Normalization of marks in multi-shift examinations is a valid standard procedure immune from judicial interference.

The petitioner appeared for the Middle School Teacher Eligibility Test – 2018 and sought a direction to the respondents to record his marks as 75 instead of the awarded 74.73

Consequently, he sought appointment to the post of Guest Faculty Teacher Verg II

The respondent No. 2 (Professional Examination Board/VYAPAM) contended that the examination was conducted in multi-shifts, necessitating the "normalization" of marks as per Clause 2.13 (b) of the rule book to ensure parity

This petition was heard alongside and decided based on the precedent set in Lakhan Singh v. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 3826/2018), which addressed identical grievances regarding score changes post-normalization

1. Whether the process of normalization of marks in a multi-shift recruitment examination is legally valid and standardized

2. Whether the Court can interfere with the final scores calculated by the examining body through a specialized normalization formula

The Court primarily applied Clause 2.13 (b) of the examination rule book, which mandates the normalization of marks for multi-shift examinations

It relied on the precedent Manoj Choudhary & Others v. Home Department (Police) & Others (W.P. No. 8083/2016), which established that normalization is a standard, globally accepted practice used by institutions like IITs and IIMs to adjust for varying difficulty levels across different sessions

The Court noted that the petitioner’s final score of 74.73 was a product of the normalization process, which is necessary when an examination is conducted over multiple shifts with different question sets

Referencing an exhaustive report by the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Indore, the Court observed that the Professional Examination Board's normalization formula was scientifically vetted and found to be free of defects

The Court reasoned that since an expert body had already rejected objections to the model answers and a premier management institute had validated the normalization methodology, there was no ground for judicial interference

Furthermore, as the petitioner failed to rebut the technical grounds mentioned in the respondents' reply via a rejoinder, the calculations provided by the Board were deemed correct

It held that the normalization process is a standard procedure that does not warrant interference if conducted as per the established rule book and expert-validated formulas

The petitioner's prayer to manually adjust his marks from 74.73 to 75 was denied, and the relief for appointment was consequently refused