STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI & ORS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus ATUL KUMAR DWIVEDI & ORS

Given the factual matrix (over 6.3 lakh applicants and a written examination conducted in 29 different sittings with different question papers), the Board was empowered under Rule 15(b) to determine procedure and was entitled to adopt normalization/scaling at the initial written-examination stage; the term 'marks' in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) must be given the same meaning in context (i.e. marks after normalization) to avoid anomalous outcomes. There was no allegation of mala fides; the High Court's contrary interpretation was set aside and the Board's results of 28.02.2019 were to be given effect.

Parties
Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.; Respondent: Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 11.09.2019
Legal Topics
Normalization of Marks, Scaling of Marks, Recruitment Rules, Rule 15(b) and 15(e), Judicial Review of Expert Bodies
Service Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Normalization of Marks Scaling of Marks Recruitment Rules Rule 15(b) and 15(e) Judicial Review of Expert Bodies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Appellant

Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 11.09.2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board was within its power to apply normalization/scaling of marks to determine eligibility under Rule 15(b) of the Recruitment Rules
  2. 2 At what stage of the selection process normalization/scaling may appropriately be applied (Rule 15(b) stage or Rule 15(e) stage)
  3. 3 Scope of judicial review of the Standardized Equi-percentile Method adopted and whether the Board’s exercise was vitiated by mala fides or arbitrary action

Ratio Decidendi

Given the factual matrix (over 6.3 lakh applicants and a written examination conducted in 29 different sittings with different question papers), the Board was empowered under Rule 15(b) to determine procedure and was entitled to adopt normalization/scaling at the initial written-examination stage; the term 'marks' in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) must be given the same meaning in context (i.e. marks after normalization) to avoid anomalous outcomes. There was no allegation of mala fides; the High Court's contrary interpretation was set aside and the Board's results of 28.02.2019 were to be given effect.