Number of candidates was not quite large. 4270 in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit, (2003) 12 SCC 70. 51524 and 5748 in preliminary and main examinations respectively in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, (2007) 3 SCC 720. 3000 in Mahinder Kumar v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 87. Subhash Chandra Dixit was decided by a Bench of Two-Judges. Sanjay Singh and Mahinder Kumar were decided by a Bench of Three-Judges. Further, these decisions dealt with a ‘single examination’.

We are however concerned with a dimension which had not been considered earlier, namely variability on account of fact, candidates were tested on different dates over 12 days through different sets of question papers. Thus, though subjects were same, question papers would necessarily be different in terms of quality and approach. In such a situation, ‘scaling of marks’ had to be adopted as correct approach.

As found by this Court in Sunil Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2016) 2 SCC 495 decision in Sanjay Singh cannot be said to have laid down an inflexible rule: ‘scaling of marks’ can never be adopted.

By nature of empowerment and backdrop of conducting an examination for more than 6,00,000 candidates, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow was entitled to adopt process of ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’. Given facts and circumstances, process of ‘scaling of marks’ or ‘normalization’ was inevitable in instant matter and was necessarily required to be undertaken.

– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, State of U.P. v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, [Civil Appeal No. 228 of 2022].