Court No. - 9
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 5 of 2021 Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate(Ashok Khare) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Mishra has appeared for the appellant.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 1.
Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel has appeared for the respondents no. 2 and 3.
Office objection is overruled.
Exception to order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ- A No. 4905 of 2020 (Praveen Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. & others) is being taken vide this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court.
The writ petition was filed for a direction to respondents viz., The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission to produce the answer book of the Conventional Engineering Ist Paper (Code 55) and Conventional Engineering IInd Paper (Code 56) of examination of Assistant Engineer (General/Special Recruitment) Examination, 2013.
Contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that though he answered the questions correctly however was allotted lesser marks, i.e., in place 130 and 125 marks out of 200, the petitioner was awarded 111 and 111 marks respectively.
Respondent U.P. Public Service Commission filed their counter affidavit wherein while relying on the decision by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 165 of 2005 (Sanjay Singh V. U.P. Public Service Commission and others) decided on 09.01.2007, it is contended that the Commission adopts four process of evaluation of the answer books. It is urged that the petitioner though was awarded 133 marks by the examiner, however, later all the answer scripts of Ist paper of Conventional Engineering (Code 55) were evaluated by the moderator (Chief Engineer) in order to ensure the moderation. In process whereof, the marks earlier awarded by the examinee were increased/reduced in respect of all the candidates, not only of the petitioner, and the petitioner was awarded 111 marks.
Though an exception is taken to the moderation taken recourse to by the Commission. However, as held in Sanjay Singh (Supra) by the Supreme Court that :-
23. When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer- scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the examination are limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take the examination, it will not be possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the answer-scripts among several examiners for valuation with the paper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner. When more than one examiner evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by him to the answer- scripts allotted to him for valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced examiners receive equal batches of answer scripts, there is difference in average marks and the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting the merit of individual candidates. This apart, there is 'Hawk- Dove' effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well written answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be awarded more marks than the excellent answer-script. In other words, there is 'reduced valuation' by a strict examiner and 'enhanced valuation' by a liberal examiner. This is known as 'examiner variability' or 'Hawk-Dove effect'. Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the Examiners so that the effect of 'examiner subjectivity' or 'examiner variability' is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of moderation is as follows :
(i) The paper-setter of the subject normally acts as the Head Examiner for the subject. He is selected from amongst senior academicians/scholars/senior civil servants/Judges. Where the case of a large number of candidates, more than one examiner is appointed and each of them is allotted around 300 answer-scripts for valuation.
(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held soon after the examination. They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects of the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are further discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or erraticism or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary.
(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the corrected answer scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been followed by the examiners. The process of random sampling usually consists of scrutiny of some top level answer scripts and some answer books selected at random from the batches of answer scripts valued by each examiner. The top level answer books of each examiner are revalued by the Head Examiner who carries out such corrections or alterations in the award of marks as he, in his judgment, considers best, to achieve uniformity. (For this purpose, if necessary certain statistics like distribution of candidates in various marks ranges, the average percentage of marks, the highest and lowest award of marks etc. may also be prepared in respect of the valuation of each examiner.)
(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of marks without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggest upward or downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying according to the degree of liberality or strictness in marking. In regard to the top level answer books revalued by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as final. As regards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awards are moderated as per the recommendations made by the Head Examiner.
(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the answer scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other Examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms.
(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of all the Examiners. In such a situation, one more level of Examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head Examiner who checks the random samples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.
The above procedure of 'moderation' would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity.
We do not perceive any error on the part of the Commission in taking recourse to moderation of all the candidates as would leave any possibility of the petitioner alone be singled out.
In view whereof for the reasons assigned above, we decline to cause indulgence with the impugned order.
Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 KS