AT NAINITAL vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that scaling is a method employed to ensure equality in the distribution of marks, keeping in view the different optional subjects and the level of difficulty in attempting such questions. He would contend that the Regulations-2022, which have statutory force, expressly provide for the application of scaling method, and Regulation 22 of the Regulations-2022 authorizes the Commission to amend the Regulations from time to time. It is submitted that no such amendment has ever been made, and instead, the Commission has merely taken an administrative decision on 08.01.2025, which is arbitrary. It is argued that even before issuance of the advertisement, the Commission concluded that there would be a ‘potentially low number of candidates’. It is argued that how the Commission could anticipate the number of candidates for an examination for which the advertisement had not yet been published. Moreover, it is urged that an administrative decision cannot supersede the Regulations and the Regulations could have been amended as per Regulation 22 of Regulations-2022.

9. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that on 08.01.2025, the Commission took a decision that, keeping in view the potentially low number of candidates in the optional subjects, the scaling method shall not be applied.

10. The issue is quite simple. Under the Act, the Commission has framed the Regulations-2022, which provides the application of scaling method examination involving optional subjects. It is an admitted position that the examination in question includes optional subjects.

11. Regulation 22 of the Regulations-2022 empowers the Commission to amend the Regulations from time to time. Admittedly, no amendment has been made to the Regulations, which expressly provide for application of the scaling method in examinations involving optional subjects. The decision dated 08.01.2025, taken on the administrative side, which is much prior to the issuance of advertisement and the decision is based “keeping in view the fact that low number of candidates would apply”. The decision dated 08.01.2025 of the respondent-Commission cannot be upheld for the following reasons:- (i) The decision is contrary to Regulations-2022 which have been enacted under the statutory authority by the Commission itself. (ii) An administrative decision cannot override the mandate of the Regulations-2022. (iii) On 08.01.2025, the Commission did not have any prospective number of candidates, which could have compelled the Commission to take a decision for non-application of scaling method. There is no material placed on record, which could justify the beginning line of the resolution dated 08.01.2025, where it is written that ‘in view of the potentially low number of candidates in the optional subject’,

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

13. The writ petition is allowed.

14. The decision the Commission dated

08.01.2025, whereby it was decided that the method of scaling could not be applicable in the preparation of the main examination is hereby quashed.

15. Similarly, Clause 18 under the heading Very Important Instructions, Clause 17(c)(12) under the heading Important instructions and Clause 18(22) under the heading General Instructions of the Advertisement dated

30.01.2025 are hereby quashed.

16. The Commission is directed issue a corrigendum categorically informing all candidates that the scaling method shall be applied in the mains examination of the Combined Examination in accordance with the Regulation-2022. (Alok Mahra, J.) 26.11.2025 Mamta (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

26.11.2025