut the Commission filed a memo declining to produce the information
\nsought by the Tribunal for administrative reasons and having regard to the
\nlimited scope of judicial review in such matters.  It was also explained by
\ncounsel appearing for the Commission that the Secretary of the Commission
\nhad gone for a training to Mussorie for a period of 6 to 8 weeks and that the
\nkeys of the almirahs where the records had been kept were with him, and
\ntherefore the required information could not be produced readily.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal also sought clarification from the Commission about the
\nallegations made against some of the candidates namely Rameshwarappa
\nand his relatives.  The Commission confirmed the fact that Rameshwarappa
\nand his relatives were seated in the same hall to take the examination.  They
\nhad opted for same optional subjects and their answers were valued by the
\nsame examiner.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal formulated the
\nfollowing contentions of the Petitioners which required examination by it :\n<\/p>\n
“(i)  That they are highly qualified persons having
\nsecured very high professional degrees such as their
\nchosen fields and in that back ground it is
\ninconceivable that they should have been failed in
\nCompulsory papers, the expected standards of which
\nare not more than SSLC standards.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThat the valuation of the papers by the
\nexaminers are apparently erratic as not to be regarded
\nas fair to all the candidates as for example, members
\nof the one family like sister, brother and brother-in-
\nlaw securing top ranking in the final examination
\nindicating thereby manipulation of marks secured by
\nthem, bearing no connection between the marks given
\nand the quality of answers; that one of the senior
\nemployees of the KPSC whose son had appeared for
\nthe examination had participated in the examination
\nprocess including evaluation of the answer scripts
\ncasting a serious doubt as to the fairness in valuation
\nof the answer scripts.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) \tThat one of the model answers had been
\nleaked-out prior to the examination affecting the
\nfairness of the examination process”.\n<\/p>\n
\tRepelling the submission urged on behalf of the Karnataka Public
\nService Commission that a candidate cannot seek revaluation of his answer
\nscripts merely on his own perception of good performance, the Tribunal
\nobserved that the mere fact that a candidate may think that he has performed
\nextremely well and yet not awarded marks which he rightly deserved, may
\nnot by itself justify the revaluation of the answer scripts.  However, in the
\nlight of other allegations of unfairness and arbitrariness, if found to be true,
\nre-examination of the answer scripts may be justified.  Reliance placed by
\nthe Karnataka Public Service Commission on the decision of this Court in
\nMaharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
\nand another  vs.  Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others  : AIR 1984 SC
\n1543 did not, according to the Tribunal, support the case of the Commission.
\nThat decision was distinguished on the ground that in that case the Rules
\nspecifically prohibited the authorities to entertain a claim of revaluation.  In
\nthe instant case it observed that the Rules were silent on this aspect of the
\nmatter and, therefore, in the absence of any express prohibition the
\nKarnataka Public Service Commission certainly had the power to order fresh
\nevaluation of answer scripts if it was satisfied that there was evidence of
\nunfairness and mal practice in the valuation of answer scripts.  In the interest
\nof fairness, the Commission may exercise such authority wherever
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs regards allegations of unfairness in valuation of answer scripts, the
\nTribunal noticed that in the case of Remeshwarappa and his relatives the
\nanswer scripts were first valued by the Examiner and then by the Chief
\nExaminer who awarded very high marks to them which really enabled them
\nto get high positions in the merit list resulting in their ultimate selection.
\nThe Tribunal noticed the marks awarded to Rameshwarappa and his
\nrelatives Nagaraja and Triveni which demonstrated that very high marks
\nwere awarded by the Chief Examiner and in some cases 80% marks were
\nawarded as against 30% awarded by the Examiner.  The Tribunal
\ncommented on the manner in which the Chief Examiner increased the marks
\nawarded to these candidates.  This also disclosed that the model answers
\nprepared to maintain uniformity in the award of marks was not adhered to,
\nbecause in that event there could not be possibility of such a huge difference
\nin the award of marks by the Examiner and the Chief Examiner.  This
\nreflected on the fairness in the valuation of the answer scripts and
\ndemonstrated that the answer scripts were not valued on the basis of the
\nmodel answers prepared as per the accepted standard.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal further commented on the refusal of the Karnataka
\nPublic Service Commission to accept a suggestion of the Tribunal that all
\nthe answer scripts of the applicants should be revalued.  In fact the
\nsuggestion of the Tribunal that the marks list of the top 50 candidates in each
\ncategory be produced showing the marks awarded to them by the Examiners,
\nHead Examiner and the Chief Examiner was not accepted.  The Tribunal did
\nnot find the explanation given by the Commission to be convincing.   The
\nTribunal went to the extent of holding that the refusal of the Karnataka
\nPublic Service Commission to produce the marks assigned to top 50
\ncandidates gave rise to an adverse inference that if such tabulated statement
\nof marks was produced it would have gone against the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunal also commented on the conduct of some of the officials
\nwho shouldered heavy responsibility in the conduct of the examination.
\nApart from the Secretary of the Commission, one Sadyojathaiah, who was
\nIncharge Secretary for a few months, did not declare that his son was also
\ntaking the examination.  In fact his daughter also took the examination but
\nwas unsuccessful.  This only showed that the declaration made by the
\nExaminers\/officials were not scrutinized and enquired into with the result
\nthat the wards\/relatives of some of the officials closely associated with the
\nconduct of the examination also participated in the competitive examination.
\nMay be that they did not act unfairly, but what was important was that the
\nexamination must be seemed to have been conducted fairly.\n<\/p>\n
A contention was raised before the Tribunal that the model answers
\nwere known even before the examination was conducted and that such a
\nmodel answer relating to the compulsory subject, namely  Kannada
\nlanguage prepared by the Karnataka Public Service Commission was filed in
\na batch of applications.  The Karnataka Public Service Commission averred
\nthat these model answers were prepared only a couple of days prior to
\ncommencement of the valuation, but it did not deny that the model answer
\nfiled with the applications purporting to be the model answer for the
\nKannada language subject was in fact not the model answer prepared by the
\nCommission.   Though the Tribunal did not record a categoric finding of fact
\nthat such a model answer was available to the candidates even before the
\nconduct of the examination, it commented on the fact that the model answer
\nwas available to a candidate who annexed it with his application which
\ndemonstrated that the Commission was not able to maintain secrecy in such
\nmatters.\n<\/p>\n
The Tribunal also held that the Karnataka Public Service Commission
\ncould not deny revaluation of answer scripts if sought by any candidate who
\nis aggrieved by the valuation of his answer scripts.  To deny a candidate the
\nright to seek revaluation amounted to denial of fairness to him.  Therefore, in
\nthe absence of a specific rule prohibiting re-evaluation, it would be
\nobligatory on the Karnataka Public Service Commission to grant such re-
\nevaluation within a specified time after the announcement of the result.  It
\nreferred to earlier instances where the Public Service Commission had
\npermitted re-evaluation of the answer scripts.\n<\/p>\n
On such findings the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the award
\nof marks to the candidates did not appear to be fair resulting in the vitiation
\nof the merit list.  But the Tribunal following the principles laid down in
\nAnamica Mishra and others  vs.  U.P. Public Service Commission,
\nAllahabad and others<\/a> : 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 692 held that the entire
\nexamination need not be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case.
\nFairness could be ensured if the answer scripts were revalued after taking
\nnecessary precautions to ensure fairness.  It, therefore, passed an order for
\nfresh valuation of all the answer scripts laying down guidelines which have
\nbeen earlier referred to in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may observe at this stage that the Tribunal after considering the
\nmaterial on record came to the conclusion that in respect of atleast three
\ncandidates namely, Rameshwarappa, Nagaraja and Triveni who were high
\nrank holders, the marks awarded by the Chief Examiner was much more
\nthan the marks awarded to them by the examiner.  That is how, they
\nmanaged to secure high positions in the competitive examination.  The
\nfindings of the Tribunal are also borne out by the report of the Sub
\ncommittee constituted by the Commission to investigate the matter.  The
\nCommittee found that serious irregularities were committed by one Prof.
\nK.S. Shivanna, Chief Examiner when he reviewed the marks awarded to
\nRameshwarappa, Nagaraja and Triveni.  The said Rameshwarappa was
\nemployed as Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies while Nagaraja
\nwas his wife’s brother and Smt. Triveni and Smt. Hemalatha were two
\nsisters of his wife.  The report of the Sub-committee discloses that their
\nacademic record was average.  All of them had chosen the same optional
\nsubjects.  In General Studies Paper I and II and History Papers I and II all of
\nthem had chosen the very same questions for answering and their answers
\nwere also identical.  The Sub-committee found that Prof. Shivanna had been
\nappointed Chief Examiner to examine answers written in Kannada medium
\nin the subjects General Studies and History.  He had evaluated 127 answer
\nscripts as Chief Examiner. It was discovered that in respect of the aforesaid
\nfour candidates he had even awarded marks for totally wrong answers.  He
\nlater claimed that by oversight such mistakes were committed.  He described
\nas bona fide errors the awarding of more marks than the maximum
\nprescribed.  It was found that six other candidates had been shown such
\nfavourable treatment by Prof. Shivanna, out of whom two were ultimately
\nselected but the remaining four could not get selected.  The evidence
\ncollected by the Subcommittee established that the aforesaid
\nRameshwarappa used to visit the then Secretary of the Commission very
\nfrequently, while Prof. Shivanna was his research guide for the Ph. D
\nprogramme.  It also appeared from the material collected by the Sub-
\ncommittee that after the evaluation of answer scripts, all the three had
\nundertaken a joint foreign trip.  The Sub-committee came to the conclusion
\nthat Sri Monappa the then Secretary of the Commission had parted with the
\ncode numbers of the candidates to Prof. Shivanna, who was willing to oblige
\nRameshwarappa and some others.  The Sub-committee found that Prof.
\nShivanna who was Chief Examiner in respect of answer scripts in Kannada
\nmedium, in the subjects General Studies and History, also picked up answers
\ngiven in English medium as in the case of Nagaraja and Triveni.  He sought
\nto explain this by saying that since Prof. Raju Naidu, Chief Examiner of
\nEnglish medium was away, those papers had been brought to him and he had
\naccordingly moderated those papers.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe do not wish to go into the details of the findings recorded by the
\nSubcommittee because we are informed that a proceeding is pending
\nagainst Sri Rameshwarappa.  The selection of the alleged favoured
\ncandidates has also been cancelled.  Any observation made by us, or finding
\nrecorded in respect of the matter, may prejudice the case of Rameshwarappa
\nin the pending proceeding, and, therefore, we do not wish to make any
\nfurther comment on this aspect of the matter.  The findings of the Sub
\ncommittee have been noticed by us, as also by the High Court, in the context
\nof the challenge to the validity and fairness of the competitive examination
\nonly for that limited purpose and not with a view to finding the guilt or
\notherwise of Sri Rameshwarappa.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the writ petitions preferred before the High Court against the order
\nof the Tribunal, while the selected candidates challenged the order for fresh
\nmoderation in some subjects, the unsuccessful candidates challenged the
\nfairness of the examination and prayed for cancellation of the examination
\nitself.  The Karnataka Public Service Commission justified its stand before
\nthe Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have earlier noticed that the Tribunal after conclusion of the
\nhearing of the matter, had suggested to the Commission on November 11,
\n2001 that it may produce the marks awarded to the top 50 candidates in each
\ncategory, by the Head Examiner and the Chief Examiner.  The Commission
\nexpressed its inability to give the aforesaid information having regard to the
\nscope of the proceeding before the Tribunal.  It was also stated that since the
\nSecretary of the Commission was away on training at Mussorie for a period
\nof six to eight weeks and the keys of the Almirah in which the records were
\nkept were with him, the information could not be produced immediately.
\nHowever, before the High Court the Commission voluntarily produced the
\nmarks obtained by the top 50 candidates in each category, and with
\nnecessary particulars.  The Commission also furnished the particulars of
\nmarks obtained by all the candidates who were ultimately selected for the
\npersonality test disclosing the marks awarded to them by the Examiner and
\nthereafter the Head Examiner or Chief Examiner after moderation.  The
\nHigh Court directed the Commission to produce the list of candidates in
\nwhose cases the variation in marks was plus or minus 20 or above (out of
\n300 marks) in a subject and also to furnish the particulars of cases where the
\nChief Examiners had done random re-evaluation with particulars of
\ndifference in marks.  Accordingly, the Commission had produced necessary
\nstatements as required by the Court.  The relevant part of the Memo filed
\nbefore the Court is as follows : –\n<\/p>\n
“The Commission has placed before this Hon’ble Court
\nsubjectwise abstract of total number of answer scripts
\nvalued, number of answer scripts moderated by the Head
\nExaminer and\/or Chief Examiner and cases where the
\nmarks awarded in moderation is plus or minus 20 or
\nmore vis-`-vis the marks awarded by the Examiner.  The
\ntotal number of cases where the variation is plus or minus
\n20 or more has been identified as 661.  Keeping in mind
\nanxieties expressed and apprehensions stated during the
\nhearing of the writ petitions and the suggestions that fell
\nfrom the Bench of this Hon’ble of this Hon’ble Court, the
\nCommission has examined the entire issue in the light of
\nthe scheme laid down by the Commission regarding
\nvaluation of the answer scripts.  The endeavour of the
\nCommission has been to find a solution which would be
\nin line with the scheme of examination prescribed by the
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
\tKeeping the above objective in mind and in
\ndeference to the suggestions that emerged during the
\nhearing of the writ petitions, the Commission is making
\nthe following offer:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tWherever the random review done by the Head
\nExaminer is less than 10 per cent of the answer scripts
\nevaluated by any examiner in any subject, the short fall
\nwould be made up examinerwise and subjectwise by
\nrandom review of answer scripts to the extent of
\nshortfall.  While doing so, it will be ensured that random
\nsampling shall not be less than 5 per cent of the top-level
\nanswer scripts.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe Commission has always been of the view that
\nreview referred to at para 3 of the scheme of valuation is
\nnot analogous to scaling technique.  It has been
\nunderstood by the Commission as review of marks of
\nparticular answer script taken up for random review by
\nthe Head Examiner.  However, during the hearing it has
\nbeen expressed that review should be understood as
\nscaling technique.  The Commission has considered the
\nsuggestion and is of the opinion that on the basis of
\nrandom review of answer scripts done in respect of
\nanswer scripts evaluated by each examiner average
\nvariation shall be arrived at.  Wherever the average
\nvariation is less than plus or minus 20 general review of
\nthe marks awarded need not be done. However, where
\nthe average difference is plus or minus 20 or more, the
\nmarks awarded by such examiner shall be increased or
\ndecreased by that average in respect of each of the
\nanswer scripts evaluated by that examiner.  In case the
\naverage variation is less than plus or minus 20, but
\nvariation in respect of individual answer scripts is plus or
\nminus 20 or above those answer scripts would be
\nsubjected to third valuation.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tAs a result of random review if in respect of any
\ncandidate the change in marks is too generous or too
\nadverse to the candidate, the Commission would refer
\nsuch paper for third valuation.\n<\/p>\n
The secretary who was holding the post at the time when
\ncentral valuation was conducted in respect of
\nexamination in question is no longer with the
\nCommission.  The Commission would ensure that
\ndisinterested staff of the Commission headed by the
\nSecretary will supervise and monitor the entire process of
\nreview and revaluation that would be undertaken as set
\nout above”.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court has noticed the fact that on March 27, 2002 this
\nmemo had been prepared and circulated to all Counsels appearing in the
\nmatter.  However, since the service of notice of the respondents was not
\ncomplete and the matter was being heard only for the grant of interim relief
\nat that stage, the memo was not actually filed and was later filed on July 22,
\n2002.  We have noticed these facts because it was argued before us that this
\nmemo is anti-dated.  The observations of the High Court must set at rest this
\ncontroversy.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn some aspects of the matter the Tribunal as well as the High Court
\nhave recorded concurrent findings.  It has been concurrently found that so
\nfar as Sri Rameshwarappa is concerned, as also his two relatives, with the
\nassistance of Chief Examiner, Prof. Shivanna and the Secretary of the
\nCommission, they were shown undue favour and their marks were increased
\nby Prof. Shivanna to such an extent that they obtained high positions and
\nwere selected for appointment.  In doing so, Prof. Shivanna had committed
\nirregularities.  The High Court however has further recorded a finding that
\nso far as evaluation of the answer papers by the Examiners is concerned no
\ncase of irregularity or unfairness has been established.  It is only at the stage
\nof moderation, and that too the moderation undertaken by Prof. Shivanna,
\nthat there is evidence of irregularity and unfairness confined to the cases of
\nthe three selected candidates, though seven other unsuccessful candidates
\nhad also been given high marks by Prof. Shivanna.  It has, however, been
\nconcurrently held that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not
\nnecessary to cancel the examination.  While the Tribunal felt that all the
\nanswer scripts should be valued afresh, the High Court held that it was not
\nnecessary to do so.  The High Court was of the view that only those answer
\nscripts required to be re-evaluated which had been moderated by Prof.
\nShivanna as also those answer scripts in various subjects where the requisite
\npercentage of answer papers as required by the guidelines were not
\nmoderated by the Head Examiner\/Chief Examiner.  The High Court further
\ndirected that scaling method should be adopted in re-evaluation so that the
\nbenefit of moderation is not confined to those candidates whose answer
\nscripts are by chance picked out for moderation, but the benefit is extended
\nto all candidates who may have similarly suffered or gained on account of
\nthe examiner being strict or liberal in awarding marks.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving perused the material placed before us we are satisfied that this
\nis not a case where the examination deserves to be cancelled. We are also
\nsatisfied that the finding recorded by the High Court that there is really no
\nallegation imputing unfairness in the matter of examination of answer scripts
\nby the examiners, is justified.  The allegations, if any, relate to the stage of
\nmoderation by the Chief Examiners, and in particular confined to the
\nconduct of Chief Examiner Prof. Shivanna.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court has very meticulously examined the material on
\nrecord and it is not necessary for us to undertake that exercise over again.
\nThe High Court had called for and examined the following statements\/
\nextracts :-\n<\/p>\n
“i) statement showing the merit-wise marks of the first 50
\ncandidates category wise (that is GM, Group 1, 2A, 2B,
\n3A, 3B, SC and ST);\n<\/p>\n
(ii) statement showing the subject-wise marks awarded
\nby the Examiners, Head examiners and Chief examiners,
\nwhere the difference is plus 20 and above (335 answer
\nscripts);\n<\/p>\n
(iii) statements showing the subject wise marks awarded
\nby the Examiners, Head Examiners and Chief Examiners,
\nwhere the difference is minus 20 and above (in regard to
\n326 candidates);\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  Subject wise abstracts showing the number of
\nanswer scripts moderated by Head Examiners and Chief
\nExaminers and the number of answer scripts where the
\nvariation on moderation is plus or minus 20 and more;\n<\/p>\n
(v)  subject-wise list of Examiners, Head Examiners and
\nChief Examiners”.\n<\/p>\n
               The High Court found that random review of adequate number of
\nanswer scripts had been done in the seven optional subjects (out of thirty)
\nnoticed in paragraph 31 of its judgment.  Review disclosed that variation of
\nmarks had not exceeded plus or minus 20 (out of 300 marks).  The High
\nCourt, therefore, found that there was no irregularity in review evaluation or
\nmoderation in the aforesaid seven subjects and no interference was,
\ntherefore, called for.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt further found that in the four subjects noticed in paragraph 32 of its
\njudgment consisting of two papers each, there was adequate random review
\nof answer scripts by the Chief Examiners and there was no variation beyond
\nplus or minus 20 marks (out of 300 marks) in some papers, and only a very
\nfew, that too marginal, in other papers. There was, therefore, no need to
\ninterfere with the evaluation in respect of the aforesaid four subjects.  In the
\noptional subject Chemistry also, the material placed on record, did not
\njustify any interference with the evaluation of answer papers.
\n\tHowever, the High Court found that in the optional subject
\nAgriculture and Marketing, no Head Examiner has been appointed, and the
\nChief Examiner had reviewed only three answer scripts out of 222 in Paper I
\nand only four out of 279 in Paper II, that is 1% to 2%.  Similar was the case
\nwith optional subject Criminology.  In regard to the remaining 16 optional
\nsubjects and General Studies the High Court found that the number of
\nanswer scripts were large and the variation exceeding plus or minus 20
\nmarks were also substantial.  The necessary particulars have been noticed by
\nthe High Court in paragraph 34 of its judgment.  The High Court has
\nobserved that the moderation in these subjects was restricted only to the
\nanswer scripts which were reviewed, without adopting the scaling technique
\nof moderation by applying the upward or downward revision of all the
\nanswer scripts evaluated by the respective examiners.  Even the random
\nreview was not done to the extent suggested in the guidelines, nor was any
\nrecord maintained to show whether moderation was done by the Head
\nExaminer\/Chief Examiner in the manner required by the guidelines.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court further noticed that there were serious irregularities in
\nthe review valuation by one of the Chief Examiners namely, Prof. Shivanna
\nwho had evaluated 127 answer scripts as Chief Examiner in the subject
\nGeneral Studies and History.  The High Court has noticed the findings
\nrecorded by the Subcommittee appointed by the Commission to investigate
\ninto the matter.  The High Court found that glaring irregularities were
\ncommitted by Prof. Shivanna in the random review done by him in History
\nPapers I and II and General Studies Papers I and II and, therefore, there was
\nneed to review the process of moderation even in these subjects.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of its findings the High Court set aside the direction of the
\nKarnataka Administrative Tribunal for a fresh evaluation of all the answer
\nscripts.  The High Court directed that moderation, or random review, will be
\nundertaken only where such moderation\/random review was found to be
\ninadequate.  The subjects in which re-evaluation has been ordered have been
\nenumerated in paragraph 39(b) of the judgment of the High Court.  In so
\ndoing, the Karnataka Public Service Commission has been directed to apply
\nthe scaling method as described in paragraph (b) of its memo dated March
\n27, 2002.  The moderation is required to be done under the supervision of
\nthe Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission, and it is open to
\nhim to have the moderation done at two tier level (i.e. Head Examiner and
\nChief Examiner) or at only one level, that is Chief Examiner.  A fresh panel
\nof Head and\/or Chief Examiner shall be prepared.  The High Court did not
\ndirect moderation\/ random review in respect of the subjects where it found
\nrandom review to be adequate and there was no conspicuous variation in
\nmarks awarded by the examiner and the Head Examiner.  The High Court in
\nits impugned order has enumerated those subjects\/papers in sub-para (c) of
\nits order.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court further directed to hold fresh interviews and selection
\nin place of those carried out during the pendency of the applications before
\nthe Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.  It further directed the Karnataka
\nPublic Service Commission to re-evaluate the compulsory papers (English
\nand or Kannada) of those candidates who had approached the High Court
\nand the Tribunal for such re-evaluation before the date of the Judgment.
\nThe High Court has directed that a fresh list of candidates shall be prepared
\nand candidates invited for personality test in accordance with Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may at the outset notice the submission urged on behalf of the
\nunsuccessful candidates that the entire examination should be cancelled and
\na fresh examination be held.  We have noticed earlier the findings of the
\nTribunal as well as the High Court on this aspect of the matter.  It has been
\nconcurrently held by the Tribunal as well as the High Court that it is not
\nnecessary to hold the examination afresh.  However, while the Tribunal held
\nthat all the papers should be evaluated afresh, the High Court after a
\nmeticulous examination of the material placed on record has come to the
\nconclusion that it is not necessary to re-evaluate all the papers.  It has upheld
\nthe evaluation of papers in some subjects while it has directed re-evaluation
\nin some others.  The High Court did not consider it necessary to order fresh
\nevaluation of all the papers by the examiners, because it did not find any
\nallegation or evidence of partiality or favouritism against the examiners.
\nEven the Tribunal has not specifically recorded any finding that the
\nexaminers acted in improper or unfair manner.  The allegations really are
\nagainst the re-evaluation of papers by Head Examiners\/Chief Examiners and
\nin particular against the conduct of Prof. Shivanna, who it is found granted
\nabnormally high marks to his favourite candidates so that they may rank
\nhigh in the merit list and be ultimately selected.  The Tribunal as well as the
\nHigh Court have concurrently held that the conduct of Prof. Shivanna was
\nimproper and unfair and we do not find any reason to interfere with their
\nconcurrent finding.  However, we do not wish to make any further
\nobservations since we are informed that proceedings are pending against
\nProf. Shivanna and necessary action is being taken in this regard.  We
\nfurther clarify that the finding recorded in these proceedings is only for the
\npurpose of disposing of these appeals and should not prejudice the case of
\nthe parties in the pending enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the Tribunal is concerned, it has ordered fresh evaluation by
\nthe examiners, while the High Court has directed re-evaluation only at the
\nHead Examiners\/Chief Examiners level, that is at the stage of moderation\/
\nrandom review.  We find that there is really no justification for fresh
\nevaluation of all the answer scripts by the examiners, and we concur with the
\nfinding of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
It appears to us that the Tribunal directed fresh evaluation of all
\nanswer scripts because the suggestion made by the Tribunal for production
\nof the marks assigned to the top 50 candidates in each category was not
\naccepted by the Commission.  However, before the High Court the relevant
\nmaterial was produced and the High Court had the advantage of scrutinizing
\nthe material placed before it.  Counsel for the successful candidates is,
\ntherefore, right in his submission that if the material asked for had been
\nproduced before the Tribunal, perhaps the Tribunal would not have drawn an
\nadverse inference and directed a wholesale re-evaluation of all the answer
\nscripts.\n<\/p>\n
  On the question of re-evaluation by Head Examiner\/Chief Examiner,
\nthe High Court has placed the subjects into two categories viz; those where
\nsufficient percentage of answer scripts as required by the Rules had not been
\ntaken up for random review\/moderation, and secondly, those where the
\nrandom review\/moderation  is either found to be unfair (as in the case of
\nProf. Shivanna), or where the variation of marks awarded by the examiner
\nand the Chief Examiner\/ Head Examiner was plus or minus 20 or more.  The
\nHigh Court has recorded reasons for directing re-evaluation in only some of
\nthe subjects.  In regard to other subjects the High Court has found that
\nsufficient number of answer scripts were randomly evaluated and
\nmoderated, and further there was no conspicuous variation in the award of
\nmarks by the examiners and the Head Examiners.  Obviously, therefore,
\nthere was no need to get such answer scripts re-evaluated.  However, where
\nsufficient number of answer scripts were not re-evaluated by Head
\nExaminer\/Chief Examiner as required by the Rules, the High Court was
\ncertainly justified in directing compliance of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother aspect of the matter is with regard to applying the scaling
\nmethod as per the direction of the High Court.  The scaling method has been
\ndescribed earlier in this judgment.  The selected candidates have a grievance
\nagainst the application of this method. It was submitted that it may not be
\nproper to apply the scaling method only in respect of subjects where the
\nanswer scripts have to be moderated by Head Examiner\/Chief Examiner and
\nnot to other subjects where the High Court has upheld the moderation\/
\nrandom checking by the Head Examiner\/Chief Examiner.  We have given
\nthe submission our serious thought.  The scaling method is applied only with
\na view to maintain a uniform standard in the marking of answer scripts.  As
\nis well known some answer scripts are randomly taken up for evaluation by
\nHead Examiners\/Chief Examiners.  It may be that some examiner may be
\nvery liberal and generous in awarding marks whereas some other examiner
\nmay award much less marks for the same quality of answer.  Upon
\nmoderation, no doubt the candidate whose answer paper is moderated gets
\nbenefit of moderation, but such benefit is not extended to other candidates
\nwhose answer scripts may have been examined by the same examiner, but
\nwere not randomly selected for re-evaluation by the Head Examiner\/Chief
\nExaminer. It is true that there is bound to be some difference in the marks
\nawarded by different examiners in the same subject.  But the need for
\napplying scaling method arises only in cases where the variation in marks
\nawarded exceeds a certain level.  It is, therefore, not necessary that the
\nscaling method should be applied in all cases.  The scaling method will be
\napplied only where the variation in marks is plus or minus a certain level or
\npercentage.  The High Court in the instant case has directed that scaling
\nmethod shall be applied only when it is found that average variation is plus
\nor minus 20 or more.  Wherever the average variation is less than plus or
\nminus 20, general review of the marks awarded need not be done.  We were
\ntold that the scaling method is now being applied in many competitive
\nexaminations held in this country and the purpose of applying the scaling
\nmethod is to bring about a certain uniformity of standard in the matter of
\naward of marks by the examiners.  No exception can be taken to the scaling
\nmethod in principle.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn fact this Court in U.P. Public Services Commission vs. Subhash
\nChandra Dixit and others<\/a> : AIR 2004 SC 163, has found the scaling method
\nto be fair since it seeks to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking
\nstandards of the examiners.  This Court has observed:-\n<\/p>\n
“There is a vast percentage difference in awarding of
\nmarks between each set of examiners and this was sought
\nto be minimized by applying the scaling formula. If
\nscaling method had not been used, only those candidates
\nwhose answer sheets were examined by liberal examiners
\nalone would get selected and the candidates whose
\nanswer sheets were examined by strict examiners would
\nbe completely excluded, though the standard of their
\nanswers may be to some extent similar.  The scaling
\nsystem was adopted with a view to eliminate the
\ninconsistency in the marking standards of the
\nexaminers”.\n<\/p>\n
\tThen remains the question as to whether it will make any difference in
\nthe instant case if the scaling method is not applied to subjects where
\nvaluation and revaluation has been upheld by the High Court.  In our view, it
\nwill make no difference because the High Court has not found it necessary to
\ndirect re-evaluation of answer scripts in those subjects where the average
\nvariation was not found to be more than plus or minus 20%.  Thus, the
\nsubjects in which the High Court has not directed re-evaluation are those
\nsubjects where in any case the scaling method would not be applicable
\nbecause the average variation of marks has been found to be within the
\nprescribed parameter.  We, therefore, uphold the direction of the High Court
\nto apply the scaling method in re-evaluation of answer scripts pursuant to the
\norder of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tNo doubt counsel for the successful candidates submitted that it was
\nnot necessary to apply the scaling method as the same purpose can be
\nachieved by the procedure already prescribed.  It was submitted that the
\npercentage 5 or 10% as the case may be for random evaluation is the
\nminimum prescribed.  There is nothing which prevents the random re-
\nevaluation of a larger percentage of answer scripts.  There was, therefore, no
\nneed to apply the scaling technique.  This submission must be rejected
\nbecause even if answer scripts more than the percentage prescribed are
\nreviewed by Head Examiner or Chief Examiner, that will not achieve the
\npurpose for which the scaling technique is adopted, because the scaling
\ntechnique is confined to award of marks by examiners in the same subject
\nwho are either too liberal or too strict in awarding marks with the result that
\nthe average variation is more than plus or minus 20 marks.  If the desired
\nresult is to be achieved all the answer papers examined by a particular
\nexaminer will have to be re-evaluated.  As between the two options, we find
\nthe scaling method to be more practical and effective.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe counsel for the successful candidates as well as counsel appearing
\non behalf of the Karnataka Public Service Commission submitted that it is
\nnot necessary even to re-evaluate the answer scripts in some of the subjects
\nas directed by the High Court because the findings of the Sub-committee
\nappointed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission is clear and
\ncategoric.  The Sub-committee which inquired into the irregularities
\ncommitted in the conduct of the examination found that the irregularities
\nwere committed by Prof. Shivanna who awarded very high marks as the
\nChief Examiner to his favourite candidates namely, Rameshwarappa and the
\nmembers of his family.  There were 10 cases which were identified for
\nfavoured treatment, out of whom three were selected.  In all Shivanna had
\nmoderated only 127 answer papers and, therefore, it was not necessary to re-
\nevaluate the other answer scripts except those re-evaluated by Prof.
\nShivanna as the Chief Examiner.  It was also submitted on behalf of the
\nsuccessful candidates that the guidelines provided that random review or
\nrandom sampling should not be less than 5% of the top level answer scripts
\nand over all random review should not be less than 10% of the answer
\nscripts evaluated by each examiner.  However, according to them, the High
\nCourt has increased the percentage to 20% instead of 5 to 10%.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no merit in either of the two submissions.  The High Court
\nhas found as a fact that in some subjects random review was not done to the
\nextent prescribed in the guidelines (5% of top level answer scripts and over
\nall random review of 10%).  No minutes or record were maintained to show
\nwhether moderation was done by the Head Examiners\/Chief Examiners in
\nthe manner required by the guidelines.  In these circumstances, one cannot
\nfind fault with the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answer
\nscripts in subjects in which moderation\/random review was not done in
\naccordance with the guidelines.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe submission that the guidelines earlier provided only for a random
\nreview to the extent of 5 to 10 % which has now been increased to 20%, is
\nbased on a factually wrong assumption.  The High Court in paragraph 35 of
\nits judgment has noticed that the random review prescribed under the
\nguidelines was to be done in respect of 5% of top level answer scripts and
\n10% over all random review.  Even the memo filed by the Karnataka Public
\nService Commission and accepted by the High Court assured that whenever
\nrandom review done by the Head Examiner was less than 10% of the answer
\nscripts evaluated by any examiner in any subject, the shortfall would be
\nmade up examiner-wise and subject-wise by random review of answer
\nscripts to the extent of shortfall.  While doing so it will be ensured that
\nrandom sampling was not be less than 5% of the top level answer scripts.
\nWe have, therefore, no doubt that the direction of the High Court has not
\ndeviated from the guidelines.  Moreover, 5% or 10% as the case may be is
\nthe minimum required percentage of random review.  It can always be more
\nthan the minimum prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe shall now notice some of the other submissions advanced before
\nus.  It was argued before us that the key answers had been leaked out. The
\nHigh Court has noticed the contention advanced before it and observed that
\nthe same was neither pursued nor established.  The facts disclosed that the
\nmodel answers were prepared only a few days before the actual
\ncommencement of the valuation.  In the instant case, valuation commenced
\non May 17, 1999 while the examination was held between April 9, 1999 and
\nMay 3, 1999.  There was, therefore, no question of the model answers being
\nleaked out earlier so as to be available to the examinees on the dates of
\nexamination.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was also argued before the High Court and faintly submitted before
\nus that the writ petitioners were students who had a good academic record
\nand, therefore, it was unbelievable that they would have failed in
\ncompulsory papers English and Kannada which were of SSLC level.  It was
\nexplained by the Commission that it is not as if all writ petitioners had failed
\nin compulsory subjects English and Kannada.  Only three had failed in
\nEnglish and one had failed in Kannada.  The other writ petitioners had
\npassed in the compulsory subjects  English and Kannada, but since they had
\nnot secured high marks over all they were not called for personality test.  In
\nany event, the Karnataka Public Service Commission had agreed to re-
\nevaluate the compulsory papers of the applicants\/petitioners who had already
\napproached the Tribunal or the High Court.  The High Court has accepted
\nthe submission on behalf of the Commission and clarified that the relief in
\nregard to re-evaluation of compulsory papers should be restricted to those
\ncandidates who have approached the Tribunal or the High Court, and not to
\nothers.\n<\/p>\n
\tA submission was sought to be urged before us on behalf of the
\nunsuccessful candidates that even the interview conducted for selection of
\ncandidates was not proper inasmuch as 350 candidates out of 390 were
\nawarded 195 marks each.  Counsel for the successful candidates submitted
\nthat such a contention was not raised either before the High Court or the
\nTribunal, and there is no pleading or finding on this aspect of the matter.  It
\nis not necessary for us to examine this question. The High Court has directed
\nholding of fresh interviews on the basis of marks obtained after re-evaluation
\nof answer scripts in accordance with the directions of the High Court.  Since
\nfresh interviews will be held, the grievance of the aforesaid petitioners does
\nnot subsist.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving considered all aspects of the matter, we are satisfied that no
\ninterference by this Court in these appeals is called for.  The High Court has
\ntaken care to safeguard the interest of all concerned and to rule out the
\npossibility of unfairness in the re-evaluation of the answer scripts.  The
\ndirections made by the High Court are adequate to deal with the peculiar
\nfacts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals and affirm the judgment and
\norder of the High Court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service … on 6 October, 2005 Author: B Singh Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6172-6222 of 2005 PETITIONER: K. Channegowda and others RESPONDENT: Karnataka Public Service Commission and others. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/10\/2005 BENCH: B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-12T21:54:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service … on 6 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T21:54:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":8816,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005\",\"name\":\"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T21:54:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service … on 6 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-12T21:54:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service … on 6 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T21:54:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005"},"wordCount":8816,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005","name":"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T21:54:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-channegowda-and-others-vs-karnataka-public-service-on-6-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Channegowda And Others vs Karnataka Public Service … on 6 October, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210184\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}