No rules of the game were changed after the selection process had started = As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules of the game were changed after the selection process had started, we are of the considered view that this is not the case as far as the present case is concerned. There were no minimum marks provided for Paper III in the advertisement. This could be done by the moderation committee even at a later stage. This is not a change brought about but an additional aspect brought in while determining the merit of the candidates who are found fit to be eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9441 OF 2019
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14926 OF 2017)
JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION   …PETITIONER(S)
Versus
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.                …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9442 OF 2019
    (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31106 OF 2017)
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) issued an
advertisement   on   19.07.2006   inviting   applications   from
candidates desirous of competing in the Jharkhand Eligibility
Test (JET).  This test is not meant for selection to any post but is
conducted   to   determine   the   eligibility   of   the   candidates   for
appointment as lecturers in universities and colleges of the State
1
of Jharkhand.   This test called the State Level Eligibility Test
(SLET)   is   conducted   as   per   the   guidelines   laid   down   by   the
University Grants Commission (UGC).
2. The test consists of three papers – the first two papers are
multiple choice questions to be answered on an Optical Mark
Reader (OMR).  One test is of a general subject and one test is of
the subject for which the candidate applies.  The third paper is a
descriptive  type question  paper dealing  only  with  the  subject
selected by the candidate.  Relevant portion of the advertisement
reads as follows:
“A candidate who does not appear in Paper­I will
not   be   permitted   to   appear   in   Paper­II   and
Paper­III.   Paper­III will be evaluated only for
those   candidates   who   are   able   to   secure   the
minimum   qualifying   marks   in   Paper­I   and
Paper­II as per the table given in the following:­
CATEGORY MINIMUM QUALIFYING MARKS
PAPER­I PAPER­II PAPER­I 
+
PAPER­II
GENERAL/OBC 40 40 100 (50%)
PH/VH 35 35 90 (45%)
SC/ST 35 35 80 (40%)
2
3. The writ petitioner obtained 50% marks in Papers I and II
but he did not do as well in Paper III.  The JPSC fixed a cut off
percentage of 60 for Paper III which the writ petitioner did not
attain and as such he was declared not successful and, therefore,
ineligible to be considered for appointment as lecturer.
4. Aggrieved by the said action, the writ petitioner filed a writ
petition before the High Court which allowed the same.   The
appeal filed by the JPSC before the writ court was also allowed
mainly on the ground that the Public Service Commission could
not have fixed qualifying marks of 60% and this amounted to
changing the rules of the game after the advertisement had been
issued and process of selection had started.  It held that once the
candidate had obtained 50% marks, the candidate could not be
disqualified and the JPSC was not bound by the instructions of
the UGC in this regard.  The High Court also directed that the
case of the writ petitioner would be considered on the basis of
performance.   The High Court held that no cut off marks had
been provided for Paper III.
3
5. We have heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the JPSE who drew our attention to the scheme
framed by the UGC for the SLET.  The scheme has a provision for
constitution   of   a   moderation   committee   which   will   help   in
deciding   the   cut   off   marks   in   each   subject   for   declaring   the
result.  The relevant portion of the scheme reads as follows:
“Moderation Committee: The committee will help in
deciding   the   cut­off   marks   in   each   subject   for
declaring the result.   The Committee will consist of
the following:
1. Chairman of Steering/Advisory Committee.
2. State Government Representatives.
3. Two Professors of the different State Universities
in rotation.
4. One Professor from outside the State.
5. Member Secretary (State agency)
6. One nominee of the U­CAT out of two nominated
by UGC.
7. Member Secretary, (UGC Official) U­CAT, UGC.”
Mr.   Sunil   Kumar   contends   that   the   moderation   committee,
keeping in view the various factors, decides what should be the
cut off  marks in  each subject and  this  does not  have  to  be
decided at the stage of issuance of advertisement.  On the other
hand, Shri Abhishek Vikas, learned counsel appearing for the
original writ petitioner, submits that the advertisement does not
4
envisage any minimum cut­off marks for Paper III.   He further
submits that this is only an eligibility test and the field of choice
becomes larger if more people are held eligible.  Both sides have
challenged the judgment of the High Court and we are deciding
both the appeals by this common judgment. 
6. A perusal of Clause 4.1 of the scheme clearly indicates that
the   moderation   committee   has   been   constituted   only   for   the
purpose   of   deciding   the   cut­off   marks   in   each   subject   for
declaring the result.   The advertisement clearly indicates that
only those candidates who obtained 50% marks in Paper I and II
would be eligible to take the test in Paper III.   The minimum
qualifying marks in case of General/OBC candidates was 50%.
At this stage, there was no need to fix the qualifying marks for
Paper   III.     That   need   will   arise   only   when   the   moderation
committee   meets   and   decides   what   should   be   the   level   of
competence expected from the people who are to be considered
for appointment as Lecturers.  It is for the moderation committee
to decide what should be the cut­off marks.  There could be the
subject where all the people who qualified Paper I and II get very
low marks in Paper III and the moderation committee may be
5
justified   in   lowering   the   standards   and   prescribing   lower
qualifying standards.  On the other hand, there may be a subject
where   there   are   many   candidates   who   do   extremely   well   in
Paper   III   and   the   moderation   committee   may   decide   to   fix   a
higher minimum standard.   The constitution of a moderation
committee is normally done only to do this sort of moderation. 
7. As far as the finding of the High Court that the rules of the
game were changed after the selection process had started, we
are of the considered view that this is not the case as far as the
present   case   is   concerned.     There   were   no   minimum   marks
provided for Paper III in the advertisement.  This could be done
by the moderation committee even at a later stage.  This is not a
change brought about but an additional aspect brought in while
determining the merit of the candidates who are found fit to be
eligible for consideration for appointment of Lecturers.
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
the High Court erred in holding that the JPSC could not fix the
minimum marks for Paper III.  Hence, we set aside the judgment
of the High Court dated 09.11.2016.  The Civil Appeal No. 9441
6
of 2019 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14926 of 2017 filed by
the Jharkhand Public Service Commission is allowed and C.A.
No. 9442 of 2019 @Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31106 of
2017 filed by the other side (writ petitioner) is dismissed.
……….………………J.
(L. Nageswara Rao)
……………………….J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi,
December 18, 2019
7