State of Karnataka & ANR Vs. M.
Farida & Ors [1976] INSC 191 (23 August 1976)
GUPTA, A.C.
GUPTA, A.C.
RAY, A.N. (CJ) BHAGWATI, P.N.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION: 1976 AIR 2482 1977 SCR (1) 323 1976
SCC (4) 153
ACT:
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted
Probationers (Class I and II Posts appointment by competitive Examination)
Rules 1966--Rule 9 read with Part IV of Schedule II--Scope of--Awarding block
marks in interview--if violative of the rule.
HEADNOTE:
Rule 9 of the Karnataka Recruitment of
Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Posts appointment by Competitive
Examinations) Rules, 1966, Prescribes a written examination for selection of
candidates for the service followed by a personality test. The qualities to be
judged at the time of viva voce, stipulated in Part IV of Schedule II to the
rules are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical
exposition etc.
In their writ petitions before the High Court
the respondents, who were the unsuccessful candidates in the selections,
impugned the personality test on the ground that the Selection Committee did
not award separate marks for each of the _seven qualities required to be judged
in the candidates at the test. Following the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan
& Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. the High Court allowed the
petitions and directed the Service Commission to hold a fresh personality test.
On the question whether r. 9 read with Part
IV of Schedule 1I required the Selection Committee to award separate marks for
the seven qualities:
Allowing the States appeal,
HELD: (1) It would not be correct to assume
as a general proposition that in every case where the interviewing body is
asked to take into consideration several specified qualities. they must be of
equal value and separate marks should be allotted under each head. Where the
rules do not contain a clear direction, it would be reasonable to suppose that
the intention is that there should be a block assessment on an integrated test.
[327 B] In the instant case the interviewing body was required to award a block
mark on a total impression of the personality of each candidate giving due
consideration t0 the seven qualities specified in Part IV. Part IV of the
Schedule never intended that separate marks should be allotted for the seven
qualities stated therein. [328 F] (2) Personality is commonly understood as an
aggregate of traits that identifies a person and distinguishes him from others.
Quite often with some practical aim. emphasis is laid on some of the
attributes. The end result may not be an assessment of the whole personality,
but attributes are abstracted for study in an attempt to evaluate the man for
the purpose in view. [328 C] In the instant case the qualities are mentioned only
as guide, as indicating the attributes to be kept in view in assessing the
personality of the candidates. It is hardly possible in the test contemplated
to allocate separate marks for each of the various qualities specified because
most of them overlap and are so intermixed that they cannot be separated. The
test carries a maximum mark of 200; it is a little absurd to suppose that the
seven qualities to be judged at the interview are of equal value each carrying
28-4/7 marks. [328 E] A. Periakaruppan & Am'. v. State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors.
[19711 2 SCR 430 distinguished and held
inapplicable.
324 R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of
Mysore & Ors. [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368, 382 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeals
Nos. 12611264 of 1975.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1/2.7.1975
of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1202. 1607, 1608 and 2739/74
respectively).
V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. Genl. (in CA. 1261/75)
and B.R.G.K. Achar (In CAs. 1261-1264/75) for the Appellants.
D.V. Patel (In CA. 1261/75), S.S. Khanduja
& S.K. Jain for Respondents 1-2 in CA. 1261/75 and Respondent No. 1 in CAs.
2263-1264/75.
V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. General and Girish
Chandra for Intervener in CA 1261/75.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J.---These are four appeals brought on certificates of fitness granted
by the High Court of Karnataka.
The question which according to the High
Court needs to be decided by this Court was framed as follows:
"whether in the personality test of
candidates for selection to public appointments, the selecting authority should
allot separate marks for each of the seven qualities required to be judged in a
candidate or whether it is permissible for the selecting authority to allot
marks in a lump in each personality test." Considering the facts of these
cases which we will presently state, the question seems to have been framed a
little too broadly. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (called the
Commission hereinafter) by its notification dated September 7, 1972 called for
applications for the combined competitive examinations under the Karnataka
Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Post appointment by
Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966. In response to this notification, the
respondents in these appeals along with others applied for selection. The
Commission held a written examination followed by a personality test as provided
by rule 9 of the rules and sent a list of 30 candidates whom they selected for
appointment as class I gazetted probationers, and another list of 88 candidates
for appointment as class II gazetted probationers. The manner in which the
personality test is to be held is laid down in Part IV of Schedule 11 to Rules,
the relevant portion of which is as follows:
"Personality test carrying a maximum
marks of 200 for all Services. The candidates will be interviewed by the
Commission who will have before them their particulars such as qualification,
experience, age etc. They will be asked questions of general interest, the
object of the viva voce is to assess the personal suitability of the candidates
for. the service or services for which they have applied. The 325 qualities to
be judged at the time of viva voca are the mental alertness, critical powers of
assimilation, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, variety and
depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership and intellectual
depth of the candidates." Five of the respondents in the four different
appeals who were not selected, M. Farida, P.V. Mohan, B.R. Kulkarni, L.V.
Dharmayat and M.R. Devappa had applied for the posts of gazetted probationers,
class II, two of them, Farida and Mobart, were also applicants for the class I
post.
They filed writ petitions in the Karnataka
High Court, Farida and Mohan jointly, and each of the three others separately,
challenging the selections made. Their common grievance was that the
personality test held by the Commission was invalid as the selection committee
did not award separate marks for each of the seven qualities which were
required to be judged in the candidates at the test. Admittedly, the selection
committee did not allot separate marks for each of the specified qualities, but
awarded a block mark to each candidate in assessing his personality with
reference to those qualities. The argument for the writ petitioners in the High
Court was that the personality test as required under the Rules was an
objective test based upon seven factors or criteria, and, therefore, it was
essential that separate marks were allotted in respect of each such factor or
criterion. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of
the Mysore High Court, D.G. Viswanath v. Chief Secretary, Government of Mysore,
(1) and the decision of this Court in ,A. Periakaruppan & ,Anr. v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(2) which appears to affirm the view
expressed in Viswanath's case. On behalf of the State of Karnataka it was
contended that the seven qualities referred to in Part IV of schedule II were
merely different facets of the integrated personality of a candidate which
could not easily be demarcated from one another, and, therefore, awarding a
block mark on an appraisal of the personality of the candidate as a whole was
the correct method. The High Court found that there was "considerable
force in the contention of the learned Government advocate", but felt that
in view of the decision in Periakatuppan's case the writ petitions must
succeed, and by a common judgment allowed the. petitions directing the State of
Karnataka and the commission to hold a fresh personality test. These appeals
arise out of these four writ petitions.
In Periakaruppan's case this Court was considering
a case of admission to certain medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. In
that case the selection committees were authorised to give a maximum of 75
marks at the interview on the basis of the following tests:
1. Sports or National Cadet Corps activities;
2. Extra-curricular special services;
3. General physical condition and endurance;
4. General ability; and 5. Aptitude.
(1) [19631 2 Mysore L.J. 302. (2) [19711 2
S.C.R. 430.
326 periakaruppan's case came up on a writ
petition before this Court. The petitioners in that case challenged the
selections, inter alia, on the ground that the selections were manipulated by
the Government. This Court came to the conclusion that the allegations of
malafide had not been established, but by its judgment and order dated September
23, 1970 directed the State of Thamil Nadu to constitute a separate committee
for selection on the view that as the previous selection committee had not
divided the "interview" marks under the aforesaid five different
heads but awarded marks in a lump, the interview was vitiated. This Court accordingly
ordered that the Committee should allot separate marks under the five heads
mentioned in the rule. periakaruppa's case approved the decision of the Mysore
High Court in Viswanath's case. The Mysore High Court had held that it could
not be said that the Government had conferred an unguided power on the
selection committees and, therefore, "in the absence of specific
allocation of marks for each head, it must be presumed that the Government
considered that each of the heads should carryas being equal in importance to
any other," and that it must be inferred that the intention of the
Government was that each one of those heads should carry equal marks. It
appears that periakaruppan came to this Court a second time challenging the
selection made by the new selection Committee constituted pursuant to the order
of this Court dated September 23, 1970; one of the grounds of challenge was
that despite the direction in the earlier judgment, the selection committee did
not distribute the "interview" marks equally among the five heads.
The second writ petition made by periakaruppan also succeeded and this Court
again quashed the impugned selection. (1) Mr. Raman, Additional Solicitor
General of India, appearing for the appellants and the intervener, Union Public
Service Commission, sought to distinguish parliakaruppan's case from the cases
before us on the same ground on which the Government Advocate made a similar
attempt in the High Court. Mr. Raman submitted that admission to technical or
professional courses with which periakaruppan's case was concerned stood on a
different footing from selection of candidates for administrative services as
in these cases. It was argued that the test in the former case may be regarded
as an objective test but in the latter it has to be subjective because the
qualities specified here are intangible qualities. We do not think it is
possible to distinguish periakaruppan's case on this ground. For, as pointed
out in the judgment under appeal, some of the qualities for test in Viswanath's
case which periakaruppan approved, were also intangible, like aptitude and
personality. Further, even where the qualities to be tested are intangible
qualities, if the relevant rule required that separate marks should be allotted
for each, the interviewers have to follow the rule and do the best under the
circumstances.
Whether a block mark should be given after
the interview on a consideration of the qualities evinced by a candidate, or
marks are to be allotted separately under each head depends, in our opinion,
upon the rule regulating the examination. In periakaruppan's case it was held
that the intention of the Government was that each of the 327 specified
qualities should carry equal marks. In these appeals we have not been called
upon to decide whether the rule concerned in Periakaruppan's case was correctly
interpreted. We do not however think that it would be correct to assume as a
general proposition that in every case where the interviewing body is asked to
take into consideration several specified qualities, they must be of equal
value and separate marks should be allotted under each head; on the contrary,
in our opinion, where the rules do not contain a clear direction, it would be
reasonable in such cases to suppose that the intention is that there should be
a block assessment on an integrated test. It was observed in Periakaruppan's
case that conceding to the selection committee the right to award block marks
would enable the selection committee to act arbitrarily and allot marks
"as it pleased". It is not clear how the position is altered if the
committee has to allot marks separately under each head if it wished to proceed
"as it pleased". On this point it may be relevant to refer t.? what
this Court said in R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors. (1)
"In the field of education there are divergent views as regard the mode of
testing the capacity and calibre of students in the matter of admissions to
colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in
the annual examination, The modern trend of opinion insists upon other
additional tests, such as interview, performance in extra-curricular
activities, personality test, psychiatric tests etc. Obviously we are not in a
position to judge which method is preferable or which test is the correct one.
If there can be manipulation or dishonesty in allotting marks at interviews,
there can equally be manipulation in the matter of' awarding marks in the
written examinations. In the ultimate analysis, whatever method is adopted its
success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting the
selection committee and their sense of objectivity and devotion to duty. This
criticism is more a reflection on the examiners than on the system itself. The
scheme of selection, however perfect it may be on paper, may be abused in
practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing it." We
do not think that the total arrived at by adding up the separate marks awarded
for the different qualities is always a true measure of a candidate's
suitability. An illustration from Periakaruppan's case would serve to clarify
the point. Of the five qualities mentioned there, suppose a candidate secures
full 15 marks for extra-curricular activities but fails to get any credit under
any of the other four heads, and another candidate gets a few marks under each
head aggregating, say, 14 marks, one mark less than the total marks secured by
the first candidate. Which of the two should be considered more qualified for
admission to medical profession ? It would take great courage, we think, to
hold that the candidate who secured 15 marks was more suitable.
(1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368 (p. 382).
5--104SCI/76 328 The question therefore is
whether rule 9 read with Part IV of Schedule 11 of the Mysore Recruitment of
Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by Competitive
Examinations) Rules, 1966 required the selection committee to award separate
marks for the seven qualities mentioned in Part IV. Rule 9, so far as it is
relevant for the present purpose, says that the Commission shall call for a
personality test five times the number of candidates as there are vacancies in
the services in the order of merit on the basis of the results of written papers.
Personality is commonly understood as an
aggregate of traits that identifies a person and distinguishes him from others.
Quite often with some practical aim, like selecting the most promising students
for admission to particular courses or picking out the suitable ones from a
group of job applicants, emphasis is laid some of the attributes.
The end result may not be an assessment of
the whole personality, but attributes are abstracted for study in an attempt to
evaluate the man for the purpose in view. Part IV of Schedule 11 which provides
the details of the test calls it a personality test, the object of which is to
assess the personal suitability of the candidates for the service or services
for .which they have applied. The candidates will be asked questions of general
interest, on the answers to which, it appears, the assessment would depend. It
is further provided that the qualities to be Judged are: mental alertness,
critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment,
variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership and
intellectual depth. It seems to us in the context that the qualities are
mentioned only as guide, as indicating the attributes to be kept in view, in
assessing the personality of the candidates. It seems hardly possible in the
test contemplated to allocate separate marks for each of the various qualities
specified, because most of them overlap one another and are so intermixed that
they cannot be separated, Also, the test carries a maximum mark of 200; it
seems a little absurd to suppose that the seven qualities to be judged at the
interview are of equal value, each carrying 28 4/7 marks. This further confirms
the view that Part IV of Schedule 11 never intended that separate marks should
be allotted for the several qualities stated therein. Reading Rule 9 with Part
IV of Schedule 11, we are of opinion that the interviewing body was required to
award a block mark on a total impression of the personality of each candidate after
giving due consideration to the seven qualities specified in Part IV. For these
reasons we think that the appeals should succeed. We therefore allow the
appeals and dismiss the writ petitions. There will be no order as to costs
P.B.R.
Appeals allowed.
Back
