'Decisions Of Expert Bodies Like PSC Should Not Be Lightly Interfered With' : Supreme Court Upholds UP Police Recruitment Process

On Friday, the Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board had correctly applied the method of 'Normalisation' of marks at the stage of Written Examination as well as the Final merit list in the process of selection of candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Platoon Commander and Fire Officer. A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Vineet Saran allowed the appeals filed challenging the order of the Special Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed the results of the examination of police officials in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The bench held that 'normalisation' was appropriately applied by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board ("Board") at the stage of written examination.The Court also said that "the decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions,should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out".Factual Background The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification inviting online application forms from male candidates for filling up 2400 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, 210 posts of Platoon Commander (Provincial Armed Constabulary) and 97 posts of Fire Officer (Grade-II) in State Police force. Another notification was issued on the same day for filling up posts of Sub-Inspector (Nagrik Police) for female candidates. As a large number of candidates applied for the examination, a further notification was issued on 28.06.2017 whereby it was stated that normalisation of marks would be done as per "Standardised Equi-percentile method" ("normalisation") used in MAH-MBA/MMS CET 2015. Written examinations were conducted in 29 different sittings and all batches had different question papers. 11741 students went beyond the written rounds to participate in the "Physical Standards Test" and "Physical Efficiency Test". 5461 candidates secured more than 50% actual marks after written examination and 5713 candidates secured more than 50% marks after 'normalisation'. Some candidates who had secured more than 50% actual marks filed a Writ Petition on October, 2018 in the Allahabad High Court challenging the application of the normalisation process. Their contention was that candidates who had not secured more than 50% actual marks but secured more than 50% marks after normalisation were included in the selection process. In the meanwhile, the results were declared. Accordingly, the petition was amended to seek direction to quash the results. The Single Judge allowed the amendment application. Some unsuccessful candidates challenged the results before the Lucknow Bench and an interim order was passed restraining the Government from issuing any appointment letter till the next date of hearing. The said interim order was challenged by the selected candidate and the Division Bench modified the direction passed by the Single Judge to the effect that the Government could issue appointment letters, which were subjected to the final outcome of the writ petition. Some of the candidates challenged the order of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court, which refused to interfere with the order of the Division Bench, but requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to constitute a special bench to hear and dispose of the matters expeditiously. In view of the order of the Supreme Court two Special Division Benches were constituted - one in Allahabad and the other in Lucknow. The Allahabad Bench allowed the petition challenging the normalisation process. Contention raised by the Appellants Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Senior Advocates, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Vinay Navare, and Advocates Mr. Amit Pawan and Mr. Shoeb Alam, appearing on behalf of the candidates supporting the State argued - a. The expression "marks" ought to be assigned the same meaning in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) of the Recruitment Rules. If normalisation was not introduced at the stage of Rule 15(b) some rightful claimants would have been eliminated. b. As the written examination was conducted in 29 sessions and all had different question papers, some papers were tougher than the others and therefore there was a need to put the candidates on even keel, i.e., adoption of the normalisation process. c. The condition of normalisation was introduced before the selection process had begun and all candidates were aware of the same. d. There were no allegations of mala fides against the State. e. The degree of difficulty in the question papers demanded normalisation, which was in consonance with the equality doctrine under Article 14 of the Constitution. f. Reliance was placed on Sanjay Singh And Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission,...

'Decisions Of Expert Bodies Like PSC Should Not Be Lightly Interfered With' : Supreme Court Upholds UP Police Recruitment Process

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags