JUDGMENT : These writ petitions have been filed praying for setting aside the result of the 4th Combined Civil Services Examination 2012 held by the respondent no. 2 Jharkhand Public Service Commission alleging that huge irregularities have been committed in allotting marks at the various stages of the examination which has led to unjust appointment of the persons having scored lesser marks whereas candidates scoring higher marks have not been appointed. It has been alleged that adoption of the method of scaling for the purposes of evaluation of candidates is contrary to the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme court in the case of Sanjay Singh and another versus U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720 . 1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits as under:- a. On 23.06.2009 and 24.06.2010 the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, State of Jharkhand sent requisition for starting selection process for appointment on the post of Jharkhand Administrative Service, Jharkhand Police Service, Jharkhand Information Service, Jharkhand Registration Service and Jharkhand Co-operative Service to Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as J.P.S.C.). b. Pursuant to the aforesaid requisition, on 01.07.2010, J.P.S.C. vide Advertisement No. 07/2010 advertised for J.P.S.C. 4th Combined Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination to be conducted in January, 2011. By referring to this advertisement, learned counsel has submitted that this advertisement did not mention anything about method of scaling for the purposes of evaluation of answer sheets and awarding marks to the various candidates. c. In January 2011, preliminary examination was conducted, result was announced on 23.08.2011 and the last date for filling form for main examination was till 29.02.2012. d. On 24.08.2011 a press release was issued by the J.P.S.C. informing the minimum cut off marks and also indicating that scaling has been used as methodology for evaluating the answer sheet of the preliminary examination. e. Objections were raised before the J.P.S.C. objecting to the scaling method having been adopted in the preliminary examination and a number of writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 7692/2011, 7597/2011, 1069/2012 etc. were filed before this Court challenging the adoption of scaling method in the preliminary examination. e. Objections were raised before the J.P.S.C. objecting to the scaling method having been adopted in the preliminary examination and a number of writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 7692/2011, 7597/2011, 1069/2012 etc. were filed before this Court challenging the adoption of scaling method in the preliminary examination. f. Another press release dated 22.09.2011 was issued by J.P.S.C. indicating that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not struck down the scaling system in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720 (Sanjay Singh and Another versus U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad and Another). g. On 18.11.2011 it was observed by J.P.S.C. that due to scaling formula some candidates are getting scaled marks higher than the maximum marks in some subjects and to address this issue an expert committee was constituted by the J.P.S.C. and the said expert committee recommended revised scaling formula. h. Counsel submits that admittedly the scaling method which led to anomalies was adopted after preliminary examination and all these methods of scaling was being adopted and done in the midst of the examination process after the result of preliminary examination was published by J.P.S.C. i. However, J.P.S.C. on 02.12.2011 published revised result of preliminary examination after applying the revised formula and 15 times the number of vacancies were called for the purposes of taking the main examination. j. Counsel further submits that the petitioners in these writ petitions were ultimately selected in the preliminary examination and were entitled to appear for the main examination. k. On 04.02.2012 J.P.S.C. issued a press notice for filling up of the application form for main examination indicting the last date for submission of form on 29.02.2012. l. On the last date i.e. 29.02.2012, J.P.S.C. amended the Rules of Procedure 2002 and added proviso to Clause 4 (xii) (i) of the Rules empowering commission to adopt any method, device or formula including moderation & statistical scaling under expert guidance to eliminate variation in the marks awarded to the candidates at any examination. m. J.P.S.C. issued corrigendum and extended the last date for submission of application form for main examination to 09.03.2012. n. Counsel submits that at no stage the method of marking to be adopted by the J.P.S.C. was notified. o. In the month of May-June 2012, main examination was held and result was published on 18.09.2012 applying the scaling formula. m. J.P.S.C. issued corrigendum and extended the last date for submission of application form for main examination to 09.03.2012. n. Counsel submits that at no stage the method of marking to be adopted by the J.P.S.C. was notified. o. In the month of May-June 2012, main examination was held and result was published on 18.09.2012 applying the scaling formula. p. Thereafter the interview of the successful candidates followed by medical test was conducted in the month of October 2012 to November 2012 and final recommendation of the successful candidates were made to the State Government on 27.11.2012. q. In the month of February, 2013, appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates who are private respondents in these writ petitions. r. The petitioners did not qualify for the main examination. s. Vide representation before the Hon’ble Governor dated 21.06.2013, the petitioners alleged irregularities in the 4th Combined Civil Service Examination by indicating that the Union Public Service Commission adopts scaling method in the preliminary examination and adopts moderation method in the main examination. It was also indicated that J.P.S.C. had never adopted scaling method in the previous three examinations and there was no reference even in the advertisement or in the then existing rules, that scaling method would be adopted. t. Immediately thereafter on 25.06.2013 J.P.S.C. published a press release wherein it was stated that under the Rule of Procedure, 2002 Chapter III Rule 4 (xii) (i), J.P.S.C. is empowered to adopt scaling method in both preliminary and main examination. u. With this background the petitioners being aggrieved filed writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 3962 of 2013 on 02.07.2013 challenging the examination process and thereafter other writ petitions were filed which have been tagged along with this writ petition. Pursuant to order passed by this court, private respondents were made parties in writ petitions where the private respondents were not parties, and the writ petition was duly amended and amended writ petition has been filed. v. After the issuance of appointment letters to the successful candidates, the respondent J.P.S.C. issued the raw marks to the petitioners and on account of this delay in issuance of raw marks, the writ petition was filed only on 02.07.2013. w. Hearing of these cases initially commenced on 02.07.2018 and continued on 03.07.2018. v. After the issuance of appointment letters to the successful candidates, the respondent J.P.S.C. issued the raw marks to the petitioners and on account of this delay in issuance of raw marks, the writ petition was filed only on 02.07.2013. w. Hearing of these cases initially commenced on 02.07.2018 and continued on 03.07.2018. On 03.07.2018 in the midst of the hearing, this court directed J.P.S.C. to file supplementary counter affidavit to bring forthwith calculation in connection with one of the candidates namely Sanju Kumari, by way of sample, who had secured same marks in both her subjects but the scaled marks were different . Accordingly, J.P.S.C. filed second supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.09.2018 stating that they had sent the raw marks of Sanju Kumari to the subject expert and in turn the subject expert had given the details of the calculation and calculation sheet was annexed along with the second supplementary counter affidavit. To this supplementary counter affidavit, rejoinder was filed by the petitioners indicating that the respondents had not brought on record the calculation of Sanju Kumari, pursuant to which her result was published and instead of new calculation chart dated 30.08.2018 was prepared and was filed which was not in consonance with the order dated 03.07.2018. It was also indicated that the scaled marks which were allocated to Sanju Kumari and the new calculation chart dated 30.08.2018 were different, although, only in the place of decimals. x. Counsel for the petitioners during the course of argument filed a written submissions on behalf of the petitioners and elaborated the points made in the written submissions by oral submission and have cited a few more judgments over and above those mentioned in the written submissions . 2. In order to ensure that none of the points which has been raised by the petitioners is left out, this court finds it proper to mention various points raised in written submissions filed by the petitioners which are as follows:- First point Change of Rules of the Game JPSC had admittedly decided to adopt scaling methodology in prelims after the advertisement was published and prelim exams were conducted. It is contrary to the settled principle that the rules of the games, meaning thereby that the criteria for selection, cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. It is contrary to the settled principle that the rules of the games, meaning thereby that the criteria for selection, cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. It is also a settled principle that vacancies arising prior to the date of amendment not affected by the amendment and would be governed by old rules [Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 51 – Para 5 & P. Ganeshwar Rao & Ors. V. State of A.P. & Ors, 1988 Supp SCC 740 – Paras 8 – 9]. Counsel for the petitioners while elaborating the first point submits that the respondents herein have adopted the scaling method on the basis of amendment made in the rule which in turn were inserted by notification dated 29.02.2012 and their specific case is that rule of game cannot be changed in the midst of the proceedings and the vacancy arising prior to the date of amendment cannot be affected by amendment and would be governed by the old rules. For this proposition she has referred to the judgment already mentioned in the written submissions and in addition, referred to the judgment reported in 2008 (7) SCC 11 (Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi with analogous cases) paragraph nos. 13,15 to 16 Second point Amendment in rules to have prospective effect unless expressly made to have retrospective effect It is admitted position of JPSC that only on 29.02.2012 (last date to submit forms for mains examination, before being extended till 9.3.2012) JPSC amended the Rules of Procedure 2002 and added proviso to Clause 4 (xii) (i) of the Rules empowering commission to adopt any method, device or formula including moderation & statistical scaling under expert guidance to eliminate variation in the marks awarded to the candidates at any examination. JPSC has relied on this amendment to support their decision to apply scaling method in the main exams. The selection procedure was started in 2010 (1.7.2010 was the date of advertisement for prelim examination) and neither there was any mention about scaling method to be used in that advertisement, nor in the previous three Combined Civil Services Examination scaling method was adopted. The selection procedure was started in 2010 (1.7.2010 was the date of advertisement for prelim examination) and neither there was any mention about scaling method to be used in that advertisement, nor in the previous three Combined Civil Services Examination scaling method was adopted. JPSC cannot apply said amendment in the ongoing selection procedure but can only apply prospectively as it is well-settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. [N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka PSC, (1990) 3 SCC 157 – Para 11 – 13]. On the second point the counsel for the petitioners submit that the rules amended vide notification dated 29.02.2012 cannot be given retrospective effect so as to entitle the respondent J.P.S.C. to adopt scaling method in the matter of evaluation of the candidates. Her specific case is that the result of the main examination ought to have declared on the basis of raw marks which were obtained by various candidates. She has reiterated that law is well settled that any amendment in the statute or statutory rules is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. She submits that there is no indication in the amendment made on 29.02.2012 so as to make it retrospective and entitle J.P.S.C. to apply scaling method in the examination which is involved in this case. Third point Public authority model employer and need to abide by set procedure and rules – JPSC is a constitutional body and all its action should be based on equity and reasonableness and no act should be at arbitrary and unreasonable. JPSC’s decision to adopt scaling method after the preliminary examination without any statutory backing makes its act invalid as it is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not as per the rules or regulations and supported by a statute, the Court must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such as act to be illegal and invalid [Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr v State of Assam & Ors (2013) 2 SCC 516 – Paras 60, 62 – 64]. Fourth point Overage of Petitioners to apply in next selection procedure afresh – Due to age disadvantage, it will be Petitioners’ last opportunity to participate in the Combined Civil Services Examination, and after participating in the 4th combined Civil Services Examination and getting high marks but being deprived of selection only due to the arbitrary decision of JPSC to adopt scaling method has caused grave prejudice to the petitioners. It is within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court to exercise its inherent power in the interest of justice to issue necessary directions against the JPSC to select the petitioners in the Jharkhand Services based on their high raw marks in the 4th Combined Civil Services Examination. The Petitioner fall within the age group of 33 of 43 years. On the third and the fourth point, the counsel for the petitioners submits that J.P.S.C. is a constitutional body and there should be complete transparency in the method adopted by J.P.S.C. The respondents being modal employer any action taken without statutory backing makes the action invalid and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She submits that the method adopted by the J.P.S.C. is ex- facie arbitrary and illegal and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She reiterates that it is not only arbitrary but is also un reasonable and suffers from total lack of transparency. She submits that petitioners have also annexed advertisement issued by the other State Public Service Commission wherein they have intended to adopt scaling method, however the same was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself. There being no indication regarding adoption of scaling method for evaluation either in the advertisement or in the then existing rules, petitioners were shocked and surprise to find that scaling method has been adopted by the respondents for the purpose of evaluation of answer sheet. She also submits that so far as preliminary examination is concerned, as the petitioners were successful they are not be having any grievance, but so far as the main examination is concerned, it is only because of the adoption of the scaling method by the respondent J.P.S.C. that the petitioners have not been selected. Otherwise, if the raw marks would have been considered the petitioners were likely to be selected. Otherwise, if the raw marks would have been considered the petitioners were likely to be selected. In such circumstances, she submits that grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by adoption of such unknown method of scaling as this was unknown to the examination conducted by J.P.S.C. and the method of scaling was never adopted earlier and even in the subsequent examination method of scaling has not been adopted. She submits that some of the petitioners have become overage for the next examination and they cannot be made to suffer due to arbitrary action of J.P.S.C. Fifth point Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit Subsequent to the publication of the 4th Combined Civil Services Examination (Prelim) many people had filed petition before this Court and challenged the adoption of scaling method in Preliminary Exam and in 2013 itself Petitioners had filed instant WP challenging JPSC’s Decision to adopt scaling method in 4th Combined Civil Services Examination Main Examination. Thereby, the matter/issue has been subjudice since the beginning of the selection process and therefore, the Respondents’ stand that selection procedure has already completed cannot abdicate the rights of the Petitioners as it is settled principle that there is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than no man should suffer because of the fault of the court or delay in the procedure. [Atma Ram Mittal v Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284 – Para 8]. While elaborating the fifth point ,the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have approached this court at the earliest possible opportunity when the materials were available to them to make a proper challenge to the examination process and thereafter the writ petition has remained pending. She submits that law is well settled that no party should suffer because of fault of court or delay in procedure and accordingly it is not open to the respondents to contend that the respondents have worked on the appointed posts for a considerable long time. She submits that law is well settled that no party should suffer because of fault of court or delay in procedure and accordingly it is not open to the respondents to contend that the respondents have worked on the appointed posts for a considerable long time. She submits that no equity has crystalized in favour of private respondents rather equity in favour of petitioners as the petitioners have secured more marks and they cannot be made to suffer on account of impugned arbitrary action by the respondent J.P.S.C. Sixth point Applicability of Scaling Method It is submitted that in a competitive exam where commission is supposed to select meritorious candidates, even one mark may make the difference between selection or non-selection. However, adopting the system of scaling which has the effect of either reducing or increasing the marks defeats this purpose. In the instant case, candidates who have got low raw marks have been selected over those candidates who have actually got higher raw marks. This is in clear violation of principle laid down in Sanjay Singh and Ors. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 720 – Paras 26, 30, 34 – 36, 43 – 45. While elaboration the sixth point, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the specific case of the petitioners is that the method of scaling has been fully deprecated in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra) and respondents had referred to Sanjay Singh’s case to adopt the method of scaling. She submits that action of adoption of the method of scaling is in direct conflict with the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is against the judicial discipline and the legality and validity of the method of scaling has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh which is a binding precedent for all concerned. She further submits that in the Civil Service Examination there is cut throat competition and even one marks makes a difference and the method of scaling defeats the purpose of holding examination to select the meritorious candidates. While elaborating further on this point she submits that candidates who had received lesser marks have been given much higher marks after adopting the method of scaling. While elaborating further on this point she submits that candidates who had received lesser marks have been given much higher marks after adopting the method of scaling. In such circumstances, method of scaling which has been adopted by the respondents is ex- facie un scientific, leading to absurd results and defeats the very purpose of conducting the examination for public employment through specialized body. While giving the instances of absurdity in the method of scaling adopted by the respondents, counsel for the petitioners has referred to paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition to submit that one candidate namely Umesh Mandal belonging to BC-II category had secured 709 marks as raw marks in total and has got selected and also appointed but one of the petitioner Shri Binod Kumar who has secured 717 marks as raw marks in total, has been rejected. She further submits that Umesh Mandal as well as Shri Binod Kumar had opted for identical subjects for the main examination. She submits that arbitrariness and absurdity of method of scaling adopted by respondents is so apparent and glaring that the respondents themselves may not be in a position to defend such method adopted by them. Counsel for the petitioners has also referred to some of the instances at page no. 42 of the writ petition giving details of the names of some of the candidates who got raw marks obtained by them in comparison to those who have been ultimately selected. Ultimately, she submits that persons who were granted less raw marks have been selected and persons who were granted higher raw marks have been left out. She submits that entire selection process is not only arbitrary resulting in absurdity but the same is also against the public policy in as much as the candidates who were less meritorious have been selected. Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that entire system of the scaling which has been adopted in the instant case is ex facie irrational leading to absurdity and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She submits that specific case of the petitioners as stands today is that results of the main examination should be declared afresh based on raw marks. The selection list should be prepared afresh. 3. She submits that specific case of the petitioners as stands today is that results of the main examination should be declared afresh based on raw marks. The selection list should be prepared afresh. 3. It has been submitted that JPSC by such arbitrary adoption of scaling method has seem to favour some candidates who have otherwise scored less marks in the examination over meritorious ones by arbitrarily raising their marks using Scaling Method. 4. It has been submitted that JPSC has arbitrarily adopted Scaling method in main examination which even the UPSC admittedly in its rules and regulation states that no scaling is done in the main examination and thereby violated Petitioners’ fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. [Annexure 2 in Writ Petition Pg 28 – 31]. 5. It has been submitted when any PSC decides to adopt scaling method in its examination the same is clearly set out in the advertisement for such examination [Annexure A3 – UPPSC advertisement @Pgs 32 -36 of the Writ Petition]. However, JPSC did not mention in its advertisement that scaling method will be adopted by them [Annexure A1 – JPSC advertisement @Pg 27 of the Writ Petition]. 6. It has been submitted that Single Bench of the Rajasthan HC vide Judgment dtd 3.3.2014 in Writ Petition 1211/2014 Bhanwar Lal v State of Rajasthan & Anr has quashed the Result declared by the Rajasthan PSC based upon scaling and moderation technique of RAS Main Examination 2012 and declared to prepare result on the basis of raw marks. The Hon’ble HC in its judgment noted the discrepancy created by applying scaling method and found the method being unfair and not transparent. [Annexure 3 of the Reply/Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner Vol. 1 Pgs 42 – 98, Findings @Pg 95 – 98]. 7. It has been submitted that it is admitted fact that JPSC has applied such arbitrary scaling method twice – first in Preliminary Examination and secondly in Main Examination which completely dehors the rules. 8. It is humbly submitted that it is settled principle in a public appointment transparency is an important aspect [Renu & Ors vs District & Session Judge Tis Hazari & Ors (2014) 2 JLJR 50 (SC)]. Therefore, JPSC should have specified the method of marking in their advertisement. 9. 8. It is humbly submitted that it is settled principle in a public appointment transparency is an important aspect [Renu & Ors vs District & Session Judge Tis Hazari & Ors (2014) 2 JLJR 50 (SC)]. Therefore, JPSC should have specified the method of marking in their advertisement. 9. It has been submitted that JPSC is a body established under Article 315 of the Constitution to select the most suitable candidates for public employment as per the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution of India. However, in the instant case, JPSC has completely failed to perform its duty in fair manner and deprived chances of meritorious candidates from getting appointed in the public employment. 10. It is humbly submitted that JPSC has issued raw marks of the students after the appointment of the selected candidates. It appears that the Commission has favoured some candidates in the 4th JPSC Examination to get appointments. 11. That has been submitted that JPSC’s Rules of Procedure 2002 did not prescribed for scaling method. It was only on 29.2.2012 that an amendment was done to the said rule which empowered JPSC to adopt any method to eliminate variation in marks, however, even the amendment did not empower JPSC to change the criteria of the selection process once the selection process has started. Such act of JPSC is nothing but to unjustly benefit someone at the cost of others. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it has been submitted that the present writ petition filed by the petitioners be allowed. 13. Counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent on the other hand submits that there is no illegality or irrationality in the method which has been adopted by the J.P.S.C. merely because advertisement and the then rules on the date of advertisement were silent regarding the method of evaluation to be adopted was on the basis of scaling. He submits that non mentioning of the method of evaluation in the advertisement and the then rules does not disentitle J.P.S.C. from adopting the scaling method. They also submit that scaling method is a scientific method to bring candidates of different subjects on one platform so that they may be scientifically evaluated and compared regarding their merits inter-se. He submits that non mentioning of the method of evaluation in the advertisement and the then rules does not disentitle J.P.S.C. from adopting the scaling method. They also submit that scaling method is a scientific method to bring candidates of different subjects on one platform so that they may be scientifically evaluated and compared regarding their merits inter-se. He submits that even assuming, though not admitting, that there was some lacuna, the same does not call for any interference in the selection process and for that purpose he refers to Sanjay Singh’s case itself in which selection procedure was never set aside. He also refers to another judgment reported in (2018) 3 SCC 706 (Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Manoj Kumar and Another) to submit that even in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court ultimately did not think it proper to set aside the selection process. He further adopts the arguments advanced by the J.P.S.C. and the state and other private respondents. in this case. 14. Counsel appearing on behalf of the J.P.S.C. submits that advertisement in the instant case as well as the then rule was totally silent regarding the method of evaluation of answer sheet. He submits that it is in the exclusive domain of the J.P.S.C. to adopt a scientific method of evaluation. The respondents having adopted the method of scaling to bring various candidates of different subjects on the same platform in order to evaluate their inter-se merit, does not suffer from any illegality. He submits that merely because the method of scaling has been adopted the same does not amount to change in the rule of the game and the petitioners have no right to dictate the respondents J.P.S.C. on the method by which various papers relating to different subjects are to be evaluated. He submits that evaluation of papers is in exclusive domain of J.P.S.C. and even if it is not provided in the advertisement or the then existing rules the method of scaling could have been adopted by JPSC. He submits that evaluation of papers is in exclusive domain of J.P.S.C. and even if it is not provided in the advertisement or the then existing rules the method of scaling could have been adopted by JPSC. The counsel submits that in the then existing rules also there was sufficient indication that the method of evaluation could have been adopted by JPSC and for that purpose he refers to Schedule-II of the then existing rules, which deals with examination and submits that any new decision or change in the existing policy of conduct of examination has to be taken by the Commission. He submits that in the instant case the commission had taken a decision to adopt the method of scaling for the purposes of evaluation of inter se merit of students/candidates belonging to different categories of subjects and accordingly there is no illegality on the part of JPSC. The counsel has specifically submitted that the method of scaling has been adopted only in connection with main examination relating to various subjects and has not been adopted for the purposes of common subjects for which each and every candidate was required to participate. The Counsel submits that the amendment which has been inserted vide notification dated 29.02.2012 is merely by way of clarification that the method of scaling apart from other methods mentioned therein could be adopted by JPSC for the purposes of evaluation of the candidates and neither the same was required to be mentioned in the advertisement nor the same was required to be made known to the candidates. He further submits that the method of evaluation by way of scaling has been adopted on each and every candidate and the petitioners cannot contend that they have been isolated and selectively prejudiced in connection with such adoption of method of scaling. By referring to the counter affidavit he submits that the petitioners in fact have gained advantage by application of method of scaling at the preliminary stage in as much as some of the candidates who are also the writ petitioners in this case were granted higher marks as compared to their raw marks and by virtue of the method of scaling adopted by JPSC they are in fact the beneficiaries of the method of scaling adopted by JPSC. He submits that it is not open to the petitioners to blow hot and cold at the same time in as much as they have gained from the method of scaling adopted in the preliminary examination and when they have lost in the main examination, they have challenged the entire selection process. 15. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also submitted that the petitioners have duly participated in the main examination after it was duly notified to them. After having consciously participated in the examination and after ultimately being unsuccessful in the main examination, they have taken steps for challenging the entire examination process. The counsel submits that the rules were amended vide notification dated 29.02.2012 and the said date was initially the last date for submission of forms of main examination which was subsequently extended till 09.03.2012 and accordingly the petitioners had filled up the forms of mains examination with proper understanding that the new method of scaling will be adopted for the purposes of evaluation of answer-sheet. The counsel submits that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh was subsequently considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2016) 2 SCC 495 (Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors.) and in the said case, it was held that Sanjay Singh case did not decide that to such an examination i.e where the papers are common, the system of moderation must be applied and examination where papers/subjects are different scaling is the only available option. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the judgment passed in the case of Sanjay Singh has to be understood to be confined to the facts of the said case rendered upon consideration of relevant service rules prescribing a particular syllabus. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also took note of the fact that the entirety of the discussions and the conclusions in Sanjay Singh was with regard to the suitability of the scaling system to an examination, where question papers were compulsory and common to all candidates. He submits that in the instance case the method of scaling has not been adopted for the purposes of common subjects and it has been adopted only for the purposes of optional subjects as opted by the various candidates. 16. He submits that in the instance case the method of scaling has not been adopted for the purposes of common subjects and it has been adopted only for the purposes of optional subjects as opted by the various candidates. 16. Counsel further submits that the formula of scaling which was initially adopted by the respondent JPSC at the stage of declaration of preliminary results was at one stage found faulty and thereafter by consulting the experts a revised formula was adopted and a revised preliminary results was also declared. He submits that the respondent JPSC suo moto has been careful enough to ensure that the formula which has been adopted by JPSC is tested and uniformly applied. He submits that in the writ petition which was filed at the stage of declaration of preliminary results challenging methods of scaling adopted by JPSC by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court, the formula adopted by JPSC was sent to the expert for comment to the Indian Statistical Institution, which itself is a Government of India Body and the said expert has given an opinion which has been filed along with their counter affidavit dated 19.08.2014. He submits that it has been opined by Indian Statistical Institute that the new scaling formula which has been adopted by JPSC is statistically sound and this new technique will do justice to all candidates irrespective of their optional subjects. It was also indicated in the said opinion of the expert that the method which was previously adopted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission as well as by JPSC is well supplemented by this newly added statistical methodology and that the calculation of the cumulative distribution function of a standardized normal is varied is calculated as per the formula and it was concluded by the said expert authority that the new scaling formula works well in actual practice and one may visualize that there will be no problem in implementation of new formula as suggested by the expert committee from BIT Mesra. The said authority also indicated that they had gone through the implementation of the formula for preparation of revised and re-revised of result of 4th Combined Civil Service Preliminary Examination and found it is to be satisfactory in all respects. 17. The said authority also indicated that they had gone through the implementation of the formula for preparation of revised and re-revised of result of 4th Combined Civil Service Preliminary Examination and found it is to be satisfactory in all respects. 17. The counsel submits that the formula, which has been adopted by JPSC for the purposes of instant examination is not only scientific, but by itself was an improvement on the earlier formula and this stands fortified by the opinion of the experts. He submits that there is no contrary opinion in connection with this formula and it is only the assumption of the petitioners that the formula is arbitrary and illegal. Counsel for the respondents while arguing further has also responded to the second supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.09.2018 pursuant to order dated 03.07.2018 passed by this Court, wherein by way of sample, the calculation of the scaled marks of Sanju Kumari Roll No. 7102980 has been put on record. He submits that the raw marks which was obtained by Sanju Kumari in Anthropology and Geography both were 237 and the scaled marks in the declared result was 355.563997 and 320.512363 respectively. The counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by this court the respondent JPSC again sent the details of the said Sanju Kumari before the subject expert who made manual calculation by applying the formula and the calculation has been put on record as contained in Annexure-H to the supplementary counter affidavit and submits that as per the manual calculation, Sanju Kumari scored 355.1786876 in Anthropology and 320.1197838 in Geography. He submits that there is slight difference in the marks which has been given to Sanju Kumari by way of manual calculation and the marks which was already declared. He submits that there is slight difference in the marks which has been given to Sanju Kumari by way of manual calculation and the marks which was already declared. While explaining the difference between the two , he submits that the marks which has been given at the time of declaration of results was based on the calculations made by feeding the various figures in excel sheets in computers system and in the calculation which was made by the computer the number of digits which the computer takes with respect to each of its entry after the decimal is not limited to 3 or 4 figures only, rather it goes on and in the formula there are large number of variables and on account of this the decimal figures which has been taken by the computer automatically, would have considered larger figures after decimal and during the manual calculation there is a limitation that after the decimal only a few figure can be taken. He submits that in such circumstances there is difference in the manual calculation and the calculation through computers system in excel sheet and such difference is bound to occur. The counsel submits that the difference in the manual calculation and the calculation through excel sheet in the case of Sanju Kumari is marginal and the calculation made through the excel sheet is more near to accuracy as after the decimal, much larger points are taken by the computer system. During the course of this explanation, the counsel appearing on behalf of JPSC has taken assistance of some of the officers of JPSC, who were also present in the court and they also had the occasion to address this court on the point of this discrepancy, which occurred in manual calculation and calculation through the excel sheet in the computer system. 18. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners were the beneficiaries of the scaling method of evaluation adopted in the preliminary examination and had consciously continued with the selection process even after knowing that the scaling method would be adopted for the purposes of evaluation, and accordingly the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process after being unsuccessful. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners were the beneficiaries of the scaling method of evaluation adopted in the preliminary examination and had consciously continued with the selection process even after knowing that the scaling method would be adopted for the purposes of evaluation, and accordingly the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process after being unsuccessful. The counsel has referred to the judgments reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 Para 12 to 22; (2008) 4 SCC 171 Para 7 to 9 ; (2011) 1 SCC 150 Para 24 and (2007) 8 SCC 100 Para 18. He submits that the law is well settled that the unsuccessful candidates cannot be permitted to challenge the process of selection, if they have already participated without any protest. The counsel submits that there is limited scope of judicial review in connection with the matter of selection. He further submits that the JPSC is a constitutional authority and the matter of selection of candidates and the evaluation of papers particularly in the circumstances where the candidates are opting different subjects, is itself a specialised field which requires expertise and the same is not open to judicial review. He submits that the petitioners have not been able to prove arbitrariness in the action of the respondents and no malafides have been pleaded or proved in as much as only vague allegations have been made that some of the candidates have been favoured but neither their names nor their details have been mentioned in the writ petitions. No finding of malafide can be arrived on the basis of such allegations. On the scope of judicial review in the matter of selection, the learned counsel has referred to two judgments reported in (2016) 2 SCC 495 Para 21 and (2012) 1 SCC 157 Para 27. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in some of the cases, even where certain irregularities were found, have chosen not to quash the selection process and the learned counsel while advancing this argument submitted that this submission is being made, without prejudice to the contention of the respondents that there has been no irregularity in the process of selection. He further submits that the method of scaling which has been adopted by JPSC has been uniformly adopted for each and every candidate and there has to be difference in the raw marks and the scaled marks depending upon the mean and the standard deviation and other variables in the formula. It is important to note that that the mean marks of various subjects would be different and accordingly the persons having same raw marks , but belonging to different subjects, may finally have different scaled marks. He further submits that the increase or decrease in the final scaled marks will depend upon the fact as to whether the raw marks is on which side of the mean marks i.e lower than the mean marks or higher than the mean marks. He submits that, due to this reason candidates having similar raw marks belonging to different subjects have been granted different scaled marks. 19. Counsel for the JPSC has also referred to the judgment reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 Para 20 and judgment reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 Para 30 to 32. The counsel has further submitted that the Public Service Commission is free to evolve their own procedure for the purposes of evaluation of answer-sheet and there is no illegality in adopting the procedure of scaling, which has been used in this case and has been said to be scientific by the experts. He also submits that the scaling method which was subject matter in Sanjay Singh’s case reported in judgment (2007) 3 SCC 720 was subject to consideration in subsequent judgments reported in (2016) 2 SCC 495 Para 19 & 20; (2013) 12 SCC 489 Para 15 and (2018) 3 SCC 706 Para 12 to 15 .The interpretation which has been given by the petitioners and submission made by the petitioners that the very adoption of method of scaling is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Sanjay Singh’s case (2007) 3 SCC 720 is not correct which has been explained in the subsequent judgments as referred to above. 20. Counsel for the respondents also submits that in the matter of some of the petitioners, the scaled marks which they have obtained is higher than the raw marks and the such marks have been put on record in the counter affidavit filed by JPSC. 21. 20. Counsel for the respondents also submits that in the matter of some of the petitioners, the scaled marks which they have obtained is higher than the raw marks and the such marks have been put on record in the counter affidavit filed by JPSC. 21. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds as follows:- i. The entire controversy involved in this case relates to adoption of scaling method of evaluation of candidates in connection with their optional subjects. Admittedly the method of scaling has been adopted only for the optional subjects and it has not been applied to subjects common to all. ii. Admittedly the advertisement for the Public Service Examination involved in this case was published on 01.07.2010, which consisted in three parts preliminary, main and interview. The preliminary examination was held in January, 2011 and the result was published on 23.08.2011. iii. There was a press release on 22.09.2011 that scaling method has been adopted in declaration of preliminary examination results. However, certain objections were raised regarding the adoption of the method for declaration of result by adopting scaling formula , accordingly JPSC had sent the formula to ‘Expert Committee’ on 18.11.2011 which recommended for revised scaling formula and subsequently on 02.12.2011, the revised result of preliminary examination was published. iv. Further there were certain discrepancies in the answer keys of some of the subjects and accordingly the re-revised result of JPSC preliminary examination was published on 03.02.2012. v. This Court further finds that the objection regarding adoption of scaling method of evaluation at the stage of preliminary examination was subject matter of dispute in writ petition being WP(C) No. 7692 of 2011, 7597 of 2011, 1069 of 2012 etc. and by virtue of order dated 02.05.2012 in WP(C) No. 7692 of 2011 the matter regarding verification of the statistical formula adopted by JPSC and its actual application by JPSC in preparation of results of preliminary test was sent for verification to Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata. vi. The Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, vide letter dated 09.05.2012, sent a report after examining the formula and its implementation and found that the same was satisfactory in all respects. The report is contained in letter dated 09.05.2012, which has been filed by JPSC and is contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. vii. vi. The Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, vide letter dated 09.05.2012, sent a report after examining the formula and its implementation and found that the same was satisfactory in all respects. The report is contained in letter dated 09.05.2012, which has been filed by JPSC and is contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. vii. Upon perusal of the report sent by Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, this Court finds that it has been opined by Indian Statistical Institute, that the new scaling method as adopted by JPSC seems to be statistically sound and this new technique will do justice to all candidates irrespective of their optional subjects. It has also opined that the method which was previously adopted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission as well as JPSC is well supplemented by this newly added statistical methodology. The said authority had also given illustration for the purposes of appreciating the application of the formula. The said authority opined that the new scaling formula works well in actual practice and one may visualize that there will be no problem in implementation of the new scaling formula as suggested by the expert committee from BIT Mesra. Further the said authority also found that the re-revised result of preliminary examination was found satisfactory in all respects. viii. This Court finds that after final declaration of the preliminary result on 03.12.2012, wherein admittedly scaling method was adopted for evaluation of optional subjects, the petitioners were successful and some of the petitioners’ scaled marks were higher than that of the raw marks obtained by them. This fact has been put on record by JPSC in their counter affidavit. ix. Thereafter, the JPSC issued a press release on 04.02.2012 indicating that the last date for submission of form for the main examination was on 29.02.2012. x. On 29.02.2012, JPSC amended the rules of procedure and added a proviso to clause 4 (xii) (i) of the rules, enabling the commission to adopt any method, device or formula including moderation and statistical scaling under expert guidance to eliminate variation in the marks awarded to the candidates and the last date of submission of the form was itself extended to 09.03.2012 by issuing a corrigendum dated 02.03.2012. In the amended portion, a reference was also made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra). xi. In the amended portion, a reference was also made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra). xi. Admittedly, the petitioners had submitted the form for the main examination and have participated in the mains examination and by this time they were fully aware that the new method of scaling would be adopted for the purposes of evaluation of their answer-sheets. xii. Ultimately, on 18.09.2012, the mains examination results were published after applying the scaling formula for optional subjects in which the petitioners were not successful. So far as the successful candidates are concerned their medical test etc. was conducted and the appointment letters were issued by the State Government in the month of February, 2013. xiii. This Court finds that admittedly, in the advertisement as well as the then existing rule, there was no indication that method of scaling would be adopted and rather the advertisement as well as the then existing rule was totally silent in respect of the method of evaluation of the candidates having different optional subjects. xiv. Admittedly the method of scaling has been adopted to evaluate only the papers of optional subjects and the respondent J.P.S.C. has not adopted this method for evaluation of the subjects common to all. xv. Admittedly the amended rule enabling J.P.S.C. to adopt the method of scaling is not under challenge. The petitioners are aggrieved by its applicability in the selection process which had already commenced. Further, the specific case of the petitioners is that the method of scaling is against the mandate of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Sanjay Singh and others (supra). xvi. It would be useful to quote the relevant provision of then existing rules and the amended rule side by side for comparison:- The relevant extract of the Rules of procedure, 2002 framed by JPSC existing on the date of advertisement The relevant extract of the amended Rules of procedure, 2002, amended with effect from 29.02.2012 Rule 4(xii)(i) The answer books by the Controller of Examination after evaluation shall be decoded in the Commission’s office and merit list prepared accordingly. Rule 4(xii)(i) The answer books by the Controller of Examination after evaluation shall be decoded in the Commission’s office and merit list prepared accordingly. Rule 4(xii)(i) The answer books by the Controller of Examination after evaluation shall be decoded in the Commission’s office and merit list prepared accordingly. * Provided that the Commission may, with a view to eliminating variation in the marks awarded to the candidates at any examination, adopt any method, device or formula including moderation and statistical scaling under expert guidance in respect of different examiners of essay type subjective question papers and or objective/subjective type different optional papers to address the inconsistencies arising out of examiner variability and or variability in syllabus/degree of difficulty in various optional papers. However, statistical scaling shall be carried out under the supervision of an Expert Committee only in objective/subjective type question papers of different optional subjects as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh vs. U.P. Public Service Commission (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 720. xvii. Thus the aforesaid Rules were amended by notification dated 29.02.2012, wherein a proviso was added to rule 4 (xii) (i) empowering the J.P.S.C. to adopt any method, device or formula including moderation and statistical scaling under expert guidance to eliminate variation in the marks awarded to the candidates at any examination. xviii. This Court is of the considered view that the method of evaluation having not been provided either in the advertisement or the then existing rule, does not, by itself, create a hurdle for the respondent JPSC in adopting the method of scaling for the purposes of evaluation of the candidates having different optional subjects. xix. This Court is of the considered view, that the subsequent amendment which has been introduced by JPSC in the rules of procedure by virtue of amendment dated 29.02.2012, as quoted above, is just an enabling provision. Merely because such enabling provision was not there in the earlier rules, that is not sufficient to hold that the JPSC had no power to get the answer sheets of the candidates having different optional subjects evaluated by the method of scaling. xx. This Court finds that there was no bar under the advertisement or the then existing rules disentitling the JPSC from adopting the method of scaling. xx. This Court finds that there was no bar under the advertisement or the then existing rules disentitling the JPSC from adopting the method of scaling. This court is also of the considered view that merely because the other public service commissions had provided in the advertisement itself that method of scaling will be adopted for the purposes of evaluation, the same does not mean that in absence of any such corresponding stipulation in the advertisement involved in the instant case, the method of scaling could not have been adopted. xxi. This court is also of the considered view that the petitioners do not have any right, much less any vested right or any legitimate/legal right in the matter of method of evaluation of answer sheets as long as the method adopted is uniformly applied to all and is scientifically/statistically/ mathemathically sound . In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners that the method of scaling has not been applied uniformly or that it has been applied selectively. Moreover the expert namely Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata has already examined the formula of the scaling method adopted by J.P.S.C. and has given a report that the method is sound and is an improvement in the earlier method adopted by J.P.S.C. and Uttar Pradesh public service commission. In fact the formula for scaling was check and verified through expert by virtue of interim orders by this Court in the writ petitions challenging the method of scaling adopted at the stage of Preliminary Examination in the same selection process. Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata is an authority for the purposes of considering the statistical methods and the said authority had not only approved the formula, but had also indicated that the formula adopted by JPSC for the purposes of scaling is better than the earlier method and also better than the formula adopted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and has also indicated that the formula of scaling which has been adopted by JPSC would serve the purpose. xxii. This Court further finds that the petitioners do not have any right to command as to how the answer-sheets are to be evaluated by JPSC, and it is in the exclusive domain of JPSC. xxii. This Court further finds that the petitioners do not have any right to command as to how the answer-sheets are to be evaluated by JPSC, and it is in the exclusive domain of JPSC. As the method of evaluation is scientific/ statistically sound and it is applied to all the candidates in uniform manner without any discrimination, there is no occasion for this court to hold that the action of JPSC is arbitrary or illegal. xxiii. So far as the candidates are concerned, they will certainly be effected if there is any change with the requirements of age, educational qualifications, reservation in job, various steps in the examination, the prescribed number of candidates to be called after each stage of evaluation and the other requirements which are to be fulfilled by the candidates. In such circumstances and change in such criteria/ provision after the advertisement will certainly affect the legitimate rights of the candidates. There is no such change involved in the instant case . So far as the evaluation aspect is concerned, there is no vested right with the petitioners to get it evaluated in a particular manner and their insistence that the result was required to be declared only on the basis of raw marks in absolutely misplaced and is hereby rejected. There is no dispute that the marks awarded in the examination of descriptive optional paper varies from subject to subject and the scaling method of evaluation of optional subjects is for the purposes of taking care of these aspects by scientific/ statistical method. Under such circumstances the method which has been adopted by JPSC for the purposes of only optional subjects is fully justified. xxiv. So far as the contention of the petitioners that different persons having same raw marks were granted different scaled marks, this court finds that in spite of repeated questions put to the petitioners to demonstrate that two persons in the same subjects having same raw marks, but were given different scaled marks, the petitioners have not been able to put forward even a single example to this effect. The examples which the petitioners have mentioned , does not indicate the subject in which they had obtained such raw marks. xxv. The examples which the petitioners have mentioned , does not indicate the subject in which they had obtained such raw marks. xxv. This Court finds that the mean marks and the standard deviation along with other variables which are to be put in the formula for scaling, will certainly vary for different subjects and accordingly two persons having obtained same marks in different subjects may be awarded different scaled marks. xxvi. One of the examples which the petitioners have taken and specifically argued is of the case of Umesh Mandal as compared to case of Binod Kumar contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. xxvii. This Court finds that raw marks which was given to Umesh Mandal in two subjects namely Labour and Social Welfare and the Language was 256 and 271 respectively, and the scaled marks was 363.735346 and 328.142199 respectively. The raw marks in the same subject to Binod Kumar was 229 and 291 respectively, and the scaled marks are 286.996030 and 364.235301 respectively. This court finds that Umesh Mandal had more raw marks in Labour and Social Welfare and was accordingly granted higher scaled marks and so far as the literature is concerned, he had less raw marks and was accordingly granted lower scaled marks. So far as the final result is concerned, the same consisted of total of not only the optional Subjects, but also the general subjects, which were common to all in which no scaling was done and ultimately the total of Umesh Mandal was found to be higher than that of Binod Kumar. In such circumstances the candidate namely Umesh Mandal was found successful. xxviii. This Court finds that aforesaid example, which has been given by the petitioners to demonstrate the alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies and absurdity in the result furnished by JPSC, is itself unfounded and this Court finds that result of Umesh Mandal and Binod Kumar upon comparison, indicates that there was no arbitrariness or illegality in the scaled formula adopted by J.P.S.C. xxix. Apart from this instance, there is no other instance pointed out by the petitioners, indicating two persons or comparing two persons having the same optional subject. Apart from this instance, there is no other instance pointed out by the petitioners, indicating two persons or comparing two persons having the same optional subject. The attempt of the petitioner to compare two persons having different subjects and same raw marks to submit that the meritorious candidates have been left out is wholly misconceived as persons having different subjects cannot be compared on the basis of raw marks. 22. So far as point no. 1 raised by the petitioners is concerned, in short, the specific case of the petitioners is that criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities after the selection process has commenced and the vacancies prior to the date of amendment in the rules are not affected by the amendment and recruitment should be governed by the old rules. 23. For this proposition the petitioners have referred to judgments reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51 paragraph no. 5; (1988) (Supp) SCC 740 paragraph no. 8 and 9; (2008) 7 SCC 11 , paragraph nos. 13, 15 to 16. 24. Paragraph no. 5 of the judgment reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51 reads as follows:- “The serious dispute and controversy raised relates to the claim of the Corporation that Circular No. 17 of 1996 dated 24-6-1996, only came to be issued by way of clarification and it was not only necessary to be issued but also governed the selection of Drivers in question. The writ petitioners, who were unsuccessful, asserted that it is the circular dated 4-4-1995 which should govern the selection and consequently the selections ought to have been made by assigning 87 1/2% marks for written/trade test and 12 1/2% for the oral test (personal interview) and results declared, accordingly. On going through the above circular orders, we find that the procedure for recruitment of Drivers is separate from recruitment for other categories where written test/trade test has been specifically laid down and that it is only where the written test and interview are stipulated, the percentage of weightage for written test/interview has been resolved by the Board, under the directions of the State Government, to be fixed at 87.5% and 12.5% respectively. The directions of the State Government in their letter dated 2-1-1995 only fixes the weightage to be given between marks obtained in written test and those in interview and no reference is found therein of any trade test or driving test. The directions of the State Government in their letter dated 2-1-1995 only fixes the weightage to be given between marks obtained in written test and those in interview and no reference is found therein of any trade test or driving test. The resolution of the Board dated 21-3-1995 also seems to be on the same lines and is with reference to marks obtained in written test and interview respectively and not otherwise. Apparently, in view of the above and in the absence of reference to driving test or other trade test too, that the Corporation claims to have issued Circular Order No. 17/1996 dated 24-6-1996, on the basis of the earlier Circular No. 52/80 for pass in driving test to be presented to the ST Committee and No. 25/90 dated 2-7-1990 pertaining to award of marks in the interview, by fixing the average of the marks awarded by the ST Sub-Committee to be the final and deciding factor in the matter of selection of a candidate. Therefore, the High Court cannot be said to be correct in holding that the circular order dated 24-6-1996 is illegal or arbitrary or against the orders of the State Government or the resolution of the Board of the Transport Corporation. Instead, it would have been well open to the High Court to have declared that the criteria sought to be fixed by the circular dated 24-6-1996 as the sole determinative of the merit or grade of a candidate for selection long after the last date fixed for receipt of application and in the middle of the course of selection process (since in this case the driving test was stated to have been conducted on 27-11-1995) cannot be applied to the selections under consideration and challenged before the High Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it pronounced upon the invalidity of the circular orders dated 24-6-1996, does not merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside.” 25. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it pronounced upon the invalidity of the circular orders dated 24-6-1996, does not merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside.” 25. From perusal of the said judgment, this court finds that in the said judgment, the authorities had introduced weightage to driving test for the purposes of appointment in the midst of the selection process although as per the earlier circular, marks were to be allocated only on written test and interview and the percentage was also fixed. In this background the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the midst of the selection process, the driving test could not have been introduced. 26. This court finds that the aforesaid judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the instant case, no fresh qualification or disqualification or any further test or additional level of passing of examination for the purposes of qualifying in the examination has been introduced by the respondents. It is only the method of evaluation which has been adopted by the respondent J.P.S.C. through scaling process in connection with optional subjects of the candidates ,which as already held above is within the exclusive domain of J.P.S.C. Admittedly , in the then existing rule or the advertisement , there was no provision indicating the method of evaluation of answersheet in the optional subjects and accordingly there is no right vested in the candidates regarding the method of evaluation. The petitioners have not challenged the amendment which enabled J.P.S.C. to apply the method of scaling for the purposes of evaluation of the papers relating to the optional subjects, rather their specific case is the amendment which enabled the applicability of scaling was not applicable to the selection process which had already commenced. In view of the aforesaid findings and also findings at para 21 above, the aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioners in any manner . 27. So far as judgment reported in 1988 Supp SCC 740 is concerned, the petitioners have relied upon paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment which reads as under:- 8. In Eramma v. Verrupanna the words “the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter” in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came up for consideration. 8 and 9 of the said judgment which reads as under:- 8. In Eramma v. Verrupanna the words “the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter” in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came up for consideration. In that case this Court held that the words “the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve” occurring in Section 8 made it very clear that the property whose devolution was provided for by that section must be the property of a person who had died after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act and it could not be the property which belonged to a Hindu male who had died before the said Act came into force. The effect of the use of the word “arising” in the Special Rules qualifying the word “vacancies” is also the same. The clause which was introduced in the Special Rules by the amendment made on 28-4-1980 cannot, therefore, be interpreted as having any effect on the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment. We do not find any indication in the amendment that was made on 28-4-1980 that it would be applicable to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment even by necessary implication. In the instant case the State Government had taken the decision even before the amendment came into force to fill up the vacancies by direct recruitment according to the law prevailing then. Had it been the intention of the State Government, while promulgating the amendment that the amendment should be applicable to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of the amendment simultaneously the State Government would have addressed a letter to the Public Service Commission to make recruitment in accordance with the Special Rules as amended on 28-4-1980. No such action was taken by the State Government in this case. 9. We may at this stage refer to another decision of this Court in Y. v. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao in which in a similar situation this Court has observed in para 9 at p. 289 thus: “The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. 9. We may at this stage refer to another decision of this Court in Y. v. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao in which in a similar situation this Court has observed in para 9 at p. 289 thus: “The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the Statewide basis and, therefore, there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.” 28. This court finds that this judgment also does not help the petitioners in any manner and is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said judgment, prior to amendment in the rules, it was open to the State Government to fill 37½% of the vacancies (both substantive and temporary) in the cadre of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment. In the year 1978-79 the position of vacancies was such that it was permissible for the State Government to appoint 51 Assistant Engineer by direct recruitment Thereafter in April 28, 1980, there was an amendment in the rule by providing that only substantive vacancies to the extent of 37½% were permitted to be filled by direct recruitment. The specific issue was whether the 51 vacancies which were notified by Public Service Commission prior to amendment was affected by the amendment to the rules on 28th April 1980. 29. This court finds that in the said judgment, by virtue of amendment, vacancy position itself was getting effected and in this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as there was no indication in the amendment made on 28th April, 1980 that it would be applicable to the vacancies which had arisen prior to the date of amendment even by necessary implication. Accordingly, it was held that the amendment to the rules will have no impact on the recruitment process involved in that case. Accordingly, it was held that the amendment to the rules will have no impact on the recruitment process involved in that case. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there was no indication that the amendment would have any retrospective effect and accordingly held that the vacancy position which has arisen prior to the amendment would not be governed by the amendment. In the instant case, there is no such similar impact pursuant to the amendment in the rules of procedure as the amendment neither has any impact on the qualification criteria nor has any impact on the vacancy position and had simply provided an enabling provision of adopting the method of scaling for the purposes of evaluation of the candidates having opted for different subjects and no method of evaluation was prescribed in the then existing rules or advertisement . This court also finds that amended provision itself refers to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh ( supra) reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720 and indicated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not struck down the scaling method. As already held above , the then existing rules at the time of advertisement in the instant case, did not provide the method of evaluation and accordingly it was certainly open to the respondent-J.P.S.C. to adopt scientific method for evaluation of those persons who had adopted different subjects and adoption of the method of scaling and subsequent insertion in the rule was only clarificatory in nature which was in the form of enabling provision and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (Supra) was also referred to in the amended portion of the rule just to indicate that it was possible to do so for the respondent-J.P.S.C. Accordingly the aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioners in any manner and does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 30. So far as judgment reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 is concerned, the petitioners have relied upon paragraph nos. 13, 15 to 16 of the judgment which are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- 13. From the record of the case it is evident that the public advertisement was issued by the respondent for direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. So far as judgment reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 is concerned, the petitioners have relied upon paragraph nos. 13, 15 to 16 of the judgment which are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:- 13. From the record of the case it is evident that the public advertisement was issued by the respondent for direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. As per the said advertisement written examination was to be held on 12-3-2006. The selection process was of two stages: stage one was written examination comprising one paper only of 250 marks, whereas stage two included interview/viva voce. As per the advertisement minimum qualifying marks in the written examination were specified to be 55% for General candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates but no cut-off marks were prescribed for viva voce test at all. The averments made in the petitions which are not effectively controverted by the respondent would indicate that oral interview was postponed by the respondent on six occasions and was finally conducted by the Selection Committee only on 27-2-2007. However, before that date criteria of cut-off marks for viva voce test was introduced by the respondent. 15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva voce test was illegal. 16. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the decision rendered in K. Manjusree did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana as well as in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and, therefore, should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or not, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent. While deciding the case of K. Manjusree the Court noticed the decisions in: (1) P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, and has thereafter laid down the proposition of law which is quoted above. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by this Court in K. Manjusree can neither be regarded as judgment per incuriam nor good case is made out by the respondent for referring the matter to the larger Bench for reconsidering the said decision. 31. From perusal of this judgment, this court finds that in the said case, no minimum marks were prescribed for viva-voce before commencement of the selection process. It was held that the authority concerned cannot, either during the selection process or after the selection process, add additional requirement/qualification that the candidates should also secure certain minimum marks for interview. In this view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that prescription of minimum marks by the authorities at viva-voce test in the facts and circumstances of that case was illegal. In the instant writ petition, no such additional qualification or criteria have been introduced by way of amendment in the rule. It was only the method of evaluation of different optional subjects of various candidates by way of scaling was adopted. As already held above , evaluation of the candidate is in the exclusive domain of the J.P.S.C. in connection with which the petitioners have neither any role to play nor have any legal right , much less any vested legal right. As already held above , evaluation of the candidate is in the exclusive domain of the J.P.S.C. in connection with which the petitioners have neither any role to play nor have any legal right , much less any vested legal right. Further, in the instant case, the method of evaluation has been uniformly applied to all the candidates and accordingly there is no element of arbitrariness involved in the impugned action of J.P.S.C. Accordingly, this court finds that this judgment as relied upon by the petitioners also does not help the petitioners in any manner. In view of the aforesaid findings the aforesaid first point as raised by the petitioners is hereby rejected. . 32. So far as the second point raised by the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners have claimed that amendment in the rule should be treated as prospective unless expressly made to have been retrospective. This point is also rejected in view findings recorded above that the amendment in the rule is only an enabling provision which is clarificatory in nature indicating the method which could have been adopted by respondent JPSC for the purposes of evaluation of the candidates having different optional subjects . There being no contrary provision in the existing rule and in the advertisement, there was no impediment on the part of JPSC in adopting the system of scaling to compare the various candidates in different optional subjects. 33. So far as the judgment which has been relied upon by the petitioner on the point reported in (1990 ) 3 SCC 157 is concerned, this Court finds that the facts in that case was totally different from the facts of the instant case and accordingly has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the said case, during the pendency of the selection, the State government issued order dated 09.07.1975, revising the extent of reservation and also prescribing a different mode of selection. In such circumstances, it was held that the subsequent amendment in the rule, which was done after the initiation of the selection process, was not justified and it was held that the person applying for appointment, if otherwise qualified in accordance with the existing rules or orders or in terms of the advertisement acquire a vested right to be considered in accordance with the rule or order. In the instant case, this Court has already held that there was no impediment on the part of the respondent JPSC in applying the scaling method either in the advertisement or the then existing rules and therefore, for the purposes of evaluation of the candidates having different optional subjects , it was certainly open to JPSC to uniformly adopt the best of the methods available to them, which they have adopted being scientifically/ statistically sound as certified by the expert as held above. In view of the aforesaid findings the aforesaid second point as raised by the petitioners is hereby rejected. 34. Regarding the contention of the petitioners in point no 3 that the public authority is a model employer and need to abide by set procedure and rules and that the methods of examination and the rules and regulations which are adopted by the respondent JPSC should be transparent. There is no dispute on this proposition of law. 35. This Court finds that by virtue of the subsequent amendment the transparency has been brought by the respondent and merely because at the stage of advertisement and at the stage of earlier rules, there was no indication in the matter of the method of evaluation of optional papers , that by itself is not sufficient to quash the selection process unless this Court finds some serious illegality or arbitrariness or discrimination in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds that the as per the experts’ opinion that the method of scaling and its formula as adopted by the Respondent J.P.S.C. is not only scientific, but is a good method for selection of best of the candidates having different optional subjects. The petitioners have not brought on record any Experts’ opinion, which is contrary to the expert opinion which has been placed by JPSC and accordingly there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve or doubt the expert opinion which has been placed on record by JPSC. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in judgment reported in (2013) 2 SCC 516 ( Bhupendra Nath Hazarika versus State of Assam) is concerned , the said judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in judgment reported in (2013) 2 SCC 516 ( Bhupendra Nath Hazarika versus State of Assam) is concerned , the said judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said judgment the recruitment was in total defiance and in violation of the rules and certain relaxations were also given which were not permissible under the rules. In the instant case there is no such corresponding facts as method of scaling has been adopted for the purposes of evaluation of optional papers although the rules were silent on the point of method of evaluation. Accordingly, the said judgment relied upon by the petitioners does not help the petitioners in any manner. In another judgment relied upon by the petitioners reported in 2014 (2) JLJR 50 SC(Renu & Ors. Vs. District & Sessions Judge Tis Hazari & Anr.), also it was found that the recruitment was in contravention of the rules. In the said judgment at para 16 it has been held as under :- “16 Another important requirement of public appointment is that of transparency therefore the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting some at the cost of others.” 36. This court finds that in the said judgment also, there is no requirement to disclose the method of evaluation. This court is of the considered view that merely because there has been some lack of clarity/transparency on the part of JPSC in as much as they had not notified that method of scaling will be adopted by them , the same itself is not sufficient to set aside the examination particularly when this court has found the evaluation of optional papers on the basis of scaling to be stastically sound and based on expert opinion. Admittedly in the advertisement as well as the then existing rules, there was complete silence regarding the method of evaluation which is to be adopted. In this background, this court does not find any merit in the aforesaid point raised by the petitioners. 37. So far as the contention of the petitioner in point no 4 and 5 that nobody should suffer on account of the fault of the Court or delay in the procedure is concerned, this Court has considered the case on the merits and if the Court would have found the action of the respondents arbitrary or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then certainly the consequential orders would have followed. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners had approached this Court within a reasonable time and the private-respondents herein are already party and therefore no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners merely because the case has remained pending for a number of years before this Court. These findings are over and above the fact that the petitioners were duly informed about the method of scaling and this method was adopted in the preliminary examination also . They have participated in the mains examination and have filed this writ petition only after they have become unsuccessful. There is no dispute that petitioners are themselves the beneficiaries of the method of scaling adopted by the respondent JPSC at the preliminary stage and they cannot take the advantage of the method of scaling at the preliminary stage and argue that the method of scaling could not have been adopted at the mains examination stage, merely because they have not become successful ultimately. 38. So far as the sample marks of Sanju Kumari which has been brought on record by the JPSC by way of supplementary affidavit pursuant to order passed by this court is concerned, this Court is satisfied with the explanation which has been furnished by JPSC by taking assistance from the officers of JPSC that the manual calculation is bound to differ from the calculations made by computers because of the reason that the number of digits taken after the decimal in connection with each of the variable will be different on account of human limitations. So far as the computers are concerned the digits after decimal can be taken up to any number but so far as the manual calculation is concerned, there is a limitation. As a matter of illustration, this Court find it proper to give simple arithmetical figures when the digit up to two points after decimal is taken and when three points after decimal is taken. 2.41 X 3.51 = 8.4591 2.414X 3.513= 8.480382. This simple mathematical calculation itself indicates that there is bound to be a difference in calculation when the number of digits after decimal is taken differently. 39. So far as the sixth point raised by the petitioners regarding the amendment in the rule being in direct conflict with the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh ( supra) , this court finds that the same is also fit to be rejected in view of the fact that the said judgment has been explained in the subsequent judgment which has clearly held that the entirety of the discussion and conclusions in Sanjay Singh was with regard to the question of the suitability of the scaling system to an examination where the question papers were compulsory and common to all candidates. The deficiencies and shortcomings of the scaling method were in the above context . In the instant writ petition the method of scaling has been adopted only for the optional subjects and not for the compulsory subjects. 40. In the judgment reported in (2016) 2 SCC 495 (Sunil Kumar and Others vs. Bihar Public Service Commission and Others) while considering the Sanjay Singh’s judgment (supra) at para 19 and 20 , it has been held as follows:- 19. The entirety of the discussion and conclusions in Sanjay Singh was with regard to the question of the suitability of the scaling system to an examination where the question papers were compulsory and common to all candidates. The deficiencies and shortcomings of the scaling method as pointed out and extracted above were in the above context. But did Sanjay Singh lay down any binding and inflexible requirement of law with regard to adoption of the scaling method to an examination where the candidates are tested in different subjects as in the present examination? The deficiencies and shortcomings of the scaling method as pointed out and extracted above were in the above context. But did Sanjay Singh lay down any binding and inflexible requirement of law with regard to adoption of the scaling method to an examination where the candidates are tested in different subjects as in the present examination? Having regard to the context in which the conclusions were reached and opinions were expressed by the Court it is difficult to understand as to how this Court in Sanjay Singh could be understood to have laid down any binding principle of law or directions or even guidelines with regard to holding of examinations; evaluation of papers and declaration of results by the Commission. What was held, in our view, was that scaling is a method which was generally unsuitable to be adopted for evaluation of answer papers of subjects common to all candidates and that the application of the said method to the examination in question had resulted in unacceptable results. Sanjay Singh did not decide that to such an examination i.e. where the papers are common the system of moderation must be applied and to an examination where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is the only available option. We are unable to find any declaration of law or precedent or principle in Sanjay Singh to the above effect as has been canvassed before us on behalf of the appellants. The decision, therefore, has to be understood to be confined to the facts of the case, rendered upon a consideration of the relevant Service Rules prescribing a particular syllabus. 20. We cannot understand the law to be imposing the requirement of adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others. Both are, at best, opinions, exercise of which requires an in-depth consideration of questions that are more suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant solution by adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket formula. Not only examiner variations and variation in award of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there are several other questions that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary examination format is one such fine issue that was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh. Not only examiner variations and variation in award of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there are several other questions that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary examination format is one such fine issue that was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh. A conscious choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the time of his entry to the University thereby restricting his choice of papers in a public examination; the standards of inter-subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and, may be, several others not identified herein are required to be considered, which questions, by their very nature should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including, the Public Service Commissions. The fact that such bodies including the Commissions have erred or have acted in less than a responsible manner in the past cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the judicial power which by its very nature will have to be understood to be, normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. 41. In the judgment reported in (2013) 12 SCC 489 (Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. Union Public Service Commission) at para 15, it has been held as follows:- “15.The argument of Shri Tulsi that in the garb of moderation, the Commission has resorted to scaling of marks and thereby deprived more meritorious candidates of their legitimate right to be selected does not commend acceptance because no material has been placed before this Court to substantiate the same. The mere fact that some of the candidates like the petitioner who cleared the preliminary examinations but could not cross the hurdle of main examination cannot lead to an inference that the method of moderation adopted by the Commission is faulty. 42. In the judgment reported in (2018) 3 SCC 706 (Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav and Others) at para 12 to 15, it has been held as follows:- “12. It is clear from the above that the process of scaling is a recognised method for ensuring uniformity amongst candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects. 42. In the judgment reported in (2018) 3 SCC 706 (Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav and Others) at para 12 to 15, it has been held as follows:- “12. It is clear from the above that the process of scaling is a recognised method for ensuring uniformity amongst candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects. When there are a number of examiners evaluating the papers of a large number of candidates in an examination, there is a possibility of “examiner subjectivity” or “examiner variability”. To minimise the examiner variability, this Court in Sanjay Singh case held that moderation would be the best method to be followed. 13. In the PCS Examination, 2004 and the Backlog Examination, 2004 the candidates had to take part in the main written examinations which consisted of four compulsory subjects and two optional subjects. The compulsory subjects were common to all candidates and the two optional subjects were to be chosen from the available 33 subjects as mentioned in the advertisements. As per the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Singh case, the Commission could have followed the scaling method only for the optional subjects and not for the compulsory subjects. However, it is clear from the submissions made on behalf of the appellant in the High Court that scaling method was followed even for compulsory subjects. We approve the findings of the High Court that the evaluation of the PCS and Backlog Recruitment Examinations, 2004 was contrary to the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Singh case. 14. Though we are in agreement with the view of the High Court that the examinations were not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in Sanjay Singh case, we do not approve the directions given in the judgment to finalise the results afresh in accordance with the observations made therein. The exercise to be undertaken as per the said directions would result in displacement of a number of selected candidates not before this Court and alteration of the merit list causing serious prejudice to those appointed and working for the last ten years. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appointments made pursuant to the advertisements of 2004 for the “PCS” and “Backlog” posts should not be disturbed. 15. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appointments made pursuant to the advertisements of 2004 for the “PCS” and “Backlog” posts should not be disturbed. 15. It is settled law that in certain situations, on account of subsequent events, the final relief granted by this Court may not be the natural consequence of the ratio decidendi of its judgment. In such situations, the relief can be moulded by the Court in order to do complete justice in the matter. It is relevant to note the fact that Sanjay Singh case was also made prospective in operation and this Court declined to interfere with the selections already made in that case on the basis that relief can be moulded. In the instant case, the examinations were conducted by the appellant on the basis of the pattern being followed by them since 1996. At the time when the examinations were conducted, a judgment of this Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit approving the scaling method adopted by the Commission held the field. Moreover, the selected candidates were appointed on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court in 2007 and they have been working continuously since then. There are no allegations of any irregularities or malpractices in the conduct of the said examinations. The candidates who participated in the examinations cannot be found fault with for the error committed by the appellant in adopting the scaling method. In view of the above, we do not deem it fit to disturb the appointments made pursuant to the selections in the examinations conducted in 2004.” 43. The petitioners have also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in writ petition no. 1211/2014 (Banwari Lal versus State of Rajasthan and another ) to submit that the instant case is fully covered by the said judgment. This court finds that the said judgment passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court is clearly distinguishable on facts as in the said case the scaling method was adopted not only for the optional subjects but also for the compulsory subjects and the formula adopted for scaling was itself found to be faulty as it had the effect of excluding meritorious candidates as demonstrated by the writ petitioners of the said case. In the instant case there is no such corresponding facts. In the instant case there is no such corresponding facts. Scaling method has been adopted only for optional subjects, the formula has been found to be scientifically/ statistically sound by the experts as indicated above and the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the meritorious candidate have been excluded on account of applying the method of scaling in the optional subjects. 44. Accordingly, the sixth point raised by the petitioners that the method of scaling as adopted in this case is not permissible in view of the judgment passed in the case of Sanjay Singh ( Supra) is rejected. This court finds that no illegality has been committed by the respondents by resorting to method of scaling in connection with evaluation of candidates for their optional subjects. 45. As a cumulative effect to the aforesaid findings, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. 46. Pending interlocutory applications, if any are dismissed as not pressed.