JUDGMENT : SUDESH BANSAL, J. 1. In this bunch of writ petitions, challenge has been made to the method of normalization adopted by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) in order to equalize the difficulty level of different question papers in multi-sessioned examination conducted for the selection on the post of Patwari in pursuance to the Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021, initiated vide Advertisement No. 3/2019 dated 17.1.2020 under the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2019”). 2. Factual matrix of the matter is that it is not in dispute that due to huge number of candidates in the examination of Patwari, same was conducted in four shifts i.e. on 23.10.2021 (morning-evening) and on 24.10.2021 (morning-evening). The syllabus and subjects in all four shifts were similar but question paper of each shift was different. Initially, 4421 vacancies were advertised vide notification dated 17.01.2020 and thereafter few more were added and total as many as 5610 vacancies for Patwari, to be recruited in Revenue, Colonization and Settlement departments, were advertised and as per data available on record, total 15,62,995 candidates, out of which 5,02,307 female candidates participated in this direct recruitment examination. Since on 24.10.2021, there was a religious festival of ‘Karva Chouth’ therefore, maximum number of female candidates opted and accommodated to appear in examination in two shifts on 23.10.2021. Since the examination was got performed in four shifts with different question papers of multiple type objective questions, the Board decided to apply the method of normalization to prepare the result and order dated 13.12.2021 to this effect was published. A Committee of experts came to be constituted and as per the opinion of the Expert Committee, a well known and mostly prior used formula of V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran has been applied to normalize the marks and after scaling the marks according to the formula as suggested by the Expert Committee, the provisional result has been prepared and published on 25.01.2022. 3. After declaration of result on 25.01.2022, candidates who appeared in the examination in fourth shift, which was conducted in evening of 24.10.2021, have challenged the result dated 25.01.2022 as well as ex-post facto, application of the process of normalization to prepare the result. 3. After declaration of result on 25.01.2022, candidates who appeared in the examination in fourth shift, which was conducted in evening of 24.10.2021, have challenged the result dated 25.01.2022 as well as ex-post facto, application of the process of normalization to prepare the result. This Court has been informed that all writ petitioners, in the present bunch of writ petitions are only among those candidates who appeared in the recruitment process of Patwari Examination-2021 in the last and fourth shift of evening on 24.10.2021. 4. Challenge has been made on behalf of petitioners mainly on the following points: (I) In the result dated 25.01.2022, declared after applying the process of normalization, variance about 21% has occurred between the ratio of selected candidates, appeared in first batch in morning shift on 23.10.2021 then the candidates appeared in fourth batch in evening shift on 24.10.2021, therefore, the normalization has led to hostile discrimination with candidates appeared in batch No. 4. (II) Normalization is not provided in the rules of 2019 and the same was not notified by the Board in the initial advertisement dated 17.01.2020, therefore application of the method of normalization, after conducting the examination, is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted. (III) Final result should have been prepared on the basis of actual and raw marks obtained by the candidates in written examination, as per Rule 28 of Rule 2019, without scaling the marks. (IV) In the present examination, undisputedly subject and syllabus is similar for all candidates and there is no question of arising any subject variability, therefore application of the formula of scaling for normalization is illegal and at the most, the formula for moderation, to remove Hawk Dove Effect or examiner variability could have been applied that too after obtaining opinion/report of the Expert Committee. (V) Wrong method of normalization has been adopted, which has resulted in yielding abnormal marks and as such final result be quashed. 5. To buttress the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for petitioners have relied upon following judgments: (1) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, AIR 2022 SC 973 (2) Jairuddin Shaik vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2021 (3) ALD 129 (3) Sanjay Singh and Others vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 720 6. 5. To buttress the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for petitioners have relied upon following judgments: (1) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, AIR 2022 SC 973 (2) Jairuddin Shaik vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2021 (3) ALD 129 (3) Sanjay Singh and Others vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 720 6. To counter the challenge of result on the aforestated points, respondent-Board and candidates who find place in the final select list or in the waiting list, have raised following arguments: “(I) Method of normalization was applied according to the report of the Expert Committee after statistical analysis with all bona fides, in order to equalize the difficulty level of examination conducted in fourth shifts with multiple type different question papers, and to bring the level playing field at part for all candidates. (II) Distribution of candidates in four shifts was warranted because of huge number of candidate and distribution was done alphabetically as per the name of candidates but incidently because of the festival of Karva Chouth on 24.10.2021, maximum number of female candidates were required to be accommodated in two shifts on 23.10.2021 and there was no irregularity/illegality in such methodical distribution of candidates. (III) Challenge to the application of the method of normalization after declaration of result, only on account of variance of the ratio of successful candidates between the candidates appeared in first shift (in morning on 23.10.2021) and candidates appeared in fourth shift (in evening on 24.10.2021), is contrary to law and further since in both shifts of morning and evening on 23.10.2021, maximum number of female candidates appeared and for the Women category 30% reservation is provided as such the marginal variance in the final result is obvious and that too for such reason the method of normalization cannot be challenged. (IV) The formula used by the Board for normalization was suggested by the Expert Committee, after statistical analysis without any ulterior motive. (V) As per Rule 22 of Rule 2019, Schedule II Note 3, it is provided that scheme and syllabus of the papers shall be prescribed by the Board and there is no embargo for the Board to apply the process of normalization, even if it is not specifically notified in the advertisement. (V) As per Rule 22 of Rule 2019, Schedule II Note 3, it is provided that scheme and syllabus of the papers shall be prescribed by the Board and there is no embargo for the Board to apply the process of normalization, even if it is not specifically notified in the advertisement. (VI) There is no mala-fide or lack of bona fide on the part of Board nor any such allegations of mala-fide have been attributed against the Board for application of the method of normalization. (VII) The process of recruitment has substantially completed and the appointment to the selected candidates from the main list have been accorded and only few left out vacancies are required to be filled from the waiting list, therefore at this stage, the interference in the final result by way of judicial review is not supposed to.” Respondents have relied upon following judgments: (1) Sunil Kumar and Others vs. Bihar Public Service Commission and Others, 2016 (2) SCC 495 (2) State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and Others, AIR 2022 SC 973 (3) Jai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 2 WLC 46 (4) Gaurav Sharma and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, SBCWP No. 4088/2022 (5) Anil Kumawat and Others vs. Naveen Agarwal and Others, 2012 (3) ILR (Raj) 164 7. It is worthy to note here that few of candidates, who have been selected and find place in waiting list but their appointment is withheld due to interim stay order passed during pendency of writ petitions, moved applications seeking impleadment and this Court vide a common order dated 13.12.2022, passed in CWP No. 2679/2022 and other connected writ petitions have been allowed to join such selected candidates as party respondents, so if any such application seeking impleadment of selected candidates is pending, same be treated as disposed off in terms of common order dated 13.12.2022 and they have been given opportunity of hearing, though no reply of writ petitions have been filed by them. It may also be noted that apart from pleadings, other additional affidavits, documents, reports of Expert Committee, have been placed on record by the respective parties, the same have been taken into consideration. 8. It may also be noted that apart from pleadings, other additional affidavits, documents, reports of Expert Committee, have been placed on record by the respective parties, the same have been taken into consideration. 8. Having heard counsel for all the concerned parties and on the basis of their respective contentions as well as pleadings, additional affidavits and applications and other material available on record, following points fall for consideration required to be adjudicated by this Court: (I) Whether ex post facto application of the normalization process by the respondent-Board after conducting the examination is arbitrary and dehors to the Rules of 2019 and impermissible in law? (II) Whether the final result of Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021, prepared after applying the normalization process is liable to be quashed by writ Court, within scope of the judicial review? Point No. I: At the outset, it is not in dispute that Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021 has been conducted in four shifts with different question papers of objective type multiple choice answer pattern. Obviously when the examination is multisessioned and question paper in each session of examination is different, application of the principle of normalization, scaling or moderation is usual practice, followed by the authorities as there is every possibility of variation in standard or difficultly level of examination question papers set by different examiners for various session. Counsel for petitioner too do not dispute such proposition of law and admits that whenever, such multi-sessioned examination is conducted, different agencies like National Testing Agency (NTA), Airport Authority of India (AAI), Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) etc. are following normalization procedure/technique. Thus, it is undisputed and settled proposition of law that whenever a large number of candidates participate in the written examination and the written examination is conducted in different sittings or batches with different question papers, the recruitment agency may apply process of normalization in order to test the merit of all candidates on the same footing, unless and until any other process of selection is not advertised or specifically provided in the rules or application of the process of normalization is not restricted. It is true that in the present examination of Patwari, in the advertisement it was not notified that the process of normalization would be followed for preparing the final result and the same was advertised on 13.12.2021, post to conduct the examination in four shifts on 23.10.2021 and 24.10.2021 (morning and evening); whether ex-post facto application of process of normalization is illegal or whether the Rule of 2019 puts any embargo on the Board to apply the process of normalization and whether the adoption of the normalization gives any right to the petitioners to challenge the same and because of normalization, the candidates appeared in fourth shift suffered hostile discrimination. In order to analyze and adjudicate all such issues, let the scheme of examination and the process of selection as stipulated in the Rules of 2019 be considered, coupled with judicial precedent as settled by Apex Court in plethora of judgments. 9. Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021 has been conducted under the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 as promulgated vide notification dated 21.11.2019. Advertisement of vacancies was issued on 17.01.2020. Part IV of such Rules deals procedure for direct recruitment and Rule 22 envisage that the posts specified in schedule-I to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be filled in by written competitive examination in accordance with the scheme and syllabus, as specified in Schedule-II through the selection Board. In Schedule-I, post of Patwari is indicated and method of recruitment is 100% by way of direct recruitment. Schedule-II reads as under: “1. Schedule of Examination: The examination shall include one paper of 3 hours during covering the following subjects: Subject Approx Weightage General Science, History, Polity and Geography of India; General Knowledge Current Affairs 25 Geography, History, Culture and Polity of Rajasthan 20 General English and Hindi 15 Mental Ability and Reasoning, Basic Numerical Efficiency 30 Basic Computer 10 Note: 1. The marks obtained by a candidate in examination will be counted for determining their order of merit. 2. The examination will contain multiple choice, objective type questions. There shall be negative marking, 1/3 mark shall be deducted for each wrong answer. 3. The Scheme and Syllabus of the papers for the examination shall be as prescribed by the Selection Board from time to time.” Rule-28 reads as under: Rule 28. Recommendations of the Selection Board. 2. The examination will contain multiple choice, objective type questions. There shall be negative marking, 1/3 mark shall be deducted for each wrong answer. 3. The Scheme and Syllabus of the papers for the examination shall be as prescribed by the Selection Board from time to time.” Rule-28 reads as under: Rule 28. Recommendations of the Selection Board. “The Selection Board shall prepare a list of the candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post and arrange in the order of merit On the basis of marks obtained in the written examination and forward the same to the Board of Revenue: Provided that the Selection Board may also to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The Selection Board may, on requisition, recommend names of such candidates, in the order of merit to the Board of Revenue, within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Selection Board.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Firstly in the Rules of 2019, there is no other specific procedure provided to prepare a final selection list except Rule 28, which envisages that the Selection Board shall prepare a merit list of candidates suitable for appointment, on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination and on the other hand, a conjoint reading of Rule 22, Schedule II, Note 3 of Rules of 2019 as extracted hereinabove, it appears that Scheme and Syllabus of the paper of the Examination shall be prescribed by the Board time to time. Note-3 specifically stipulates that Scheme of the examination of Patwari shall be prescribed by the Board, which obviously includes the scheme for preparation of result and there is no embargo for applying the process of normalization, therefore, it may not be said that application of process of normalization in the present examination, where due to large number of candidates, undisputedly examination has to be conducted in four shifts with different object type question paper, is dehors to the Rules or contrary to the legal proposition as settled in the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court. 11. 11. For example, in case of Mahinder Kumar and Others vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 87 , where in the selection of district judges by the High Court of Madhay Pradesh, the principle of normalization was adopted though in the notification, no reference about application of normalization principle was given to prepare the merit list, however the Hon’ble Supreme Court approved the adoption of normalization procedure/technic placing reliance on Rules 7 of Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules, which permit the High Court to adopt any procedure for selection of the candidates. 12. In Mahinder Kumar and Others vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 87 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “In a situation like this, where nearly 3000 candidates appeared for the written examination and the answer papers were evaluated by several District Judges, it cannot be held that there was every scope for variation in the assessment of the answers and the award of marks valued by different valuers. The High Court in exercise of its authority Under Rule 7, read along with Para 9(iv) adopted a fair procedure to normalise the marks of the candidates in order to assess their respective merits. Therefore, the expression “evaluation” used in Para 9(iv), should be held to fully empower the High Court to even resort to such a step in a case like this, where more number of District Judges evaluated the answer sheets and thereby, it required the intervention of the High Court on its administrative side, to find a fair method by which the normalisation of the marks could be worked out.” 13. The basis on which the applicability of scaling system was approved, in the judgment of Mahinder Kumar (supra), the same has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and Others, AIR 2022 SC 973 , wherein the relevant Para 36 is extracted hereunder: “It has important to note that Subhash Chandra Dixit 2003 (12) SCC 701 was decided by a Bench of two judges of this Court while Sanjay Singh (supra) and Mahinder Kumar (supra) were decided by Benches of three judge. Further, the decision in Sanjay Singh (supra) was noticed in paragraph 7 of the decision in Mahinder Kumar (supra) but Rule 7 and Para 9 (iv) of the advertisement were found sufficiently wide enough to admit adoption of a procedure by which normalization of marks could be worked out.” This Court concludes that on conjoint reading of Rule 22 with Schedule-II, Note-3 of Rules of 2019 as extracted hereinabove, it may not be held that the method of normalization has been applied in the present multi shifts examination, is dehors the Rules or contrary to law in any manner. This Court finds support to its conclusion as on the basis of analogous and similar type of Rule, the application of scaling system was approved in case of mahinder Kumar (supra) and further the same has been affirmed in case of Atul Kumar Dwivedi (supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 14. Here the counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on Rule 28 of Rules 2019, to contend that the final result ought to have been prepared on the basis of actual and raw marks obtained by candidates in the written examination, in stead of applying the process of normalization. On the strength of the procedure to prepare the merit list of selected candidates, as provided in Rule 28, their contention is that applicability of the normalization process is not permissible in the present examination. This Court does not find any force in such contention. Marks obtained in written examination and marks obtained after normalization may not be misconstrued. Even this issue, raised by petitioners, stands answered by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Singh and Another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another, (2007) 3 SCC 720 , on which counsel for petitioners themselves have placed reliance, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows: “20. We cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the words “marks awarded” or “marks obtained in the written papers” refers only to the actual marks awarded by the examiner. “Valuation” is a process which does not end on marks being awarded by an Examiner. Award of marks by the Examiner is only one stage of the process of valuation. Moderation when employed by the examining authority, becomes part of the process of valuation and the marks awarded on moderation become the final marks of the candidate. “Valuation” is a process which does not end on marks being awarded by an Examiner. Award of marks by the Examiner is only one stage of the process of valuation. Moderation when employed by the examining authority, becomes part of the process of valuation and the marks awarded on moderation become the final marks of the candidate. In fact Rule 20(3) specifically refers to the marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination, thereby implying that the marks awarded by the examiner can be altered by moderation.” 15. In recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, delivered in case of Atul Kumar Dwivedi (supra) whereupon petitioners have also placed reliance, it has been observed that expression “marks obtained by each candidate in written examination, must be understood and construed as the marks obtained by candidates after normalization technique, thus when the process of normalization has been applied, then in that situation, marks obtained in written examination would be the marks scored by the candidates after the process of normalization. 16. Contrary to the aforestated contention, the alternative argument of the counsel for petitioners is that the formula followed by respondent-Board to normalization, is bad in law as instead of applying the process of scaling the marks, a process of moderation of marks ought to have been applied to remove Hawk Dove Effect or Examiner variability. Thus, it stands clear with such an alternative argument, petitioners have not disputed the necessity of applicability of the process of normalization to the Patwari exam but has tried to dispute the technique and method used in the process of normalization. In this respect, the respondent-Board has clarified the factual situation that since the examination was conducted in four shifts with different question papers, therefore in order to eliminate the Hawk Dove Effect or Examiner variability, the necessary of adopting the process of normalization became incombent and a Committee, consisting high experts was constituted on 13.12.2021 to look into the matter. The Committee of expert thoroughly examined the scheme of examination as well as statistical analysis, suggested the formula of V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran to follow the process of normalization. It has been stated that only after the suggestion of the Expert Committee, the technique of normalization has been followed and provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022 has been prepared, after applying the technique of normalization as suggested by the Committee of Experts. It has been stated that only after the suggestion of the Expert Committee, the technique of normalization has been followed and provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022 has been prepared, after applying the technique of normalization as suggested by the Committee of Experts. It has also been stated that even thereafter, the Committee of Experts has re-looked on 07.02.2022 to its own previous report dated 31.12.2021 and has found that the applied formula was correctly used for normalization in the present recruitment examination to remove the Hawk Dove Effect or Examiner variability. 17. The reports of Expert Committee have been placed on record with additional affidavit dated 28.03.2022 which are being extracted herewith: Report of Normalization Committee dated 31.12.2021: “The members of the Committee have gone through the detailed Advertisement No. 03/2019 of Patwar Direct Recruitment Exam 2021 and pattern of examination. Since the number of candidates was large, the examination was held in four different shifts on 23rd October, 2021 and 24th October, 2021. The distribution of allotment of candidates in different shifts was approximately same as per given below in the following table. S. No. Round wise date Registered Candidates Number Candidates appeared 1 23.10.2021 Morning shift (I) 386514 252023 2 23.10.2021 Evening shift (II) 391214 257711 3 24.10.2021 Morning shift (III) 394714 266822 4 24.10.2021 Evening shift (IV) 390553 265479 Examination was conducted in four shifts and in each shift there was one compulsory paper. For each shift a separate paper was used. In each paper a set of 150 multiple choice questions were framed in which, one option was the correct answer. In each paper for every wrong answer, negative marks were awarded as per rules. Since the examination was conducted in four different shifts, therefore, the committee considered the matter of normalization or otherwise of the scores. For this various statistical measures were computed: 1. It was noted the number of non-disputed questions in Question Paper of first, second, third and fourth shifts was 147, 147, 150 and 147 respectively. Only the scores of these questions were considered for further analysis. 2. The average difficulty level of each of the four question papers. Further, standard deviations and coefficient of variations of difficulty levels of the four papers were also computed. The committee observed that difficulty levels of all the four papers are different and also the standard deviations and the coefficient of variations. 3. 2. The average difficulty level of each of the four question papers. Further, standard deviations and coefficient of variations of difficulty levels of the four papers were also computed. The committee observed that difficulty levels of all the four papers are different and also the standard deviations and the coefficient of variations. 3. In addition to the above, descriptive measures of the scores also computed and the frequency curves of scores obtained in four papers were drawn. (See Annexure-2) Conclusion: In view of the above statistical analysis, the committee recommends that there is need of scaling/normalization of the scores obtained by the candidates, as per the formula given in Annexure-1. Note: 1. While computing the various statistics measures the zero/negative scores in the papers were omitted. 2. It is recommended that no scaling of the zero/negative scores obtained to be done. At the same time there will be capping on maximum of the marks after the scaling. Formula for scaling (Annx.1) S=Mt+{Xi-Mi)/si} * st Here S= Scaled Scores of a candidate Mt= Mean of combined scores st= Standard Deviation of combined scores Xi= Raw scores of student in ith shift mi= Mean of Raw score of ith shift si= Standard Deviation of Raw Score of ith shift 18. In the additional affidavit dated 28.03.2022 filed on behalf of respondent Board, it has also been stated that on 7.2.2022, the constituted Committee again considered its own report submitted to the answering respondents in contest of Patwari Director Recruitment Examination-2021 and the Committee found that the formula was correctly applied. Report of Expert Committee dated 07.02.2022 is extracted hereunder: “The committee re-looked it report submitted to Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur in its last meeting held on 31.12.2021 in Board Office in contest of Patwar Direct Recruitment Examination 2021. The Committee in its said report, on the basis of statistical analysis of raw scores of the candidates, recommended for normalization of the raw scores and recommended the use of formula suggested by Natrajan duly approved by the High Court in its decision on 10.04.2015 and has been in use in RPSC conducted examinations wherever normalization of scores required. The Committee in its today’s meeting checked the application of the said formula of Normalization by the board, through applying in some of the case randomly provided by the board. The committee found that the formula was correctly applied. The Committee in its today’s meeting checked the application of the said formula of Normalization by the board, through applying in some of the case randomly provided by the board. The committee found that the formula was correctly applied. The committee of the meeting ended with vote of thanks. Reference: 1. Natrajan, V. and Gunasekaran, K. (1986), published by Association of Indian Universities, Delh. 2. Rajasthan High Court decision (P.12) dated 10.04.2015 in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 1695/2014, 1696/2014, 75/2015, 121/2015, 122/2015, 123/2015, 124/2015, 131/2015 and 132/2015.” 19. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a case where the method of normalization has been applied by the Board arbitrarily, without seeking assistance of the Expert Body and neither application of the process of normalization is dehors the Rules of 2019 nor is contrary to law. 20. As far as the formula suggested and used for normalization is concerned, Respondent-Board has clarified the situation that when the examination was conducted in four shifts with different question papers, in order to eliminate the Hawk Dove Effect or examiner variability, the requirement for adopting the method of normalization became necessary to be applied to prepare the final result. Hence, office order dated 13.12.2021 was published by the Board that since Patwari Direct Recruitment Examination-2021 has been conducted in four shifts, the result shall be declared after application of normalization process. On 13.12.2021, a Committee was constituted consisting of high experts to look into the matter and as per the report of Expert Committee, the formula suggested by the experts was adopted for normalization. The Committee has suggested the well known and previously utilized formula, as suggested by V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran. In various examinations, the normalization has been done after following the said formula and upheld by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, for example in Jai Singh’ case (Supra). 21. In case of Jai Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2011) 2 WLC 46, the Division Bench approved the applicability of the scaling system, which was done by applying the formula V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran and by placing reliance on the judgment of U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit and Another, (2003) 12 SCC 701 , the Court observed as under: “44. In fact this Court in U.P. Public Services Commission vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit and Others, AIR 2004 SC 163 , has found the scaling method to be fair since it seeks to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners. This Court has observed: “There is a vast percentage difference in awarding of marks between each set of examiners and this was sought to be minimized by applying the scaling formula. If scaling method had not been used, only those candidates whose answer sheets were examined by liberal examiners alone would get selected and the candidates whose answer sheets were examined by strict examiners would be completely excluded, though the standard of their answers may be to some extent similar. The scaling system was adopted with a view to eliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of the examiners. 26. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra), the scaling resorted to consider the reference of the variation was appropriate so as to arrive at just result. It is not in dispute that in the RAS Examination and Subordinate Service Examination, the method of scaling had been resorted to with effect from 1993. In Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal (supra), this Court has upheld the action of the Commission in similar set of facts and the Apex court dismissed the SLP in limine. 27. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Ramesh Chandra Pilwal (supra) also, this Court relying upon the decision in Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal (supra) approved the method of scaling. Thus consistently, this Court has approved the method of scaling in RAS Examination held by the Commission. Decision of this Court in Dhanpat Mali vs. RPSC and Others alongwith other writ applications decided vide order dated 27.10.2009 is in respect of RJS Rules, 2005 wherein the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) is squarely attracted as the question papers were similar to all the candidates. Whereas the scaling resorted to was held to be permissible considering large number of optional subjects available in the RAS and Subordinate Service Examination in question. Ratio of the decision in Ramesh Chandra Pilwal (supra) cannot be applied in the instant case. This Court has taken note of common post and also the fact that optional subjects were not available in Rajasthan Judicial Service examination. Ratio of the decision in Ramesh Chandra Pilwal (supra) cannot be applied in the instant case. This Court has taken note of common post and also the fact that optional subjects were not available in Rajasthan Judicial Service examination. Thus, the ratio in the aforesaid case has different field to operate. 28. The Apex Court, in Sadananda Halo and Others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 619 , has held that validity of recruitment could not be judged on the basis of microscopic details. It was also not proper to get sample survey of successful/unsuccessful candidates done through judicial officers. The court has to decide on the basis of pleadings of the parties. A roving enquiry cannot be made by this Court. 29. When we consider the submission raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that absurd results have been caused due to application of the scaling method, chart which has been placed for consideration, indicates that the person who has obtained less than the average marks had been awarded marks in proportion and the person who has obtained higher marks, his marks had been reduced by applying the scaling method. There is consistency in the method of scaling which has been resorted to. The Committee which was appointed by this Court has also found on fact that the formula of scaling used is correct and the same scaling has been applied for each subject Same scaling has been applied for each examiner. No calculation-mistake was found while operating formula. 30. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Expert Committee appointed by this Court and even otherwise the petitioners counsel were unable to indicate that the formula was wrongly applied so as to give undue benefit even to a single candidate. Their main thrust of argument was that the scaling formula could not have been applied which we have found to be merit less. Certain observations have been made by the Committee for future guidance of the Commission which has also been observed by the Apex Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) that scaling formula has to be further studied and applied to the fact inappropriate manner. There has to be continuous study. 34. The submission raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that variation has been caused in ranking of selected candidates which has produced absurd results. There has to be continuous study. 34. The submission raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that variation has been caused in ranking of selected candidates which has produced absurd results. We have carefully gone through the formula and find that it has been uniformly applied and it cannot be said that it has produced absurd results, rather it worked out the average mean of all the subjects. Standard deviation of all the subjects to do so was necessary considering the optional subjects and papers and large number of examiners. It could not be said that moderation ought to have been applied for examiners variation whereas scaling for subjects variations. In our opinion, the scaling method has rightly been applied by the Commission after obtaining experts opinion. In compulsory papers, examiner-wise scaling has been done and not subject-wise. Where there was only one examiner in optional subjects, examiner-wise scaling has not been done. It has been resorted to where there was more than one examiner in optional papers and subject-wise scaling of the optional papers has been done which is permissible. 35. The object to be achieved was to bring all the candidates opting optional subjects to a common score. Object is not to test the subject proficiency of the candidate, but is to observe genera liability of a candidate. Thus, the scaling has been applied uniformly in optional subjects, without any deviation. 39. In our opinion, scaling method is not ousted by operation of the Rules though scaling is not provided under the Rule, at the same time in order to arrive at just result, the Commission can evolve any appropriate method or formula as laid down by the Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 1 . The Apex Court held that Commission which has been constituted in terms of the provision made in Constitution of India is bound to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State in terms of the Rules framed by the State. However, it is free to evolve procedure for conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, it cannot completely shut its eyes to the constitutional requirements. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. However, it is free to evolve procedure for conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play, it cannot completely shut its eyes to the constitutional requirements. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. The Apex Court has laid down thus: “25. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S. Jafeer Saheb. Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The correctness of the said decision, as noticed hereinbefore, is not in question having attained finality. The matter, however, would be different if the said rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefor. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. Petitioners have referred the judgment of Jairuddin Shaik (supra), where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh declined to issue a direction to the recruitment agency to follow the normalization principle. On facts of that case, the High Court noticed that a specific procedure for valuation of marks is prescribed in advertisement itself by G.O.Ms. No. 67 dated 26.10.2018. The petitioners never challenged the prescribed clause. Therefore, such judgment does not render any help to petitioners. On the contrary, in this judgment, the Court placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of High Court delivered in case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Ramesh Chandra Pilwal, 1997 (2) RLW 1348 (Raj.) and the Court held as under: The Rajasthan High Court explained the Principle of Normalization in detail. On the contrary, in this judgment, the Court placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of High Court delivered in case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Ramesh Chandra Pilwal, 1997 (2) RLW 1348 (Raj.) and the Court held as under: The Rajasthan High Court explained the Principle of Normalization in detail. Paragraph No. 18 of the judgment and the questions framed therein are relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue as adjudication of technique of Normalization and Moderation in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission when the scheme has already been approved by Division bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The Rajasthan High Court held that, The concept of moderation/normalisation and scaling has been explained in the Book Scaling-Techniques-What, Why and How written by V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran, wherein the authors have expressed the view that the traditional system of examinations has been criticised equally by teachers, administrators, students and the public, with the result reforms have been introduced in the system of examination. Through the book, an attempt has been made to introduce a procedure for scaling to deal with such misconceptions of marks and self-tradition of marks reporting. In India the scaling technique has been adopted for the first time by the Guwahati University in 1963 by Dr. H.J. Tailor, the then Vice-Chancellor. This system has been introduced whenever and wherever the situation so warrants. If different sets of marks are to be added and/or to be compared, they need to be scaled to a common standard where such standard is lacking. The matter of scaling can be applied to mass-conducted public examinations whose results matter to thousand of students. The word scaling means the adjustment of marks to a common standard. It gives a better result where scripts are randomised, though, it has been mentioned in the book that this technique of sea-line has been shown to be practicable in a major examination covering more than 33000 candidates. But, this figure was only an illustration. It does not give any reason for fixing this cut of figure of 33000. Traditional concept of scaling and various methods of scaling allowing the scientific procedure to be adopted is contained in the said book. But, this figure was only an illustration. It does not give any reason for fixing this cut of figure of 33000. Traditional concept of scaling and various methods of scaling allowing the scientific procedure to be adopted is contained in the said book. Though, the Union Public Service Commission has adopted this technique since long but the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has adopted it for the first time in the year 1993 which was challenged before a Division Bench in the case of Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal (supra). The High Court while considering the application of that technique has expressed the view that if large number of candidates had taken various optional papers with different standards and different varieties of scorabilities the need of moderation/standardisation became a must. The concept of moderation and normalisation has already been considered and accepted in the case of Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 (1) RLR 533 . Reference was made to the judgment The Supreme Court in Surjit Kumar Dass vs. Chairman, U.P.S.C. Special Leave Petitions No. 14000 and 15251 of 1986, decided on 11.3.1987 held as follows: Thus we hold that: (1) The writ petition was not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation. (2) Allegations of bias and favoritism have not been established. (3) The Chairman has committed no illegality in applying the technique of moderation in the examination. (4) The learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the technique of moderation could be made applicable only in those examination where the number, of candidates, is 33000 or more. (5) The scrutiny regarding the application of the technique of moderation is beyond the power of judicial review of the High Court as the decision has been taken by an expert body conducting the examination, more so when it has been done by a Constitutional Authority against which no mala-fide could be established.” (Emphasis supplied) 23. Having noticed above factual and legal situation, this Court finds that this is not a case where the Board has applied the technique of normalization by its own and without seeking assistance of Expert Committee. The Board acted on the basis of technique of normalization as suggested by the Expert Committee and its within the arena of the Expert Committee, to judge the technique/formula required to apply for the purpose of normalization considering the scheme of examination. The Board acted on the basis of technique of normalization as suggested by the Expert Committee and its within the arena of the Expert Committee, to judge the technique/formula required to apply for the purpose of normalization considering the scheme of examination. The report of Expert Committee, stipulates that a well known and well used formula as suggested by the V. Natarajan and K. Gunasekaran, has been applied, which has been used in various other similar type of examinations and has been upheld by the High Courts. Reference of judgments of High Court, delivered in various cases have been given. One of the case is Jai Singh’s case (supra). 24. It may be noticed that the report of Expert Committee is not under challenge nor this Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, can not act and sit as an appellate court, on the decision taken by the Expert Committee. Such principle has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union Public Service Commission vs. M. Sathiya Priya and Others, (2018) 15 SCC 796 and Dr. Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 , the Court held that: “the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala-fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, in Amit Kumar vs. M.P. Public Service Commission Writ Petition No. 12314/2018 dated 25.06.2018 the candidates should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The Courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” In view of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the formula applied by the Board for the process of normalization according to the advice and suggestion of the Expert Committee. 25. Coming to the case of petitioners that because of a big variance in the selection of percentage of candidates between the first shift and fourth shift, petitioners who appeared in fourth shift have been placed under hostile discrimination, this Court finds that the respondent-Board applied the process of normalization in all bona fides and with fairness, after seeking assistance of the Committee of Experts. The formula for scaling has been applied uniformally with all candidates of four shifts, therefore it is not correct to say that variation in result has caused because of applying such formula for normalization. There seems no arbitrariness or discrimination on the part of Board on this count. Thus, even if any variance has occurred, for that reason, the process of normalization cannot be presumed to be faulted. This principle has been set out in Jai Singh’s case (supra). It is not in dispute that 30% reservation available to candidates of women category and maximum number of female candidates were accommodated in the first and second shifts on 23.10.2021, due to the religious festival “Karva Chouth” on next date i.e. 24.10.2021. That was done incidentally and randomly. Therefore, variance of selected candidates in the first shift, in comparison to the fourth shift is obvious. Further the respondent-Board, in the additional affidavit has clarified the factual scenario in following words: “That it is advertently denied that the first batch of the examination had the participation of 85%-90% of female candidates. Near about more than 15 lakhs candidates applied for the Patwar direct recruitment examination. In all the four shifts allotment of candidates was near about equal. In first shift there were 3,86,514 candidates out of which near about 43.02% were Male and 56.97% were Female, if this proportion is being taken on to the appeared candidates it comes to 42.84% and 57:15%. So by this it becomes very clear that allegation levelled is baseless allegation. The Female (except the candidate of Dholpur and Alwar) were allocated the shift of 23.10.2021 sympathetically on account of Karva Chauth. That the exception regarding the district Dholpur and Alwar were made due to the elections of local bodies over there so as per law it was compulsion upon the examination conducting authority to make alternative arrangements. Therefore, all the candidates of Dholpur and Alwar were allotted examination Shifts of 24.10.2021. That there has been no mala-fide or arbitrary allocation by the humble answering respondents as it is clear that the allocation was done in near about equal number of the candidates. The allegation regarding the decrease in the result of Shift IV has been made. The base regarding this allegation was that the first Shift from where the maximum numbers of candidates were selected, in that Shift 85%-90% female candidate appeared. The allegation regarding the decrease in the result of Shift IV has been made. The base regarding this allegation was that the first Shift from where the maximum numbers of candidates were selected, in that Shift 85%-90% female candidate appeared. The selection percentage of second shift is lesser than the selection percentage of the I Shift. Though more female candidates appeared in the second Shift in comparison to the first Shift. That the actual selection percentages of all Shifts are: (i) 33.9, (ii) 30.3, (iii) 22.17, (iv) 13.89. The datas of the percentage given in the Writ Petition are not proper. That variation between the results of I Shift and the IV Shift is just because of the difficulty level of the question paper of the examination. A big downfall in the selection percentage is seen within the third and the fourth Shift. It is pertinent to mention that these both Shifts were having near about 95% to 96% male candidates. Thus, it is clear from above analogy that it is only the difficulty level of the question paper which played role in the difference in selection percentage from each shift. The normalization is done to provide equalise the difficulty level for each candidate in condition of examiner variable to avoid the Hawk-Dove affect. That while assessing the difficulty level of the question paper in every Shift every candidate's Raw marks along with other data are being assessed thereafter a comparative chart is being prepared for every Shift and after deep intensive calculations the difficulty level is assessed for each paper. That in the additional affidavit by the petitioners, deductions and the additions of the marks has been described. Here it is pertinent to mention that the deduction and addition of the marks is just because of the difficulty level of the question paper. That there has been no allegation regarding any malafidness, unfairness or arbitrary manner in allotment of the Shifts except one that most of the Women candidates have been allotted the Shifts of 23.10.2021. The allocation of the Shifts was made as per alphabetical order which amounts to random allocation. There has been transparency in every allocation. This allocation cannot be said to a basis allocation in any manner. The allocation of the Shifts was made as per alphabetical order which amounts to random allocation. There has been transparency in every allocation. This allocation cannot be said to a basis allocation in any manner. The allocation of Women was due to sympathetical and reasonable cause which cannot be named to any malafide cause, even in that the allocation was done as per the alphabetical order. That answering Respondent is under constitutional obligation to conduct fair and transparent recruitment process for public posts. In the present case, the answering Respondent has attempted to conduct the process in fair and impartial manner. The natural consequence for any recruitment process is selection of few candidates and ouster of remaining from the zone of consideration. The answering respondent cannot satisfy the demands of each and every candidate, rather as per the constitutional obligation, the answering Respondent is required to adopt impartial, fair, transparent and reasonable procedure.” 26. After the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds that the case of petitioners to face hostile discrimination is not proved merely on account of variance between the selected candidates in first shift and fourth shift. The allocation of candidates in fourth shift were made alphabetically, except for the candidates from two districts namely, Alwar and Dholpur, due to Panchayat Elections in such districts and adjustment of female candidates with their alphabetical name on 23.10.2021 is incidental, because of a religious festival of women “Karva Choudh” on 24.10.2021. There seems no arbitrariness or irregularity on the part of the Board neither for allocation of candidates in fourth shift nor for applying the method/technique of normalization as suggested by the Expert Committee and same has been applied uniformly therefore, the final merit list prepared by the Board may not be declared as faulty. Merely because petitioners have not been declared successful, who appeared in the fourth shifts and the result of fourth shift remain lower in percentage than the result of first shift or other shifts, the final result may not be quashed. Thus, the case of hostile discrimination of petitioners is not proved and not acceptable. 27. Merely because petitioners have not been declared successful, who appeared in the fourth shifts and the result of fourth shift remain lower in percentage than the result of first shift or other shifts, the final result may not be quashed. Thus, the case of hostile discrimination of petitioners is not proved and not acceptable. 27. Therefore, on discussion of factual and legal aspect, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a case where ex post facto application of normalization process is arbitrary and dehors the Rules of 2019 or contrary to law rather it has transpired that the respondent-Board followed the method/technique of normalization uniformly and according to suggestion of the Committee of high experts, which is neither contrary nor impermissible in law. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in negative, against petitioners. Point No. II 28. As far as scope of judicial review in respect of applying the method of normalization by the Board to equalize the difficultly level of examination and to provide similar level playing field to all candidates, where undisputedly examination was conducted in four different shifts with different question papers, the issue has extensively been discussed in catena of Judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Recently in case of Atul Kumar Dwivedi (supra) placing reliance on the earlier line on decisions in case of Subhash Chandra Dixit (supra), Sanjay Singh (supra) and Mahinder Kumar (supra) and Sunil Kumar (supra), it has been held that where there is no lack of bona fide or the allegation of mala-fides against the recruitment agency to adopt the normalization process, the same should not be interfered lightly by a writ court. The relevant portion of the judgment of Atul Kumar Dwivedi (supra) reads as under: “In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board and adopting the process of normalization at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by the High Court there were no allegations of mala-fides or absence of bona fide at any juncture of the process. The power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by the High Court there were no allegations of mala-fides or absence of bona fide at any juncture of the process. One more facet of the matter is the note of caution expressed by this Court in paragraph 20 of its decision in Sunil Kumar and Others vs. Bihar Public Service Commission and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 495 . As observed by this Court, the decisions made by the expert bodies, including the Public Service Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala-fide exercise of power are made out.” 29. On facts of the present case, respondent-Board has clarified that the distribution of candidates in four batches was made alphabetically according to their name and the method of normalization was applied uniformly and according to the advice of the Expert Committee. It has already been discussed that scope of judicial review is not to act like an appellate authority over the decisions of Board and over the report of Expert Committee. The court must have maintain its constraints and limitations in academic matters. As held by the Apex Court in case of M. Sathiya Priya (Supra) and Dr. Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (supra). 30. The report of Expert Committee is not under challenge and merely on account of fact that the ratio of result of candidates appeared in fourth shift remain lower to the ratio of selected candidates appeared in first shift and other two shifts, it may not be assumed that the respondents-Board acted malafiledly in applying the method/technique of normalization to prepare the merit list. Except showing the variance in ratio of successful candidates between the first batch and fourth batch, no other kind of allegation of mala-fide or lack of bona fide have been attributed by petitioners neither against Expert Committee nor against the Board. Issue of bona fide discrimination has also been discussed in forgoing paragraph and decided against petitioners. Hence, this Court does not find any mala-fide or lack of bona fide or unfairness on the part of Board in preparing the result. The respondents have not violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in preparing the final result. Thus, within scope of judicial review, no interference in the final result is warranted. Accordingly, the Point No. II is decided against petitioners. The respondents have not violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in preparing the final result. Thus, within scope of judicial review, no interference in the final result is warranted. Accordingly, the Point No. II is decided against petitioners. 31. Admittedly, petitioners are candidates who appeared in the Patwari Examination-2021 in fourth and last shift in evening on 24.10.2021 and after declaration of the provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022, prepared by the Board following the formula/method of normalization as advised by the Expert Committee, when they could not find place their role numbers in the provisional merit list, challenged the provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022 on the ground that application of the formula/method of normalization has resulted into hostile discrimination with the candidates of fourth shift and the same is dehors to the Rules of 2019, as such arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court has reached to the conclusion that the Board has applied the process of normalization uniformly and that too after seeking assistance of the Expert Committee, which is neither dehors to the Rules of 2019 nor arbitrary and mala-fide and there is no violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India on the part of Board in preparing the final result. 32. Therefore, for the discussions and reasons made hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to quash and upset the provisional merit list dated 25.01.2022 and the final merit list dated 27.05.2022. It has also been noticed that pursuant to the final selection list, appointment to selected candidates have been given and it has been informed that only few appointments on the unfilled posts from the waiting list are to be made. The respondent-Board may proceed to operate the waiting list. 33. As a result, all writ petitions failed and are hereby dismissed. 34. Stay applications and any other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.