NEEL RATAN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reason why the Petition has engaged considerable attention is the fact that Moderation had been carried to the detriment of the Petitioner in five papers in which he had appeared in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2004 The Petitioner has also averred that the Moderation had taken place in May and June, 2005 although the Results had been declared on 14.3.2005. Normally, Courts would be loathe to interfere with the Examination process as well as standards applied thereto. Under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court would delve into the complaints only if there is a possibility of discrimination in the mould of Article 14, or there is unfairness or irregularity appearing on the face of the matter.

(2.) The explanation of the Respondent is that the Moderation was completed by 23.2.2005 and the Results were declared on 14.3.2005. This is contained in an Affidavit of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission which I find no reason not to respect and believe. The said Affidavit dated 28.2.2006 also claims privilege under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the Answer Books have been produced for my perusal. The relevant marks have also been submitted for my perusal.

(3.) As has been explained, Moderation may be called for in at least two contingencies. Firstly, one or more of the subjects chosen may inherently be advantageous in the amount of marks obtainable by the candidate. This is obvious by comparing Mathematics or Science papers against any of the Humanities papers. It would not be fair for Humanities students to have a slender or no chance of success when compared with students opting for the other subjects. Therefore, Moderation would require the reduction of marks in such subjects and perhaps a correspondingly an increase in the other subjects. This would then result in a uniform and fair assessment of the knowledge and aptitude of all the candidates and would place them on a common platform. In carrying out Moderation individual answer books may have not required to be seen, since the upward or downward revision would be carried out across the Board for all candidates in the same group.