Neel Ratan vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Vikramajit Sen, J.—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.

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 u/s 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.

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.

The second contingency would be with the objective of overcoming the disparity that may result from a liberal or strict evaluation which,

because of human nature and behavior, is bound to occur. In this case also, individual answer books would not need to be looked at.

In the present case, it has been explained that after the Examination papers are collected the Head Examiner discusses model answers with the

other Examiners. Even if this is done it cannot completely eradicate the possibility of liberality of one Examiner as compared to strictness of

another. In this case also, Moderation would have to be carried out across the Board.

I have perused the Answer Books of the Petitioner. Undoubtedly, there is a noting on them either of May or June, 2005, mentioning that

Moderation has been carried out. These nothings have been explained in the Affidavits and also by learned counsel for the Respondent to have

been carried out with a view to give relevant information of the details of the Moderation. It has specifically been stated that the Moderation took

place in February, 2005 and not in May or June, 2005.

The wisdom and method of Moderation must be left to the experts concerned. So far as this Petition is concerned, I do not find any scope to

conclude that the marks obtained by the Petitioner were deliberately downgraded in order to favor some third parties; or to displace him from the

order of merit.

For these reasons, the Petition does not warrant any further consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Paper books and confidential statements are returned to the learned counsel for the Respondent.