Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Apex Court has refused to hear a series to writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners had raised several grievances which included prayer for relaxing minimum qualifying marks, prayer for re-evaluation and moderation, prayer for rounding off to eligible percentage, prayer to quash minimum requirement in interview. The court rejected the petition and made the following observations, the court said that no moderation is achieved when one examiner examines the whole paper. The reason different person examine different parts of a paper is actually in order to maintain uniformity in evaluation. It is to avoid variability of examiners known as hawk-doe effect. The court has said that minimum passing marks in interview is a valid condition, the reason being interview is the best method to evaluate the ability of a candidate and to judge capacity and minimum marks can also be prescribed. A written examination only tests academic knowledge which is sometimes gained without acquiring practical qualities, the criteria of experience of practice for direct recruitment can only be judged by interview, communication skills and by elucidation of certain aspect which would not be possible by written exam alone. The court also said that a candidate participating in the process of examination, cannot turn around at a later point of time to raise challenge against the same. The court further said that no direction can be issued to round off marks. Following precedents which are Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr v. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr, it was held that the principle of rounding off method could not be applied in view of requirement to obtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview. The court further said that conditions prescribing minimum qualifying marks in each paper cannot be relaxed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824