-
by Admin
05 December 2025 12:07 PM
“Without scaling, candidates from difficult optional subjects would be left behind—scaling is not an exception, but a necessity for fairness,” In a landmark judgment reinforcing the legitimacy of statistical scaling in public recruitment examinations, the Rajasthan High Court on 21 November 2025 upheld the Rajasthan Public Service Commission’s (RPSC) decision to apply scaling to the evaluation of optional papers in the Assistant Conservator of Forests and Forest Range Officer Grade-I recruitment exams.
Delivering its verdict in Ashish Kumar Sharma v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and connected appeals [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 232/2024 and others], a Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu dismissed the challenge to the RPSC’s application of scaling, finding it scientifically rational, legally sustainable, and procedurally fair.
“The method of scaling adopted was neither arbitrary nor absurd—rather, it was essential to neutralize the uneven terrain of optional subjects” – Rajasthan High Court
The central question before the Court was whether the RPSC acted legally and reasonably in applying scaling of marks to optional subjects in the written examination held for Forest Services posts in 2021. The appellants—unsuccessful candidates—alleged that the application of the scaling formula resulted in “absurd and arbitrary” marks, whereby candidates with low raw scores were “unjustly” elevated through scaled scores.
However, the High Court rejected this contention outright, holding:
“Scaling ensures comparability and normalization of marks across subjects of differing levels of difficulty—a step essential to maintain fairness in a multi-subject examination.” [Para 36]
The Court affirmed that statistical disparities across the 20 optional subjects—such as a mean score of 96.45 in Environmental Science versus 25.38 in Statistics—necessitated the use of scaling to avoid inequity in merit evaluation.
“The absence of express provision does not oust the Commission’s implicit authority to apply scaling” – Rules do not bar normalization
One of the core arguments raised by the petitioners was that neither the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 nor the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 explicitly authorized the use of scaling, and thus its application was ultra vires.
The Bench rejected this argument, observing:
“Although the scaling is not provided under the Rules, it is not ousted either… the Commission is entitled to adopt a fair procedure for comparison of inter se merit.” [Para 34]
It further held that the term “marks obtained” as used in Rules 24 and 29 must be construed to include scaled marks, and not just raw scores, in line with precedents such as State of U.P. v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi (2022 INSC 24).
“Sanjay Singh case misunderstood—Scaling upheld for optional papers” – Petitioners’ reliance misplaced
The appellants relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanjay Singh v. UPPSC [(2007) 3 SCC 720], arguing that the case rendered scaling impermissible. The Division Bench clarified that the Sanjay Singh judgment was misunderstood, and in fact, endorses scaling in examinations involving optional subjects:
“The reliance on Sanjay Singh is misconceived… the Supreme Court recognized that scaling is a recognised method to ensure uniformity inter se among candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects.” [Para 15]
The Court noted that Sanjay Singh dealt with compulsory subjects only, whereas in the present case, candidates chose from twenty optional subjects, which varied in difficulty. Therefore, the principle of subject heterogeneity made scaling both appropriate and necessary.
“Scaling is a tool to uphold Article 14, not violate it” – High Court finds no breach of constitutional equality
Rejecting the argument that scaling violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Court held:
“Without such normalization, the assessment process would suffer from inherent inequality and arbitrariness, thereby offending the equality mandate under Article 14.” [Para 30]
The Court further stated that treating unequals equally—i.e., evaluating raw scores of subjects with widely different difficulty indices on the same scale—would itself be a violation of constitutional fairness.
“Stare decisis and settled law bind this Court—consistent application of scaling upheld since 1993”
In affirming the legality of the RPSC’s methodology, the Court strongly emphasized judicial consistency, citing earlier Division Bench rulings in:
The Court reiterated:
“We do not find any change in law or circumstances that would justify a departure from the consistent judicial view—judicial discipline requires adherence to precedent.” [Para 38]
Expert committee findings and statistical data support rational decision-making
Importantly, the Court found that RPSC’s decision was not made in haste or arbitrariness. A Special Expert Committee, constituted by the Commission, analysed detailed statistical data, including:
The scaling formula applied was:
Scaled Marks = M + (Xi – μi) * σ / σi
Where:
The Bench held that this process demonstrated due application of mind, and the RPSC's technical discretion in conducting exams ought not be interfered with judicially, absent arbitrariness or mala fides.
Scaling is a judicially approved tool to ensure fairness in competitive examinations
The Rajasthan High Court’s judgment reaffirms a well-established legal position: when candidates are tested in optional subjects, scaling is not just permissible, but often imperative to ensure a fair and just merit assessment.
The Court conclusively held:
“The scaling methodology is legally sustainable, scientifically rational, and procedurally fair… the process was evolved after due deliberation, expert consultation, and was applied uniformly to all candidates.” [Para 40]
With this, the Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the Single Judge’s decision and RPSC’s recruitment process.
Date of Decision: 21 November 2025
