JUDGMENT 1. - Rajasthan Public Service Commission, for short 'the R.P.S.C.', on requisition being sent by the Government of Rajasthan, for specified number of vacancies, in specified State and Subordinate Services, invited applications from eligible candidates for permission to appear at the combined competitive examination 1989-90 by publishing a notice dated 15.2.1993 to the said effect in the official Gazette and other papers. Petitioners 1 to 9 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1153/1994 and all petitioners in D. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2115/1994 & 2685/1994 duly submitted their applications in pursuance of the said notice. All the aforesaid petitioners took the preliminary examination in pursuance of the said notification but were not found qualified to take the main examination envisaged by the said notification. Hence, they have filed these three separate writ petitions. Since all these writ petitions pertain to the interpretation of the provisions of the same set of Rules, they have been heard together by common consent and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan promulgated the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962, hereinafter the Rules, in exercise of powers conferred upon him by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 4 of these Rules inter-alia provided for a combined competitive examination to be held by the R.P.S.C. for vacancies in specified State & Subordinate Services. Part III of the Rules deals with procedure for holding examinations. Rule 7 of the Rules in this part inter-alia lays down that the Commission shall give a brief outline of the scope and syllabus of each paper for general guidance of the candidates. It lays down that the scheme of the examination will be as specified in Schedule III. It further lays down that the standard of the papers will be that of a degree examination of the University of Rajasthan. 3. Relevant portion of Schedule III is as follows : "Schedule-III (See Rule 7) Scheme of Examination for State (R.A.S. etc.) and Subordinate (R.T.S. etc.) Services Combined Competitive Examination. 1. Scheme of Examination:- -The Competitive Examination will be held in two successive stages : (i) Preliminary Examination; (ii) Main Examination. 3. Relevant portion of Schedule III is as follows : "Schedule-III (See Rule 7) Scheme of Examination for State (R.A.S. etc.) and Subordinate (R.T.S. etc.) Services Combined Competitive Examination. 1. Scheme of Examination:- -The Competitive Examination will be held in two successive stages : (i) Preliminary Examination; (ii) Main Examination. (i) Preliminary Examination:-The Preliminary Examination will consist of two papers, i.e. one Compulsory Paper and one Optional paper, which will be of objective type and carry a maximum of 400 marks in the subjects mentioned in Section 'A' and 'B'. The Examination is meant to serve as a screening test only. The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination by the candidates, who are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the main Examination will be 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the various services and posts provided they are otherwise eligible, but in the said range all those candidates, who secure the same percentage of marks as may be fixed by the Commission for any lowest range, will be admitted to the Main Examination. Provided further that if adequate number of candidates belonging to the Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes are not available amongst the candidates to be declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination, the Commission may at their discretion keep the cut off marks upto 5 (five) per cent less than the general candidates." 4. Rule 8 of the Rules deals with inviting of applications and provides that on requisition having been received from the Government for specified posts to be filled by direct recruitment in services mentioned in Schedule I & Schedule II, the Commission shall call for applications for permission to appear in the examination by publishing a notice to that effect in the official Gazette and in such other manner, as the Commission may deem just.Rule 9 of the Rules deals with contents of notice and instructions connected therewith. This rule reads as follows: "9. This rule reads as follows: "9. Contents of Notice and instructions connected therewith : (1) Subject to the provisions for these Rules such notice shall among other things state (i) number of post to be filled in the various services on the rules of each examination, indicating separately the number of posts reserved for candidates of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes; (ii) date of submission of application for admission; (iii) qualifications required for admission at the examination and the steps to be taken by the candidates to establish their eligibility; and (iv) date and place of examination. (2) In addition to the notice, the Commission may issue, in such other manner as the Commission may deem fit, such instructions including the syllabus for the guidance of the candidates." Rule 10 of the Rules deals with form of application and examination fee. Rule 11 deals with admission to the examination. Rule 11-A deals with educational qualifications. Rule 11 B deals with age. Rule 12 deals with employment by irregular or improper means. Rule 13 deals with scheme of examination, personality and viva-voce test. This rule underwent certain changes from time to time. The Rules as stands now reads as follows : "13. Scheme of Examination, personality, and viva voce test:-The competitive examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages i.e. preliminary Examination & Main Examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule-III. The marks obtained in the preliminary Examination by the candidates, who are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be 15 times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the year in the various services and posts; provided they are otherwise eligible, but in the said range all those candidates, who secure the same percentage of marks as may be fixed by the Commission for any lowest range will be admitted to the Main Examination. Provided further that if adequate number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes are not available amongst the candidates to be declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination, the Commission may at their discretion keep the cut off marks upto 5(five) percent less than the General candidates. Provided further that if adequate number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes are not available amongst the candidates to be declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination, the Commission may at their discretion keep the cut off marks upto 5(five) percent less than the General candidates. Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture. However, for selection to the Rajasthan Police Service Candidates having 'C' certificate of N.C.C. will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the Main Examination by each such candidates" 5. Rule 14 of the Rules deals with medical examination fee. Rule 15 of the Rules, which is also germane to the present discussion, deals with recommendation of the Commission and reads as follows: "15. Recommendation of the Commission (1) The Commission shall prepare for each Service, a list of the candidates arranged in order of merit of the candidates as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission shall arrange their names in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service : Provided that: (i) The Commission shall not recommend any candidate for the R.A.S./R.P.S. who has failed to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in the personality and viva-voce examination and a minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate. It shall also not recommend any candidate for other service who has failed to obtain a minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate. (ii) The Commission, on requisition, further recommend the names of the candidates in addition to the advertised vacancies against additional vacancies intimated by the Government or the appointing authority, as the case may be, before the final result of the Combined Competitive Examination it. (ii) The Commission, on requisition, further recommend the names of the candidates in addition to the advertised vacancies against additional vacancies intimated by the Government or the appointing authority, as the case may be, before the final result of the Combined Competitive Examination it. declared by the Commission." (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in proviso (1), the Commission shall in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes recommend the names of such candidates, up to the number of vacancies reserved for them from amongst whose who have qualified for interview, even if they fail to obtain the minimum marks in Viva Voce or the aggregate prescribed under proviso (1) above. (3) The Commission, while giving weight to the preference for the posts in the different services expressed by a candidates in his application, may recommend him for appointment to any post in any such service for which it considers him suitable. (4) The list compiled under this rule shall be immediately sent to the Government and also be published for general information." 6. Petitioners 1 to 9 in Writ Petition No. 1153/1994 are members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and petitioner 10 claims to be a representative body of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes. candidates, who took the aforesaid examination 1989-90. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition, is that the commission ought to have prepared separate lists of successful candidates from Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes categories, viz., 15 times of the number of the vacancies reserved for these categories. It is alleged that the R.P.S.C. has prepared a combined list of General and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category candidates, even though vacancies in SC/ST categories had been separately specified. It is averred that this is contrary to the provisions of Rule 13 and is also violative to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that the action of the RPSC in preparing such a combined list is arbitrary and is likely to frustrate the very objective of reservation of vacancies for these categories. In the alternative, it is submitted that if interpretation of Rule 13 of the Rules made by the RPSC is held to be proper, the amended Rule should be quashed on the ground that it is wholly arbitrary. 7. In the alternative, it is submitted that if interpretation of Rule 13 of the Rules made by the RPSC is held to be proper, the amended Rule should be quashed on the ground that it is wholly arbitrary. 7. It has been pleaded that the preliminary examination held by the RPSC is not a competitive examination but it is only a screening test. It is pleaded that till main examination takes place, there is no lis between the SC/ST candidates and the general category candidates. It is pleaded that SC/ST candidates cannot be asked to compete with general category candidates in as much as reservation as has been made available to SC/ST candidates by virtue of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and by issuance of a common list of SC/ST candidates and general category candidates, the very purpose of this protection has been frustrated. 8. Upon such pleas, the petitioners prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) to call for the record and after examination thereof, to quash & set aside rule 13 of the Rules, 1962 amended vide notification dated 3.2.1993. (ii) to declare a fresh result of 15 times of number of vacancies plus 5% in addition to the preliminary examination held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.2.1993 so far as it relates to the category of SC/ST. (iii) to allow the petitioners & other similarly situated persons who are members of the SC/ST and who are found successful candidates in fresh list, to appear in the main examination likely to take place in near future in pursuance to advertisement dated 15.2.1993. 9. In Writ Petition No. 2115/1994, the two petitioners and certain other persons, whose names appear in Schedule A annexed to the writ petition, took the preliminary examination. All of them were unsuccessful at the said examination. Their grievance is that the original Rules as promulgated did not envisage any preliminary examination. The preliminary examination was introduced by an amendment to the Rules by notification dated 03.02.1993. The notification, though bearing the said date was printed in the official gazette on 27.2.1993 and was released from the Government Press for publication on 15.3.1993. By the said amendments, an entirely new scheme of preliminary examination was provided and an additional optional paper was introduced. The notification, though bearing the said date was printed in the official gazette on 27.2.1993 and was released from the Government Press for publication on 15.3.1993. By the said amendments, an entirely new scheme of preliminary examination was provided and an additional optional paper was introduced. Under the unamended Rule 13, all those candidates, who had secured 35% marks at the first stage of the examination, were entitled to appear at the 2nd stage of written examination. This was changed by the amendment in question. Now, the amended Rule provides that the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination will be 15 times of the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the year but such of those candidates who secured the same percentage of marks as.may be fixed by the Commission for any lowest range will be admitted to the main examination. It is pleaded that these amendments could not be retrospective and could not apply to candidates who had applied to the Commission in pursuance of notification dated 15.02.93. The terms and conditions of the notification, so far as they run counter to Rule 13 of the Rules, as it existed on 15.02.93 are liable to be a struck down as violative of Rule 13 of the Rules. 10. It is pleaded that the R.P.S.C. could not have prescribed by the impugned notification that a candidate must take a preliminary examination consisting of the papers of objective type viz., one compulsory paper of General Knowledge and General Science, and the other & the second optional paper, to be chosen from amongst 22 subjects. Under the existing Rule, only one paper of General Knowledge and General Science could be held. It is further pleaded that all those candidates, who had secured 35% of marks at the first stage of examination, were entitled to take the main examination and the number of successful candidates at the preliminary examination could not be restricted to 15 times of the vacancies. 11. It was further pleaded that the RPSC adopted a scheme of normalization /moderation of marks of the candidates who took the preliminary examination. The RPSC was not empowered to resort to any such scheme of moderation or normalization, in absence of a Rule warranting such moderation or normalization. 11. It was further pleaded that the RPSC adopted a scheme of normalization /moderation of marks of the candidates who took the preliminary examination. The RPSC was not empowered to resort to any such scheme of moderation or normalization, in absence of a Rule warranting such moderation or normalization. The scheme of moderation/normalization adopted by the RPSC was wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In this context, it was pleaded that as a result of moderation, score of some candidates securing very high marks was liable to be lowered while the score of candidates securing lower marks was liable to go up and this has resulted in grave injustice to certain candidates securing very high marks in particular paper because of their score going lower due to moderation. 12. A grievance was also made that originally only four chances were admissible to a candidate but by an amendment under notification dated 15.05.93, one more chance was allowed to those who had already availed four chances and were thus given an unfair advantage. 13. It was pleaded that the amended provision prescribing for preparation of a list of a successful candidates upto 15 times of the vacancies advertised, was arbitrary and discriminatory. The increase or decrease in the number of vacancies was liable to affect the candidates taking the preliminary examination. 14. It was pleaded that in several subjects, incorrect and defective questions were asked in optional papers. Some minor defects in the paper itself have been referred to. It was pleaded that the RPSC was not issuing any standard key answers; nor was it issuing any marks sheet to candidates who had taken the preliminary examination; even cut off percentage of marks of candidates declared Successful at preliminary examination was not made known. 15. It was also pleaded that provision for one optional paper at the preliminary examination was arbitrary as it had no nexus with the object to be achieved. 15. It was also pleaded that provision for one optional paper at the preliminary examination was arbitrary as it had no nexus with the object to be achieved. Upon such pleadings, the following reliefs were claimed : (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ directing the respondents to conduct the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services, Combined Competitive Examination, 1993 as per the rules applicable on the date of the advertisement i.e. 15.2.1993 and further be pleased to direct by a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or any other writ directing the respondents not to comply the provisions contained in the amendment to the rules affected in accordance with the notification published in the Gazette dated 27.2.1993; (ii) to direct that in the event of the provisions contained in the amending rules as set out in the notification published on 27.2.1993 with respect to the provisions of Rule 13 in so far as it prescribes the holding of the preliminary examination on the basis of an optional paper in addition to the. compulsory paper to be ultra vires and unconstitutional to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; (iii) to issue a writ declaring the provisions contained in rule 13 in so far as it prescribes the preparation of a select list of eligible candidates for appearing at the Main Examination only to the extent of 15 times the number of vacancies notified in the advertisement to be ultra vires Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India ; (iv) to declare the proviso 2 rule 11-A of the Rules, 1962 to be ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; (v) to direct that in accordance with rule 13 as applicable to the selections with respect to the date of advertisement and the date of determination of vacancies in the instant case that all candidates who have secured 35% marks in accordance with rule 13 of the Rules of 1962 be declared successful and the result published be amended suitably so as to incorporate among the list of successful candidates, all those candidates who have secured 35% marks as provided under Rule 13. (vi) to direct that all those candidates who have secured 35% marks at the aforesaid preliminary examination conducted by the respondent No. 3 be directed to be eligible and consequently allow to appear at the Main Examination to be held by the Commission; (vii) to direct the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to issue and publish the standard key answers with respect to each of the question paper, to issue a mark sheet to each of the candidates who have appeared at the preliminary examination individually as also to notify the last cut off percentage of marks obtained by the candidate without any increase in the marks on account of moderation by the Commission of such of the candidates who have been included among the list of successful candidates made eligible to appear at the Main Examination to be held by the Commission; and (viii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Court deem just and proper in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 16. In Writ petition No. 2685/1994 also, all the petitioners failed to qualify at the preliminary examination. The pleas raised by them are substantially those which were raised in writ petition No. 2115/94. It has been pleaded that vacancies for which examination was being held pertained to year 1991-92 and hence amended provisions of the Rules could not have been utilised for holding the examination under a new scheme, the vacancies having been already determined on 01.04.92. Similar reliefs as claimed in writ petition No. 2115/94 were claimed. 17. In writ petition No. 1153/1994, respondent RPSC filed its counter. Petitioners filed rejoinder to reply. Certain affidavits, counter affidavits and additional affidavits were also filed. In writ petition No. 2115/1994 also the respondent RPSC has filed its counter and affidavits and counter affidavits were filed. No counter was filed in writ petition No. 2685/1994 and counters filed in other two cases were adopted by the respondents. All the cases have been heard finally at the admission stage with consent of all concerned. Since all the three matters have been heard together, we propose to decide them by a common order and hereby do so. We may state that the respondents have justified holding of the preliminary test in accordance with the amended Rules. They have also justified the newly introduced scheme of moderation. Since all the three matters have been heard together, we propose to decide them by a common order and hereby do so. We may state that the respondents have justified holding of the preliminary test in accordance with the amended Rules. They have also justified the newly introduced scheme of moderation. They have also justified preparation of a common list of successful candidates from SC/ST and general categories. Their detailed contentions shall be noticed at appropriate place. 18. The first and foremost contention of Shri M. Mridul, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the process of examination and selection started with the determination of vacancies under relevant service Rules governing appointments to different services. The vacancies were required to be determined on 01.04.1992. Hence, the rules as applicable on 01.04.1992 would govern the examination. He contended that at any rate, the examination process started when vacancies were notified by the Government to the RPSC under Rule 8 of the Rules and the RPSC took steps to invite applications for the competitive examination and notification (Annexure 1) dated 15.02.1993 was issued. Hence, the examinations could not have been held under the amended Rules, which were prospective and not retrospective. It was contended that notification containing the amendment was printed and published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 27.02.1993 and was released by the Print for publication on 15.03.1993 and as such, the amended Rules could not govern the impugned examination. 19. As against this, respondents contend that amendment to the Rules was made by notification dated the 3rd February, 1993. Keeping in view the spirit of this amendment, the impugned advertisement was issued incorporating the scheme of examination as per the spirit of the amended provisions. The details of the examination were given in the advertisement issued by the RPSC. The advertisement made a specific reference to a booklet (Ann. R. 3/1) pertaining to the examination and published by Anurag Prakashan, Purani Mandi, Ajmer. Thus, all the petitioners were got acquainted with the amended scheme of examination. The Gazette notification amending the Rules was also published on 27.02.1993, i.e. much before the last date by which applications were to be submitted viz., 31.03.1993, which was later on extended to 30.06.1993. All the candidates very well knew the revised scheme of examination. Petitioners knowing fully the scheme opted for an optional subject, out of 22 specified subjects. The Gazette notification amending the Rules was also published on 27.02.1993, i.e. much before the last date by which applications were to be submitted viz., 31.03.1993, which was later on extended to 30.06.1993. All the candidates very well knew the revised scheme of examination. Petitioners knowing fully the scheme opted for an optional subject, out of 22 specified subjects. The amended scheme came into operation only prospectively and not retrospectively, as petitioners have tried to suggest. The respondents by filing detailed affidavits, reference to which shall be made at an appropriate stage, explained the scheme of moderation and took the stand that moderation was one of the accepted standard techniques, adopted by examining bodies like, Union Public Service Commission. The respondents also justified preparation of a common list of successful candidates for all the categories. Various pleas regarding non-maintainability of the writ petitions, e.g. delay, estoppel, etc., were also taken. We propose to take appropriate notice of these pleas at a later, stage along with contentions raised against such pleas. 20. However, at this juncture, we may take note of the contention that writ petitions have been filed with considerable delay and hence they should be thrown out on this very ground. We may state that delay by itself is not an impregnable hurdle to the maintainability of the writ petitions. Since, the writ petitions have been finally heard on merits, at admission stage, we are not inclined to dismiss these writ petitions on the technical ground of delay only and we propose to decide them on merits. The question of delay ceases to be of material relevance when both the sides have been heard extensively on the merits of the case. Hence, the contention of the respondents that the petitions should be thrown out on the ground of delay, does not commend, itself to us and we reject the same. We may here note that in the counter, some other preliminary objections were also taken. But, the respondents have not pressed them. Hence we proceed to decide the writ petitions on merits. 21. We may here note that in the counter, some other preliminary objections were also taken. But, the respondents have not pressed them. Hence we proceed to decide the writ petitions on merits. 21. The basic and foremost challenge is to the scheme of examination introduced by the advertisement (Annexure 1) dated 15.02.1993 whereby the written competitive examination was to consist of a preliminary written examination of two papers-One compulsory paper and another optional paper, to be chosen out of 22 optional subjects followed by the second stage of written examination, further followed by a viva voce examination. The thrust of the argument is that vacancies for which examination had to be held, pertained to the period, prior to the issue of the said advertisement (Annexure 1), the vacancies having been notified by the Government to RPSC in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules. Hence, the examination pertaining to these vacancies could be held only in accordance with Rule 13 which existed prior to amendment dated 03.02.1993, which legally came into force only on publication of the amendment, which was printed on 27.02.1993 and was released from Government Press, Jaipur on 15.03.1993. The contention proceeds on an assumption that determination of vacancies and notification thereof to the RPSC created a vested right in the petitioners to take the competitive examination, as per rules existed on the date of such determination /notification to RPSC. To our mind, such an assumption has no sound basis. To our mind, even after determination of number of vacancies for which competitive examination was to be held and notification of such vacancies to the RPSC, the executive Government had a right to change the scheme of examination, there being no vested right in the petitioners, to insist that they would take examination only in accordance with a particular scheme. In the context of the promotion policy of the defence personnel, the Apex Court observed in ( Col. A.S. Sangwan Vs. Union of India and others), AIR 1981 SC P. 1545 , as follows : "A policy once formulated is not good for ever; it is perfectly within the competence of the Union of India to change it, rechange it, adjust it and readjust it according to the compulsions of circumstances." The prescription holds good in the matter of competitive examinations to be conducted for recruitment to various services in the State. There is no constitutional right in any person to say that examinations would be conducted only in accordance with a particular scheme and not in accordance with any other scheme. Determination of vacancies and notification of such vacancies, would confer only a right to appear at the competitive examination, as and when held, and no more. The scheme of examination or details of examination are at best procedural matters, which the executive Government in exercise of its legislative functions, conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, may change and modify, recharge and remodify form time to time. Of course, the action of the executive Government may not suffer from the vices of the arbitrariness and mala fides. If such vices exist, then alone the court may intervene. 22. In Dr. Munech-Ul-Rehman Haroon & others Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir and others, 1984 (4) SCC 24 , an entrance test was held for admission to the Medical College, Srinagar for the post graduate course for the semester beginning with July, 1980, in accordance with the University statute then prevailing. The result of the test was not declared officially and no tests were held for sometime. Eventually, an admission test was held in 1981 for semester beginning with November 1981. Meanwhile, relevant statute was amended so as to bring uniformity in matter of admissions and to cure certain defects noticed in the prevailing procedure for selection to the post graduate course. The petitioner challenged the changed procedure for selection. The Apex Court found that the action was neither arbitrary nor suffered from malafides. While dismissing the writ petitions based on identical facts, the Apex Court observed : "Since there is no violation of any fundamental right of the petitioners, nor indeed is the action of the State authorities arbitrary or mala fide, the petitions fail and are dismissed." Quite implicit in the judgment, is the bold fact that no candidate has a vested fundamental right to insist that the selection procedure should not be changed merely because, a candidate acquired a right to compete at a competitive examination at an earlier date. 23. 23. Shri M. Mridul, Senior Advocate, appearing for some of the petitioners vehemently contended that by virtue of the provisions of Section 5 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, the amended Rules came into force only on 15.03.1993 when the amended Rules were released from the Government Press for publication and as such Annexure 1 could not have been issued at all, as it violated the scheme of examination as envisaged in the un-amended Rules. In other words, amendment could not have been prospective (sic retrospective). To our mind, the argument is fallacious and deserves to' be noticed only for the sake of rejection. The last date of making applications was 31.3.1993. Prior to it, the scheme of examination viz., procedure for selection had already undergone a change. It was in accordance with the amended or modified scheme that the examination was to be held. Till then examination had not been held. Hence, to say that retrospectivity was conferred and could not have been conferred on the new scheme of examination, is without any sound logic. The new scheme was not at all retrospective but was prospective. The RPSC has taken a stand that- "the amendments were made in the rules of 1962 and the same were made known through the advertisement dated 15.02.1993, as the amended scheme of examination was detailed in the said advertisement. In the said advertisement dated 15.02.1993, it was also mentioned that the revised scheme of examination can be ascertained from the booklet issued by Anurag Prakashan, Purani Mandi, Ajmer. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the Gazette notification is one of the mode of the publication but is not the only mode of publication. However, even according to the petitioner's own showing, the Gazettee notification was also published on 27th February, 1993 i.e. much prior to the last date of the submission of the application forms, which was given in the advertisement as 31.3.1993 which was subsequently further extended upto 30.6.1993. Thus the spirit of the amendments made in the Rules of 1962 with full details were given in the Advertisement as well as in the booklet published by Anurag Prakashan, 2 1984(4)secp. Thus the spirit of the amendments made in the Rules of 1962 with full details were given in the Advertisement as well as in the booklet published by Anurag Prakashan, 2 1984(4)secp. 24 Purani Mandi, Ajmer." The RPSC has further taken a stand that:- "the changes in the scheme of the examination has been brought about by making the amendment in Rule 13 of the Rules of 1962 and the examinations have been held as per the details given in the advertisement dated 15.02.1993 which in turn incorporates the amendment made in Rule 13 of the Rules of 1962. Thus, the candidates applying for the preliminary examination were aware of the fact that they would be required to appear in one compulsory subject and one optional subject out of the 22 optional subjects enumerated in the Schedule annexed to the Rules of 1962. The candidates applying for the combined competitive examination fully knew about the scheme of the examination much before the last date of the submission of the application form. Even in the application form it was clearly mentioned that the candidates should give the name of one of the optional subject out of the 22 optional subjects, in which he wants to appear in the preliminary examination alongwith the compulsory subject. It is further relevant to submit that both the petitioners in this regard mentioned the name of the optional subject in which they wanted to appear alongwith the compulsory subject in the preliminary examination, in their application form which they submitted in response to the advertisement dated 15.02.1993 and they also appeared in the said optional subject alongwith the compulsory subject in the preliminary examination held by the respondent-Commission on 10.10.1993. Thus, now at such a belated stage, the petitioners having appeared in the said examination cannot be allowed to challenge the scheme of the examinations once they have appeared in the said examination." It would, thus, be clear that petitioners very well knew of the modified scheme examination; they took the examination, knowing fully well the revised scheme. We agree with the respondents that the petitioners, having taken the examination in accordance with the modified scheme, cannot be permitted to say that the new scheme was being applied retrospectively and could not have been so applied. As we see the scheme, we find that it was not at all retrospective but only prospective. We agree with the respondents that the petitioners, having taken the examination in accordance with the modified scheme, cannot be permitted to say that the new scheme was being applied retrospectively and could not have been so applied. As we see the scheme, we find that it was not at all retrospective but only prospective. Further, in our opinion, the petitioners cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. 24. Shri M. Mridul placed heavy reliance upon a D. B. decision of this Court rendered in Rajasthan Matsya Vyavasayee Sangh Vs. State & others, 1990 (1) RLR p. 228 , in which the term 'publication' occurring in Section 11 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act was interpreted. In that case, the question was as to when the relevant rules were published. The Bench observed : "From the facts of this case, it is clearly borne out that although the draft rules proposing amendments in the Rajasthan Fisheries Rules, 1958 had been sent to the Government Press, it was issued for the first time on 14.9.1990 and copy of the Gazette was sent to the Department on that day. Mere mention of the date 11.09.1990 on the Gazette notification cannot, therefore, be conclusive proof of the fact that the draft rules had been published on 11.09.1990. We also find from the note-sheet the final rules which had been sent on 20.09.1990 were in fact printed on 24.9.1990 and 3 1990(1) RLR p.228 were issued on 01.10.1990. Extra copies were sent to the concerned department on 01.10.1990. The final notification also bears the date 20th September, 1990. It is extremely surprising as to how the date 20th September, 1990 could be printed on the Gazettee when it was printed only on 24.09.1990. In our view, it is clearly a case of ante-dating the date of actual printing. No material has been placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General, which could show that the Gazettee containing draft rules had been printed on any day prior to 14.09.1990. Also, no material has been placed on record to show that the Gazette notification containing draft rules had been made available to the public on any date prior to 14.09.1990. The date of making the Gazette notification containing draft rules available to the public in our view, cannot be any date prior to 14.09.1990. Also, no material has been placed on record to show that the Gazette notification containing draft rules had been made available to the public on any date prior to 14.09.1990. The date of making the Gazette notification containing draft rules available to the public in our view, cannot be any date prior to 14.09.1990. Apparently, the Gazette had been printed only on 14.9.1990 although the date 11.9.1990 had been given on it. Even if, for a moment, it assumed that it was printed on 11.09.1990, we cannot accept the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that it was published on 11.09.1990. Even sending of copies to the Department on 14.09.1990 cannot be treated as publication of the draft rules. It is only when the draft rules are made available to the public, the same could be said to have been published." In our opinion, nothing turns upon this interpretation because as pointed out earlier, it cannot be said that the new scheme of examination was being used retrospectively. Selection procedures are not sacrosanct like constitutional or substantive provisions of law and can always be modified to suit the changed circumstances, even though such a selection procedure is incorporated in statutory Rules. Munch-ul-Rehman Haroon (supra) is an authority for this proposition. 25. Reliance was placed upon P. Ganeshwar Rao & others Vs. State of A.P. & others, AIR 1958 SC 2068 , in support of the proposition that amendments made at a later date do not apply to vacancies which have arisen prior to the date of the amendment. In that case, under unamended rules, direct recruitment could be made even against temporary vacancies. The rule was amended on 28.04.1980 and under amended rules, no direct recruitment could be made against temporary vacancies. The Government decided to fill up direct recruitment quota against temporary vacancies also. This decision was taken prior to 28.4.1980 amendment and direct recruitment was sought to be made under the said decision. Meanwhile, the amendment came into force which provided that 371/2% of the substantive vacancies arising in the cadre in question shall be filled by direct recruitment. Incharge Assistant Engineers or Junior Engineers, already in service protested against the proposed recruitment and challenged the same before the Administrative Tribunal. Tribunal upheld the contention and restrained filling up of temporary vacancies by direct recruitment relying upon the amended provision. Incharge Assistant Engineers or Junior Engineers, already in service protested against the proposed recruitment and challenged the same before the Administrative Tribunal. Tribunal upheld the contention and restrained filling up of temporary vacancies by direct recruitment relying upon the amended provision. The Apex Court set aside the order and held that the amendment dated 28.04.1980 did not apply to vacancies that had arisen prior to 28.4.1980. The Apex Court was required in that case to interprets the expression "vacancies arising " and it was in that context that the dictum was passed. In our opinion, this authority does not advance the case of the petitioners in any manner. Moreover, it would be seen that the substantive provisions of quota rule stand on a different pedestal than merely procedure governing a selection. Provisions of quota rule are akin to substantive rights while holding of a competitive examination merely belongs to the realm of procedure. A vested right to direct recruitment could not be taken away by a subsequent prospective amendment, curtailing direct recruitment to substantive vacancies only, appears to be the ratio of the said case and in our considered view, has no application in the realm of procedure.25A. Reliance was also placed upon Y. V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and State of Andh. Pra. & another Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & others, AIR 1983 SC 852 , particularly to the observation that vacancies which occur prior to amended rules are to be governed by unamended rules. In that case, certain persons were eligible to be promoted against vacancies of Sub-Registrar Grade II, as the vacancies existed on September 1, 1976. The preparation of the penal was considerably delayed and was drawn up in 1977 when an amendment had been made to rules and promotion to posts of Sub-Registrar Grade II from LDCs was done away with and instead promotion was to be confined to UDCs. In that case, the grievance was that preparation of promotional panel was deliberately delayed and the rights of LDCs due to be promoted were adversely affected. The further grievance was that by the amendment seniority of the petitioners who ranked higher to respondent Nos. 3 to 15 was eliminated. The claim of the petitioners was resisted on the ground that under amended rules, the petitioners even though senior to respondents 3 to 15 were not entitled to be considered for promotion. The further grievance was that by the amendment seniority of the petitioners who ranked higher to respondent Nos. 3 to 15 was eliminated. The claim of the petitioners was resisted on the ground that under amended rules, the petitioners even though senior to respondents 3 to 15 were not entitled to be considered for promotion. The Apex Court did not accept this contention and observed that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old Ruled and not be the new rules. Here also, we may notice that by the amendment, a vested substantive right of the petitioners had been taken away and that too by deliberately delaying the preparation of the panel, which ought to have been prepared on September 1, 1976. The amendment, thus, took away a vested substantive right. The amendment did not pertain merely to realm of procedure, as in the present case. We, therefore, find that this ruling is of no assistance to the petitioners and does not help them in any manner. 26. It was contended that introduction of an additional optional paper at the preliminary examination was an arbitrary exercise of power and this has no reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. It was vehemently urged that introduction of an additional optional paper has vitiated the scheme of selection and the relevant rule must be struck down acted consequently the examination held by the RPSC should be held to be illegal. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that in making provision for an additional optional paper, the pattern of Union Public Service Commission has been followed. The preliminary examination, though an integral part of the scheme of the competitive examination, was meant only to be a screening test, so that there may be a short-listing of candidates, taking the main examination. Reference has been made in this regard to the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I No. 11 dated January 16, 1993 which contains the advertisement inviting applications for Indian Civil Services Examination. Appendix I, Section I (at pages 80 & 81 of the aforesaid Gazette) deals with the scheme of examination and may profitably be reproduced in extension. Reference has been made in this regard to the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part I No. 11 dated January 16, 1993 which contains the advertisement inviting applications for Indian Civil Services Examination. Appendix I, Section I (at pages 80 & 81 of the aforesaid Gazette) deals with the scheme of examination and may profitably be reproduced in extension. It reads as follows : "APPENDIX I-SECTION I PLAN OF EXAMINATION The competitive examination comprises two successive stages : (i) Civil Services Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) for the selection of candidates for Main Examination; and (ii) Civil Services (Main) Examination (Written and Interview) for the selection of candidates for the various Services and posts. The Preliminary Examination will consist of two papers of objective type (multiple choice questions) and carry a maximum of 450 marks in the subjects set out in sub-section (A) of Section (II). This examination is meant to serve as a screening test only; the marks obtained in the Preliminary examination by the candidates who are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination will be about twelve to thirteen times the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in the year in the various services and posts. Only those candidates who are declared by the Commission to have qualified in the Preliminary Examination in a year will be eligible for admission to the Main Examination of that year provided they are otherwise eligible for admission to the main Examination. 3. The Main Examination will consist of a written examination and an interview test. The written examination will consist of 9 papers of conventional essay type in the subjects set out in sub-section (B) of Section II. Also see Note (ii) under para I of Section II (B).4. Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written part of the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for a Personality test vide sub-section C of Section II. However, the papers on Indian Languages and English will be of qualifying nature. Also see Note (ii) under para I of Section II(B). The marks obtained in these papers will not be counted for ranking. However, the papers on Indian Languages and English will be of qualifying nature. Also see Note (ii) under para I of Section II(B). The marks obtained in these papers will not be counted for ranking. The number of candidates to be summoned for interview will be about twice the number of vacancies to be filled. The interview will carry 300 marks (with no minimum qualifying marks).Marks thus obtained by the candidates in the Main Examination (written part as well as interview) would determine their final ranking. Candidates will be allotted to the various Services keeping in view their ranks in the examination and the preference expressed by them for the various Services and posts. SECTION II Scheme and subjects for the Preliminary and Main Examinations. A. Preliminary Examination : The examination will consist of two papers: Paper I- General Studies 150 marks Paper II- One subject to be selected from the list of optional subject set out in para 2 below. 300 marks Total 450 marks 2. List of optional subjects : Agriculture Animal Husbandary & Veterinary Sciences Botany Chemistry Civil Engineering Commerce Economics Electrical Engineering Geography Geology Indian History Law Mathematics Mechanical Engineering Philosphy Physics Political Science Psychology Public Administration Sociology Statistics Zoology Note :(i) Both the question papers will be of the objective type (multiple choice questions) (ii) The question papers will be set both in Hindi and English. (iii) The course content of the syllabi for the optional subjects will be of the degree level. Details of the syllabi are indicated in Part A of Section III. (iv) Each paper will be of two hours duration." 27. Above scheme would go to show that the respondents in introducting an additional optional paper have merely followed the well established pattern adopted by the UPSC and it cannot be said that introduction of additional optional paper is arbitrary or does not bear a nexus with the object to be achieved. The avowed objective of the preliminary examination is to screen the candidates so that some short-listing is done at this level. We fail to see as to how the introduction of the additional optional paper has no nexus with the object to be achieved. The avowed objective of the preliminary examination is to screen the candidates so that some short-listing is done at this level. We fail to see as to how the introduction of the additional optional paper has no nexus with the object to be achieved. We have already reproduced Schedule III of the Rules and the objective of preliminary examination has been categorically spelled out in I (i) of the Scheme of examination by saying The Examination is meant to serve as a screening test only'. Thus, it is clear that the scheme of the preliminary examination was to serve as a screening test. To our mind, this screening test could very legitimately be achieved, not only by providing a compulsory paper but also by introducing an additional optional paper. We are of a definite opinion that this amendment could hardly be said to be arbitrary. 28. It was contended that in the scheme of examination under the Rules, a candidate could always change his optional subject at the Main examination and hence provision for additional optional examination was arbitrary. In our opinion, a subsequent change of optional paper at the main examination by a candidate could hardly be said to have introduced an element of arbitrariness in the Scheme of the preliminary examination. It may be mentioned that in the scheme of examination under the Rules, marks obtained at the preliminary examination are not counted for determining the final order of merit. This makes the position all the more clear that preliminary examination was intended to serve only as a screening test and not the final merit test. Freedom of a candidate to choose another optional subject at the main examination is only with a view not to fetter the ultimate choice of the candidates of the subjects in which he may like to be examined for determination of his merit. Hence, in our considered opinion, the introduction of an additional optional subject at the preliminary examination is not at all arbitrary or bad at law. 29. It was then contended that under the original rules, a candidate was eligible to appear at main examination, if he secured 35% in the compulsory paper of General Knowledge and General Science at the preliminary stage. 29. It was then contended that under the original rules, a candidate was eligible to appear at main examination, if he secured 35% in the compulsory paper of General Knowledge and General Science at the preliminary stage. It is submitted that under the amended provision, it has been left to the discretion of the Commission, to fix a cut off percentage and this has adversely affected the results of the petitioners. In our opinion, such an amendment is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, particularly when the object of the amended scheme is to screen the candidates. It again follows the well established pattern set out by the Union Public Service. Commission. There is no vested right in the petitioners to appear at the main examination if they have failed to achieve the cut-off percentage of marks fixed by the Commission in its discretion. This is only a matter of details of the examination procedure and not a matter of substantive right. Hence, this contention is also of no avail to the petitioners. 30. It was next contended that fixing of cut-off percentage has resulted in elimination of large number of candidates belonging to SC/ST category. It is submitted that the petitioners belonging to SC/ST category had no lis with the general category candidates and laying down of the cut-off percentage common to all the candidates was violative of the reservation policy. In this very context, it has been urged that the amendment is violative of the fundamental rights of SC/ST category candidates enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the proviso to amended Rule 13 of the Rules takes adequate care of the interests of SC/ST candidates and the cut-off marks for SC/ST candidates are upto 5% less than the general candidates. It is submitted that the reservation in favour of SC/ST candidates has to be consistent with the dictates of efficiency of administration as provided in Article 335 of the Constitution of India. 31. We have considered the rival contentions and have carefully analysed the provisions relating to cut-off percentage of marks to be obtained by the candidates at the preliminary examination so as to qualify the candidates for taking the main examination. A relaxation of 5% has already been made by proviso to Rule 13 in favour of SC/ST candidates. 31. We have considered the rival contentions and have carefully analysed the provisions relating to cut-off percentage of marks to be obtained by the candidates at the preliminary examination so as to qualify the candidates for taking the main examination. A relaxation of 5% has already been made by proviso to Rule 13 in favour of SC/ST candidates. In our opinion, this takes adequate care of the rights and interests of SC/ST candidates. By the very nature of relaxation, SC/ST candidates stand on a more privileged pedestal than the ordinary and general candidates and it cannot be said that fixing of a general cut-off percentage of marks is violative of the reservation made in their favour or is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Article 335 of the Constitution of India reads as follows : "335.-Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to Services and posts.-The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State." 32. It was for the executive Government to devise ways and means as to how reservation in favour of SC/ST candidates has to be achieved consistent with the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. If the rule making authority did not deem it proper to make it incumbent for the RPSC to prepare separate lists of general category and SC/ST candidates qualifying at the preliminary examination, no fault could be found with the provision, which does gurantee a reservation in favour of SC/ST categories in a particular manner, as thought suitable by the rule making authority. 33. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth, 1984 (4) SCC 27 , the Apex Court made the following observations : "21. The legal position is now well established that even a bye-law cannot be struck down by the Court on the ground of unreasonableness merely because the Court thinks that it goes further than "is necessary" or that it does not incorporate certain provisions which, in the opinion of the Court, would have been fair and wholesome. The Court cannot say that a bye-law is unreasonable merely because the Judges do not approve of it. The Court cannot say that a bye-law is unreasonable merely because the Judges do not approve of it. Unless it can be said that a bye-law is manifestly unjust, capricious, inequitable, or partial in its operation, it cannot be invalidated by the Court on the ground of unreasonableness. The responsible representative body entrusted with the power to make bye-laws must ordinarily be presumed to know what is necessary, reasonable, just and fair." In our opinion, this dictum would squarely apply to rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and we would not be justified in striking down the scheme of reservation provided in the proviso the Rule 13 of the Rules merely because, as contended by the petitioners a better mode of reservation, could have been provided by making it incumbent upon the RPSC to prepare separate lists of General category and SC/ST candidates. The rule as obtaining in the present case is neither unreasonable, nor arbitrary nor capricious nor for that matter, unjust or inequitable. To our mind, the Rule is quite consistent with the reservation policy of the State and is further in consonance with the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. It does not take away any vested substantive right of SC/ST candidates and pertains only to realm of procedure of the examination process with a view to achieve requisite screening. We, therefore, do not find that the provision in question suffers from any vice, so as to render it invalid or bad in law, in any manner. 34. It was contended that since separate vacancies had been reserved for SC/ST candidates, RPSC ought to have prepared a separate list for SC/ST candidates. By not preparing such a separate list, SC/ST candidates have been made to compete with general category candidates and this has frustrated the very policy of reservation. We do not find that it is so. The RPSC has shown in its 6 1984(4) SCC 27 counter that against 60 posts reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates, 480 persons qualified and as against 60 posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates, 515 candidates of this category have qualified. This was on the basis of 5% relaxation in the cut-off percentage of marks. The RPSC had further shown that separate lists for reserved categories are prepared only when the final merit list is prepared. This was on the basis of 5% relaxation in the cut-off percentage of marks. The RPSC had further shown that separate lists for reserved categories are prepared only when the final merit list is prepared. To our mind, no fault could be found with the manner in which list of qualified candidates has been prepared by the RPSC as a result of preliminary examination. 35. A grievance was made that a larger proportion of general candidates qualified at the preliminary examination than the SC/ST category candidates and this has violated the reservation policy. The RPSC had explained that there may be situations when a number of vacancies are advertised for the reserved category candidates but the persons belonging to such categories may not be found suitable for posts so advertised. No fault could be found with the logic and as already indicated, reservation has to be ensured within the parameters of Article 335 of the Constitution of India, and this has been properly done by the RPSC. We may observe that even the screening test is a part of the competitive examination as made clear by clause I of the Schedule. It is not a mere screening test as contended on behalf of the petitioners. In a competitive process, a certain minimum attainment is expected of all the candidates and those who fail to achieve the minimum cannot complain that they have been left out of the competition at the threshold. The scheme of the competitive examination envisaged in the schedule to the Rules, already reproduced elsewhere makes it abundantly clear that non-achievers have to be eliminated at different stages; some are eliminated as a result of the preliminary test; others are eliminated at the main examination; lastly, some are bound to be eliminated at the viva voce stage. SC/ST candidates cannot complain that a separate list should have been prepared with regard to these candidates, when the Rules do not mandate it, either by express words or even by necessary implication. We, therefore, reject the contentions raised in this behalf. 36. A serious exception has been taken to the fact that the RPSC resorted to moderation/normalization of marks, even though rules did not envisage such a moderation either by express words or by necessary intendment. We, therefore, reject the contentions raised in this behalf. 36. A serious exception has been taken to the fact that the RPSC resorted to moderation/normalization of marks, even though rules did not envisage such a moderation either by express words or by necessary intendment. On behalf of the respondents, it is urged that even though the relevant rules do not speak of moderation/normalization, scaling down of marks is a very well accepted technique, well recognised in academic circles and is implicit in the scheme of examination, itself, and hence no exception can be taken to the scheme of moderation/normalization. 37. We have considered the rival contentions and the precedents cited by either side on this court. We may readily concede that the Rules do not speak of moderation/normalization of marks as such. It appears that Birla Institute of Technology first of all adopted the scheme of moderation or normalization, as noticed in N.K. Batra & others Vs. Kurukshetra University & others, AIR 1990 Punjab and Haryana 32 . The scheme adopted was as follows : "Normalization : That disparity exists between the absolute marks awarded to candidates by the different examining authorities it the country is well known. To bring all such candidates on the same scale of comparison the institute for more than a decades has been practising a time-honoured and well known system known as normalization. It basically tries to find the relative displacement of a candidate from the candidate who stood first in the public examination which the candidate under review has passed. If the number of candidates in each of these cases is large enough it would be a correct statistical case with the intrinsic merit of the first rank student in one Board being equated to that of the first rank student in any other Board of the similar size. In practice the Institute as an all India Institute recognises the Central Board (which incidentally is the largest single contributor of students year by year) and the Indian School Certificate examination for normalization of the percentage marks of an individual candidate based on the percentage marks of the first rank student in that Board for a stream which consists of at least Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and English, if it is provided in the offerings of that board. In respect of the following situations the Institute reserves the right to do the normalization on the basis of aggregate percentage marks which is the highest for the current year: (a) Where in respect of named Boards the correct information is not available within the due date either because it has not been supplied or the information is only in respect of a stream which has no affinity to a combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. (b) Where a State Board or its equivalent does not exist and the task is shared by several examining authorities of the State without any one of them being large enough to meet the statistical requirement. (c) Where admission is being considered on the basis of performance in a public examination which is other than the current year main examination." The Punjab & Haryana High Court did not find any fault with the scheme of normalization by the Birla Institute. But, however, it took strong exception to the impugned scheme of moderation adopted for admission to Regional Engineering Colleges in the State of Haryana and the Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering Murthal (Haryana). Their Lordships found that so-called moderation adopted in that case was really no moderation. They observed in this regard- "But, in the instant case, the basis of selection is not on any normalization as no standard is recognised of any of the two Boards. Rather it was conceded by the learned Advocate-General, Haryana, that the standard as was inherent would be the standard derived at by drawing an average, whichever was higher in the two Boards. The principle evolved thus, in our view, can in no event be normalization, so that it could promote equal chances and opportunities for admission and rather it would go, in our view, to make things abnormal, promoting inequality and denial of equal opportunity for admission." 10. It would be useful to add here that besides asserting what was stated in the return, the Advocate General, Haryana, could not, despite our repeated asking, produce before us any valid material which would have gone to persuade the respondents to adopt this normalization principle." Thus, it was on the peculiar facts of that case that their Lordships of Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the concept of normalization as being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Really speaking, in that case, the finding was that it was no normalization at all. Even the so-called normalization suffered from other vices-reference to which was made in para 11 of the judgment. Hence we find that this precedent is not an authority for the general proposition that moderation or normalization of marks is per-se or invalid or is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 38. This takes us to the consideration of the decision rendered in Umesh Chandra Vs. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1351 . In that case, recruitment was to be made to Delhi Judicial Service by way of a competitive examination. Certain specified candidates failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks. The names of these specified candidates, who had failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks were added to the list of successful candidates under the name of moderation by granting two marks to each of the candidates in each paper. The result of this exercise was to make eligible certain named and specified candidates to take the viva voce examination, even though they had failed to secure the prescribed minimum marks. It was in these circumstances that the aforesaid so called 'moderation' was struck down as bad. Moreover, in that case, no power was reserved in the selection body (High Court) to prescribe minimum marks different from those prescribed under the rules. It was no this basis as well that the selection was held to be bad.In the present case, the RPSC had not entered into any exercise in the name of moderation to pull up named & specified candidates, even though they were ineligible. In the present case, moderation was thought proper because candidates had taken various optional papers with different standards and different scorabilities. That was not the case in either the Haryana case or the Delhi case, where the papers were common. Hence, to our mind, case of Umesh Chandra Shukla (supra) also does not assist the petitioners in any way. 39. On behalf of the respondents, reliance was placed upon certain judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal as also of Gujarat High Court, affirmed by the Apex Court wherein the scheme of moderation adopted by the UPSC was held to be valid. In letters patent appeal Kalmesh Vs. 39. On behalf of the respondents, reliance was placed upon certain judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal as also of Gujarat High Court, affirmed by the Apex Court wherein the scheme of moderation adopted by the UPSC was held to be valid. In letters patent appeal Kalmesh Vs. Union of India, No. 381 of 1985 a division bench of the Gujarat High Court took the view that process of moderation was necessary to find out merit of the candidates inter se. It was held that the Commission had power to moderate the evaluation of the performance of the candidates at the written examination. This view was affirmed in a common judgment delivered by the Apex Court in10 with the main title as Soorjeet Kumar Das, Kamlesh Harlal Corud, petitioner(s) Vs. Chairman, UPSC, Union of India & another, respondents, SLPs No. 14000 and 15251 of 1986 dated 11.3.1987 wherein it was observed : "We are in agreement with the view expressed by a Division Bench of the High Court that the system of moderation of marks adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in evaluating the performance of the candidates appearing for the Civil Service Examination cannot be said to be vitiated by arbitrariness or illegally of any kind." On the basis of the aforesaid observation, two benches of Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad and Hyderabed and the principal Bench at New Delhi took a view that scheme of moderation of marks adopted by the UPSC was permissible. 40. Here, we may pause and indicate as to what is meant by moderation and normalization and why it is relevant and necessary. RPSC in sub-paras 11 & 12 of its reply averred as follows: "(c) That it is not uncommon that where a number of optional papers have been prescribed for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service Combined Competitive (Preliminary ) Examination, 1993 and where such subjects/papers have been drawn from various faculties and subjects comprising pure sciences, sciences and technology, engineering, social science and arts. etc. the difficulty or popularity level of the different optional subjects may differ-in magnitude from one subject to another and this can be easily and promptly deleted in the computerised evaluation by applying well accepted parameters computed in the process of evaluation, itself. etc. the difficulty or popularity level of the different optional subjects may differ-in magnitude from one subject to another and this can be easily and promptly deleted in the computerised evaluation by applying well accepted parameters computed in the process of evaluation, itself. This may, if allowed unchecked, result into a wide variation in subject marks secured by the candidates and may ultimately lead to unjudicious and unacceptable distortion of the inter-laced merit order of the candidates. There is nothing whatever in the constitutional Scheme of Public Service Commission or the aforesaid Rules which renders the Commission fettered and helpless in redeeming such a situation; and the respondent-Commission having been charged with the function of choosing the best of the whole of the candidates competing for a limited number of posts, it adopts a process of normalization and moderation of marks of different subjects following a well established, reliable and accepted method of scaling of marks. Moreover, there is nothing sacrosanct about the raw marks based on computerised evaluation of the different subjects having different difficulty levels leading to an anomalous situation which may permit more than 83% of successful candidates out of 4466 only out of four subjects and only less than 17% of them left to share a place in the list of successful candidates in the remaining 18 subjects as the facts stood. It can never be argued nor based on any reasonable grounds that heavens ordained a larger share of intelligence for some subjects and not for others. The respondent-Commission fears that if such a situation were to be allowed, this Hon'ble Court might have been flooded with a multiplicity of writ petitions and with reasonable grievance. Further more, the respondent-Commission have been following this practice of moderation of marks for quite some time in other examination but applied it in the case of aforesaid preliminary examinations this year in view of the changed new scheme. It may also be pertinent to submit that the respondent-Commission made submissions to this effect in their reply to this Hon'ble High Court in the matter of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6576/93. It may also be pertinent to submit that the respondent-Commission made submissions to this effect in their reply to this Hon'ble High Court in the matter of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6576/93. The only test before the respondent Commission was objectivity, reasonableness and good conscience in applying the scheme of moderation of marks." Shri M.L. Sharma, whose expert services were availed of by the RPSC in the process of moderation adopted by it stated as follows in para 4 of his affidavit dated 22.07.1994- "4. That moderation of the raw marks obtained by all the candidates in 22 optional subjects has been resorted to in order to normalise the distortions creeping in the question papers of 22 heterogeneous optional subjects on account of the difference in difficulty levels of the different question papers. The essential purpose of moderation is to rationalise the raw marks in order to find out the real comparative merit of the candidates competing for the common posts though offering different optional subjects." 41. Association of Indian Universities has published a brochure entitled, 'scaling Techniques'-'what, why and how ' authored by V. Natrajan & K. Gunasekaran. In the preface to the book, the learned authors observe as follows : "Equating and Scaling of marks in examinations are certainly unknown concepts in India. Hence, they need some explanation. In simple terms, Scaling is necessary wherever the standards maintained in measuring any characteristics are different. Naturally, it is assumed that many people are involved in measuring the characteristic. By adopting Scaling techniques, all the different standards are brought to a common standard so that comparisons will be meaningful. As an example, let us consider the case of a large number of examiners involved in valuing the scripts in a mass-conducted examination. One can find that while one examiner is failing only, say, 2% of his candidates whereas another is failing as high as 90% of his candidates. Such a large variation can be brought down to some extent by a thorough discussion on the scheme of valuation before the actual valuation of scripts is taken up. But, the inconsistencies of the examiners will still prodpce different types of results. Scaling will take care of this problem." ( emphasis ours). Such a large variation can be brought down to some extent by a thorough discussion on the scheme of valuation before the actual valuation of scripts is taken up. But, the inconsistencies of the examiners will still prodpce different types of results. Scaling will take care of this problem." ( emphasis ours). At pages 8 and 9 of the book, (supra)1, they quote Dandekarwho carried out extensive research on the subject as follows : "(1) Inspite of all the instruction given to the examiners and inspite of all the steps taken to achieve the maximum objectivity in the marking system, marks given by two examiners to two different scripts are not comparable. They are not comparable in the sense that a mark of 40 given by one examiner to a script does not necessarily mean the same thing as mark 40 given to another script examined by another examiner....." (2) The marks secured by a particular candidate in a subject in a year are not comparable with the marks secured by another candidate in the same subject but in another year........ (3) The marks secured in one subject are not comparable with the marks secured in another subject, even in the same year and by one and the same candidate. This, too, is obvious, for in this case not only the examiners would be different but they would be evaluating scripts in two different subjects under very different marking instructions ......." 42. The authors summed up the conclusions drawn from various studies regarding areas which warranted adoption of Scaling/equating techniques. They state- "Based on the findings of the research studies quoted earlier, the following seven areas have been identified which warrants adoption of scaling/ equating technique. (1) When many examiners are involved in marking the scripts relating to subject. The authors summed up the conclusions drawn from various studies regarding areas which warranted adoption of Scaling/equating techniques. They state- "Based on the findings of the research studies quoted earlier, the following seven areas have been identified which warrants adoption of scaling/ equating technique. (1) When many examiners are involved in marking the scripts relating to subject. (2) When scripts relating to two sets of students, one set answering in English and the other in a regional language, have to be scored; (3) When marks relating to different subjects are to be added so as to get an aggregate; (4) When Internal and External Assessment marks are to be added and/or compared; (5) When students' performance from different School Boards/Universities are to be compared; (6) When marks relating to objective part is to be added with that of essay part in a paper; and (7) When candidates' performance in alternate forms of an objective question paper are to be compared." page 45 of Scaling Techniques. To these, we may add that scaling would be necessary where marks obtained by different candidates in diverse subjects have to be compared. As noticed already, the candidates at the examination in question had a choice of as many as 22 optional subjects. How to compare the merit of a student opting a particular subject with the merit of another student opting an altogether different subject was a real problem faced by the RPSC. To our mind, to bring uniformity in evaluation, devising of a common scale, on which comparative assessment could be made, was an absolute must, in such a situation, how do you otherwise compare the merit of a candidate opting history with a candidate opting for physics, chemistry or for that matter any other subject say, English Literature or philosophy. Even in the same subject, one examiner may be more liberal in awarding marks, while the other may be quite stingy and strict. Hence, in our opinion, resorting to scaling, normalization or moderation was quite proper and it cannot be said to be illegal because the rules did not specifically make provision for this exercise. Even in the same subject, one examiner may be more liberal in awarding marks, while the other may be quite stingy and strict. Hence, in our opinion, resorting to scaling, normalization or moderation was quite proper and it cannot be said to be illegal because the rules did not specifically make provision for this exercise. To our mind, if there was no scaling, meaning thereby that no common scale was to be devised for candidates opting for different optional subjects, comparative assessment of their merit would have been a farce because then it would have amounted to assessment of merit on the basis of inequal scales. 43. We may state that no scaling was done in compulsory paper which was objective in nature as state categorically by the Chairman of the RPSC in para 6 of his affidavit dated 11.07.1994 wherein he said : "6. That the marks obtained by the candidates in the compulsory paper of General Knowledge and General Science were not subjected to any process of moderation, this being a compulsory and common paper for all the candidates." It was made clear that moderation was resorted to only in evaluation of scripts of optional papers. The Chairman stated in this very affidavit : "7. That the merit list was prepared on the basis of combined total marks obtained by the candidates in the two papers i.e. compulsory paper of General knowledge and General Science carrying 200 maximum marks; and the second optional papers carrying 200 minimum marks choosen by the candidates out of the 22 optional papers. The marks of each of these optional papers were subjected to the process of moderation. The marks of optional paper were added after moderation of the marks of optional paper." 44. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid much emphasis on the expression "marks obtained in the preliminary examination" occurring in Rule 13 of the Rules and urged that this referred only to raw marks and not to scaled marks. In our considered opinion, when scaling is an accepted technique and has been upheld for UPSC, there can be no reason to hold that 'marks obtained' in the context must necessarily be raw marks and not scaled marks, 'scaled marks' to our mind are also 'marks obtained' for purposes of the said rule and hence scaling of marks for optional papers does not violate the scheme of examination, at all. 45. 45. On behalf of the petitioners, it was alternatively urged that if Rule 13 of the Rules confers a power on the RPSC to moderate the marks, then it must be struck down as ultra vires of the Constitution, being violative of the equality clauses of the Constitution. The argument deserves to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. Equality clauses enshrined in the Constitution are also violated when unequals are treated equally. Evaluation of diverse optional papers, unequal in every respect to each other, evaluated by different examiners may result and often results in assessment, which may not have any measure of uniformity or equality. Hence, evaluation of the diverse subjects papers by diverse examiners necessitates that they are brought at par by moderation techniques, so that equal treatment is meted to all. In our opinion, moderation if properly applied, does correct the vice of unequal treatment in a large measure and hence this contention has really no legs to stand upon. In our considered opinion Rule 13 of the Rules does carry an implicit power of moderation, as an accepted modern technique of evaluation and the rule cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in any way. We, therefore, repeal this contention. 46. Now, we may examine the contention of the petitioners if the technique of moderation was not applied properly and hence it had vitiated the result of the examiners including the petitioners. Initially the RPSC did not disclose the formula used by it for moderation but later on under our directions, detailed affidavits were filed to show the formula used and its actual application. This formula was explained in the detailed additional affidavit of Shri M. L. Sharma, and the relevant paras of the affidavit dated 22.7.94 read as follows : .... the formula adopted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for moderation of the results of the objective-type question papers of optional subjects of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 1993 is based on the following formula given on page No. 182 of the book entitled as Scaling Techniques-What, why & How" by V. Natrajan and K. Gunasekaran published by the Association of Indian Universities New Delhi- EaucationXi=(S)/(S)xi+[M-(S)/(S)m] 2. That the notations used in various terms of this formula as adopted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission are taken to mean as below- "Xi"-Stands for moderated marks (of an optional subject of any candidate taken one at a time). "S"-stands for average standard deviation (which has been taken by the Commission as actual standard deviation of raw marks of entire population of all the candidates of all 22 optional subjects combined). "s"-stands for Standard Deviation of raw marks of all the candidates in the relevant optional subject offered by the candidate whose marks are being moderated. "xi"-stands for raw marks of the optional subject offerred by the candidate whose marks are being moderated. "M"-stands for the over all average of raw marks of all the candidates who appeared in all the 22 optional subjects in the current examination. However, the value of M was deliberately taken as 95.59 being the average marks obtained by the candidates in General Knowledge and General Science paper so that parity as between the two papers and equal weightage at the level of averages of different optional subjects may be maintained, the paper of General Knowledge and General Science being compulsory for all the candidates. Even any other deliberate or an arbitrary figure could be taken as the value of M, and still the final merit would not have been affected at all. This view is supported by the authors of the book under reference at pages 64, 65, 179, 201. "m" stands for Mean which means Arthmatical average of the actual raw marks obtained by all the candidates in a particular optional subject in the current examination. Thus, Mean and Arithmetical average are used in the same sense. 3. That the formula as given on page 182 of the book "Scaling Techniques-What, Why & How by Shri V. Natrajan and Shri K. Gunasekaran" i.e. Eaucation(1) Xi = (S)/(S)xi+[M-(S)/(S)M] may be reduced to (ii) Xi= M+S/s (xi-m) since if (ii)is opened, it takes the form :Xi = M+(S)/(s)xi-(S)/(s)m, orxi = (S)/(s)xi+M-(S)/(s)m, orXi = (S)/(s)xi+[M-(S)/(s)M Now (i) and (ii) are identical though different in forms." Shri Y. Singh, Chairman RPSC also filed an additional affidavit stating inter-alia the formula used for moderation and the manner in which it was applied. He corroborated the affidavit of Shri M. L. Sharma in all material particulars. He corroborated the affidavit of Shri M. L. Sharma in all material particulars. The two additional affidavits make it abundantly clear that the RPSC adopted the formula, which had been recommended by Dr. V. Natrajan and M. Ganesekaran in their treatise, 'Scaling Techniques What, Why and How" and is known Linear Standard Score method. At page 179 of the said book, the authors have observed as follows : "As the number of examinees involved is usually large, it can be assumed that the marks are normally distributed. In that case, it is justifiable to use Linear Standard score method. For all discussions to follow, the above method is assumed. It may be remembered here that the method involves assumption of Mean and Standard deviation to which the marks have to be scaled. Now the problem arises in deciding the Mean and Standard deviation marks to which the raw marks are to be scaled. As mentioned in the earlier section, various agencies use different pre-determined Means and Standard deviations according to their convenience. In this context, two alternatives are open to the examining agencies. The first alternative is using some arbitrary Mean and Standard deviation (50, 10; 50, 21.06; 500, 100; or any other combination). The second alternative has two options. One is to arrive at these figures from the current performance of the students and the second option is to take the figures calculated for previous sets of students in a course/subject." The second option indicated above was not recommended by the authors and they observed "But one may question this decision of taking the previous performance of the students as the standard to which the current performance has to be scaled. This is due to the fact that the ability of students may vary from one batch to another and also the quality of question paper may vary. In these days of regular changes that are being introduced in the syllabi, taking the performance of the students of previous batch(es) as the standard may be questioned. Taking all these factors into consideration, it is suggested that the current performance of the students may be taken as the standard to which the marks may be scaled." The authors then indicate the manner of working out the standard deviation. They proceed to detail the application of the formula at pages 182, 183 & 184 to 185. Taking all these factors into consideration, it is suggested that the current performance of the students may be taken as the standard to which the marks may be scaled." The authors then indicate the manner of working out the standard deviation. They proceed to detail the application of the formula at pages 182, 183 & 184 to 185. We may profitably quote the same in extenso : "Once the pooled mean and average standard deviation marks are calculated, they are inserted in the Linear Standard score formula (refer equation No. 2 in the section dealing with' Theoretical concept in Scaling) which is given below with modifications in the notations used. EaucationXi=(S)=(s)xi+M-(S)/(s)m Where 'Xi' stands for any scaled score 'S' for Average standard deviation 's' for standard deviation of an examiner 'xi' for any raw marks of an examiner 'M' for Pooled mean 'm' for mean mark of an examiner. For scaling the marks, each examiner's marks are considered separately. Using the mean and standard deviation marks, a 'conversion equation', of the form Y= Ax+B is arrived at for-examiner. Using this equation, the scaled marks corresponding to the raw marks of that examiner are arrived at. The procedure is illustrated through a hypothetical data involving 10 scripts is given in Table-16. Table-16 The raw and scaled marks of four hypothetical examiners S.No. Raw marks of examiner > Scaled marks of examiner > I II III IV I II III IV 1. 20 82 18 8 27 61 13 28 2. 80 35 68 17 82 12 61 39 3. 63 86 57 31 66 65 50 54 4. 50 77 20 22 54 56 23 44 5. 71 89 80 54 74 69 72 80 6. 42 45 81 21 47 23 73 43 7. 43 76 62 61 48 55 55 88 8. 19 50 63 18 26 28 56 40 9. 22 79 58 16 29 58 51 38 10. 50 77 20 22 54 56 23 44 5. 71 89 80 54 74 69 72 80 6. 42 45 81 21 47 23 73 43 7. 43 76 62 61 48 55 55 88 8. 19 50 63 18 26 28 56 40 9. 22 79 58 16 29 58 51 38 10. 28 81 38 12 34 60 32 33 mean (m): 43.8 70 55.4 26 49 49 49 49, S.D. (s): 20.8 18.1 19.8 16.8 17.7 17.7 17.9 19.6 Pooled mean (M) = 48.8 Average of the standard deviations (S) = 18.9 Conversion equations of different examiners to convert raw marks to scaled marks are given below : I Examiner : X = 0.91x + 8.9 II Examiner : X = 1.04x-24 III Examiner : X = 0.96x-4.4 IV Examiner : X = 1.13x + 19.4 Since the scaled marks are rounded off, the standard deviation of the scaled marks are not identical with the average standard deviation. Even though the calculation of scaled marks appears to be tedious, it can be done with ease with the help of a lay out as suggested by Gulliksen (ibid ; page No. 275) which is explained below. After arriving at the 'conversion equation' for an examiner, the lowest and highest raw marks awarded by him are noted. Applying the 'conversion equation' of the examiner concerned, the scaled marks starting from the lowest to the highest raw marks are calculated in a rectangular table. After this process is over, one has to just refer to his table to find the scaled marks corresponding to any raw mark. If a University is using a computer programme written in Fortran language which is given in page Nos. to The In-put format for this programme is given below : M : No. of exams. (79 or 86) Format : 12 Here, 'exams' refer to total number of Examiners involved in valuation work. For each exams (or examiner), the data has to be provided in the following format : N : No. of candidates (860 or 999); Format :13 NS : Marks secured by the (N) candidates; Format : 20F4.0 Once the programme and data have been fed, the computer will calculate the mean and standard deviation marks for every one of the examiners and also the Pooled mean and Average standard deviation marks. After this, it will calculate; (a) scaled marks corresponding to the raw marks of every examiner and (b) the scaled mean and standard deviation for every one of the examiners." 47. We thus find that the RPSC has used a very proper formula in a proper manner in working out the scaled marks of the examinees on the basis of the raw marks obtained by them and we have no reason to doubt the veracity of the sworn statements of Shri Y. Singh and Shri M.L. Sharma in this regard. We further find that evaluation made on the basis of a computer programme was also manually checked and verified by random sampling. Shri M.L. Sharma has stated in para 5 of his additional affidavit dated 11.7.1994 as under: "5. That the Chairman of the Commission engaged a team of 4 retired Selection Scale Lecturers to carry out manual random checking of the results at different stages of evaluation of the computerised answer-sheets. The results as moderated by the computer were checked manually on a random basis to confirm that the process of moderation was being carried out by the computer correctly." 48. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to point out certain flaws in the application of the formula, to which we shall refer presently. We may state that no attempt was made by the petitioners to file any counter-affidavit of any expert in the subject to demonstrate that the application of the formula used, suffered from any material flaws and aberrations. Rajasthan has a large number of examining bodies including Universities, Educational Boards and autonomous Colleges. It would not have been difficult for the petitioners to requisition services of some experts from the field and file their affidavits to demonstrate that the application of the formula was bad or unsound or suffered from defects, flaws or aberrations; this has not been done in the present case and hence the affidavits of Shri Y. Singh and Shri M.L. Sharma have not been rebutted in any manner. 49. Shri Dalip Singh took pains to demonstrate that the RPSC had deviated from the formula recommended by V. Natrajan and K. Gunasekaran, inasmuch as value of M was deliberately taken by the Commission at 95.59 and not the actual value of M as arrived at. 49. Shri Dalip Singh took pains to demonstrate that the RPSC had deviated from the formula recommended by V. Natrajan and K. Gunasekaran, inasmuch as value of M was deliberately taken by the Commission at 95.59 and not the actual value of M as arrived at. Shri Dalip Singh has urged with all vehemence at his command that this deviation has necessarily vitiated the application of the formula. In this respect, we may refer to para 4 of the additional affidavit of Shri M.L. Sharma wherein he has asserted as follows:- "While computing the value of moderated marks as submitted in my averment vide para No. 300 of the affidavit submitted on 11.7.1994 the value of M was deliberately taken by the Commission as 95.59 (average marks obtained by the candidates in General Knowledge and General Science paper which was common to all). Incidentally, we could have taken any other arbitrary value of M. This would not have in any way changed the final merit order of the candidates prepared on the basis of the combined marks of General Knowledge and General Science paper and the moderated marks obtained by the candidates in the optional question papers." The same thing has been explained by Shri Y. Singh at pages 4 & 5 of his additional affidavit dated 11.07.1994 as follows : The value of M was as 95.59 being the average marks obtained by the candidates in General Knowledge and General Science paper so that parity as between the two papers and equal weightage at the level of averages of different optional subjects may be maintained. However, the value of M does not in any way affect the comparative merit of the candidates as the same being the value of the average marks of the compulsory paper for all the candidates." These statements of Shri M.L. Sharma and Shri Y. Singh have not been refuted at all and the explanation furnished in the aforesaid statements appears to be logical and convincing and we are unable to hold that substitution of M by 95.59 has affected the results in any way. 50. On behalf of the petitioners a feeble attempt was made to show that the RPSC in the name of moderation, had tried to introduce a quota system for different optional subjects. In other words, each subject was allotted a specific share, which was not proper. 50. On behalf of the petitioners a feeble attempt was made to show that the RPSC in the name of moderation, had tried to introduce a quota system for different optional subjects. In other words, each subject was allotted a specific share, which was not proper. A chart was also submitted for our perusal showing subject-wise distribution of successful candidates. As per this chart the lowest share of 17.09 went to Geology and highest share of 20.85 went to Geography, share of other subjects fluctuating between the aforesaid two limits. It was pointed out that this distribution was not proportionate vis-a-vis the average marks distribution in General Knowledge paper. To our mind, there can be no necessary co-relation between marks of General Knowledge paper and marks obtained in optional papers by the same candidate. Subject-wise distribution also does not indicate a necessary quota fixation of each subject. Hence, to our mind, this contention has also no proper foundation and must fail. 51. It was submitted that earlier maximum chances available to a candidate were restricted to four in all. By an amendment dated 15.05.1993, one more chance was allowed to candidates, who had already availed four chances. This gave an unfair advantage to such candidates, for whom the last date of submitting applications was also extended. To our mind, this contention deserves to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. No unfair advantage was conferred on candidates who had already availed of four chances, they were only enabled to compete with the petitioners on a footing of equality. To our mind, no prejudice was caused to the petitioners by the impugned amendment. Hence, this contention should also fail. 52. A grievance was made that no key answer-book was published by the RPSC. Hence, petitioners could not check their answers. Likewise a grievance was also made that no marks-sheets were issued to unsuccessful candidates. It was also averred that the cut-off percentage was also not published. It was submitted that the petitioners had a right to be supplied the aforesaid information. Denial of this information is in breach of a fundamental right of a candidate. It was also contended that formula of moderation was kept shrouded in mystery and petitioners had a right to know on what basis their raw marks had been scaled down. On behalf of the respondents all these pleas have been resisted. Denial of this information is in breach of a fundamental right of a candidate. It was also contended that formula of moderation was kept shrouded in mystery and petitioners had a right to know on what basis their raw marks had been scaled down. On behalf of the respondents all these pleas have been resisted. It was stated that keys were not published as it would have resulted in multiplicity of proceedings. It was urged that it was not necessary to issue marks sheets to unsuccessful candidates. For cut-off percentage of marks and formula of moderation, it was submitted that these were confidential matters and the RPSC could not be compelled to disclose these matters. 53. We have carefully considered these contentions. We find that these contentions of the petitioners stand on a much surer footing. Fair play and justice require that unsuccessful candidates know as to how many marks were obtained by each one of them and as to what was the cut-off percentage. On that basis alone, they could know and check their own performance. Publication of a standard key answer in papertpapers in which it is feasible and practicable, would serve to allay their misgivings, if any. There should be nothing secret about marks awarded to unsuccessful candidates. Fair play and justice are not cloistered virtues. They must stand the scrutiny of public gaze. With erosion of values and shaking of credibility of the Constitutional functionaries in every walk of life, it is imperative that the faith of the people should be restored in these Constitutional bodies. The Public Service Commission is such a body and if it wishes to command utmost faith and respect and preserve its creditability among the candidates appearing at various examination held by it and if it wishes to sustain confidence of the candidates in its impartiality and objectivity, then it must duly publish marks awarded to the candidates, both at preliminary or at main examinations alongwith the cutoff percentage. The issuance of standard answer-key would also sustain faith of the candidates taking various examinations because they would be able to know their own performance. To our mind, this will not, in any way, lead to multiplicity of litigation, but rather, would end avoidable and frivalous litigation. The issuance of standard answer-key would also sustain faith of the candidates taking various examinations because they would be able to know their own performance. To our mind, this will not, in any way, lead to multiplicity of litigation, but rather, would end avoidable and frivalous litigation. Once a candidate knows his position well, he would think twice to knock doors of the Court to challenge the judgment of the RPSC in matters of evaluation. 54. When we talk of furnishing marks to the various candidates, we mean that both, raw as well as scaled marks must be made available to them alongwith formula adopted for moderation of the marks. It was vehemently urged before us that the formula of moderation should be allowed to be kept as a close secret because, the UPSC had been doing so. In our opinion, the contention is devoid of all merit. The respondent-RPSC had, itself, adopted formula which has been written by two eminent authors, Sarva Shri V. Natrajan and K. Gunasekaran and has been published by the Association of Indian Universities in their treatise, 'Scaling Techniques-What, Why & How', 1986. It is thus already public property. If formula of moderation alongwith raw marks & scaled marks are furnished to the candidates, they would be able to ascertain and verify as to whether formula was correctly applied or not. Once a candidate is satisfied about correct application of the formula, he would have no occasion to knock portals of this Court to get justice because, he would be in a position to satisfy himself, as to whether exercise of awarding of marks and moderation thereof has been fair or not. There is nothing sacrosanct about moderation formula, as stated already. However, in the present cases, non-furnishing of raw or scaled marks or non-furnishing of moderation formula does not affect the result of the petitioners in any way since, we are satisfied that the formula of moderation was correct by applied by the respondent-RPSC. Individually, the petitioners have not been able to show that the marks awarded to them were not just and fair-vis-a-vis their performance. Hence, our observations, above, would not affect ultimate result and fate of these writ petitions. 55. We may state that the Apex Court, itself, has recognised the value of publication of results of public examinations, like one held by the respondent-RPSC. Hence, our observations, above, would not affect ultimate result and fate of these writ petitions. 55. We may state that the Apex Court, itself, has recognised the value of publication of results of public examinations, like one held by the respondent-RPSC. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Krishan Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC p.165 = 1994 (4)JT p. 55 wherein the Apex court ordained- 'The marks obtained shall be published in three prominent dailies having large circulation in the State of Haryana in addition to the display on the Notice Board." (Para 22 (ix) 56. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India (Part IV-A) mandates that it should be the duty of every citizen of India to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavor and achievement. Failures are first step to ward success. If failures have to impel a person to strive towards excellence in his spheres of individual and collective activity, furnishing of marks, cut-off percentage and the moderation thereof to the candidates taking competitive examination will goad them to strive towards better performance. It is a highly competitive World where the fittest alone survives and if we want to rise as a Nation, we shall have to instil confidence in the candidates that they are receiving fair deal at the hands of the respondents. This alone shall sustain them in striving towards better performance. 57. In the aforesaid premises, we find no merits in these writ petitions. Hence, these writ petitions being devoid of merits are disposed of accordingly. However, we would direct the respondent-Commission to publish the result of the preliminary examination held by it in atleast two prominent daily news papers of the State. The published results should show formula of moderation adopted by it, as also the cut off percentage and should also indicate raw marks in the bracket and scaled marks outside the bracket against roll number of each of the candidate. The result should also be declared and displayed on the notice board of the RPSC in the aforesaid format. The published results should show formula of moderation adopted by it, as also the cut off percentage and should also indicate raw marks in the bracket and scaled marks outside the bracket against roll number of each of the candidate. The result should also be declared and displayed on the notice board of the RPSC in the aforesaid format. If any candidate wishes to obtain a mark-sheet showing marks obtained by him at the examination marks may be furnished to him and for this purpose, the Commission may charge such reasonable fee, as it may think just to fix, in its discretion. The present petitioners and all such other candidates who may apply to the respondent-RPSC in this regard, may be supplied mark sheet in accordance with directions given above on payment of such fees. 58. We may state that it should not be difficult or inconvenient for the respondent-RPSC to undertake such an exercise because, on its own showing the entire system has been computerised. The inconvenience which the RPSC might have in this regard, should well be compensated from the fee to be received from the candidates desiring to obtain their mark-sheets. 59. The writ petitions are disposed of with the directions aforesaid. 60. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.Petitions Disposed of with Directions. *******