Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors [1981] INSC 142 (19 August 1981)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) SEN, A.P. (J) ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 1777 1982 SCR (1) 320 1981
SCC (4) 159 1981 SCALE (3)1235
CITATOR INFO :
F 1984 SC 873 (9,10) R 1986 SC 597 (2)
E&R 1987 SC 554 (23,25) RF 1988 SC 162 (11) R 1988 SC1451 (8) F 1991 SC 295
(13) D 1991 SC1011 (9) R 1992 SC 1 (20)
ACT:
Selection to a Public Service-Ideal mode-By
written examination or by oral test (viva voce) or by a combination of both
explained-Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules Schedule 111 prescribing the
criteria to be considered and the matters to be tested in the viva voce
examination-Allocation of 25% of the total marks for the viva voce examination
whether arbitrary so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
HEADNOTE:
Pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service
Rules made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan
Public Service Commission and the High Court of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission held a competitive examination for recruitment of Munsifs.
The competitive examination consisted of a written examination with two papers
in law carrying 100 marks each and two papers, one in Hindi and the other in
English, each carrying SO marks and a viva voce examination carrying 100 marks.
The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board consisting of Hon'ble Mr
Justice P. D. Kudal, Judge, Rajasthan High Court, Shri Hari Dutt Gupta,
Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Adaviappa, Member, Rajasthan
Public Service Commission and an expert. The expert Member was either Dr. I.C.
Saxena, or Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by rotation. Out of the 39
candidates (respondents 3 to 41) who were selected for appointment, one
belonged to the scheduled caste and the rest belonged to the general category.
The last of the candidates belonging to the general category who was selected
for appointment obtained a total of 190 marks in the examination, 135 in the
written examination and 55 in the viva voce. The petitioner who obtained a
total of 189 marks, 159 in the written test and 30 in the viva voce was not
selected for appointment. Hence the writ petition, by the petitioner
contending: (a) the allocation of so high percentage of marks for the interview
test introduced an irredeemable element of arbitrariness so as to offend
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (b) awarding of marks in the interview
test in a single lot instead of sub- dividing and awarding marks separately
under various heads for the various matters tested in the interview was bad in
law.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The object of any process of
selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and tho most
suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection
based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation
of any useful and efficient public service. [324 C-D] 321 1:2. While a written
examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an
interview test is valuable to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and
personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages
over the interview test there are yet no written test: which can evaluate a
candidate's initiative, alertness resourcefulness, dependableness,
co-operativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in
discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability,
judgement, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral
integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree
of error, by an interview test, much depending on the constitution of the
interview Board. Thus the written examination assesses the man's intellect and
the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a
proper selection. [325 C-E, 326 F]
2. As regards the weight to be attached
respectively to the written test and the oral test, there cannot be any rule of
thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from service to
service according to the requirements of the service, the minimum
qualifications, prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be
made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to
be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by
experts and for research. It is not for courts to pronounce upon it unless
exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives. [326
F. 327 C-D] Periakaruppan v. State Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R. and Ajay Hasia
etc. v. Khalid Mujlb Sehravardi & Ors., A.I.R.
1981 S.C. 487, explained.
3. Ordinarily recruitment to public services
is regulated by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
and courts would be usurping a function which is not theirs, if they try to
redetermine the appropriate method of selection and the relative weight to be
attached to the various tests. If the courts do that, they will be rewriting
the rules but, however, courts would interfere certainly in cases of proven or
obvious oblique motives. [330 C-D] In the instant case, the selection cannot be
struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview
test: (a) The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules have been made by the Governor
of Rajasthan in consultation with the High Court of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan
Public Service Commission. Both are well-acquainted with the particular needs
of their State and the people. If the Governor, in consultation with the High
Court and the Public Service Commission of the State makes rules stipulating
seventy five per cent of the marks for the written examination and twenty five
per cent for the interview test, Courts have no basis on which to say that
twenty five per cent for the interview test is on the high side; (b) the
interview test is generally conducted and was, in the present case, conducted
by a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court, the Chairman and a member of
the Public Service Commission and a special invitee-expert, and as such no
legitimate grievance or hint of arbitrariness could be made against this body;
(c) the candidates expected to offer themselves for selection are not raw
graduates freshly out of college but are persons who have already received a
certain amount of professional training. The source material is such that some
weightage must be given to the interview test 322 and (d) the marks obtained by
the candidates at the written examination were not made available to the
members of the interviewing Board either before or at the time of the
interview. [327 E-H, 328 A-C]
4. Courts cannot sit in judgment over the
methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless, it is proven or obvious
that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive. In the instant case,
the Rajasthan Judicial Rules generally indicate the criteria to be considered
in the interview test without dividing the interview test into distinct
sub-tests. It is for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether
to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. The
award of marks under different heads may lead to a distorted picture of the
candidate on occasions. On the other hand, the totality of the impression
created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more accurate
picture of the candidate's personality. [328 D-G] Periakaruppan v. State of
Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R.
430 and Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sheravardi
and Ors., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487, discussed and distinguished.
ORlGlNAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 2701
of 1981.
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.)
S. K Mehta, P. N. Puri, E. M. Sardul Anam, M. K Dua and K M. Jain for the
Petitioner.
V. M. Tarkunde and S. K Jain for Respondents
Nos. 7, 8, 15, 25-28, 29, 31, 33, 38, 41.
K Parasaran Sol. Gen. and Badri Das Sharma
for Respondent No. 1.
N.L. Jain and Badri Das Sharma for Respondent
No. 2.
Badri Das Sharma for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. What is the ideal mode of selection to a Public Service, by
written examination, by oral test (viva voce), or by a combination of both ? If
the last, what is the proper, relative weight that should be attached to the
written examination and the oral test? Is the oral test so pernicious in
practice, as suggested by some, that it should be abandoned without regrets or
the weight to be attached to it be made minimal ? Has any such consensus
emerged among the informed- and the cognoscenti as to require the Court to
scrap a selection as arbitrary on the sole ground that the weight accorded to
the oral test appeared to be high? 323 Pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial
Service rules made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the High Court of Rajasthan, the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission held a competitive examination for
recruitment of Munsifs. The competitive examination consisted of a written examination
with two papers in law carrying 100 marks each and two papers, one in Hindi and
the other in English, each carrying SO marks and a viva voce examination
carrying 100 marks. The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board
consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. D. Kudal, Judge, Rajasthan High Court,
Shri Hari Datt Gupta, Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Adaviappa,
Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and an expert. The expert Member
was either Dr. I. C. Saxena, or Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by rotation.
Schedule III of the Rajasthan Judicial Service rules prescribes the criteria to
be considered and the matters to be tested in the viva voce examination. The
relevant paragraph is as follows:
"In interviewing the candidates, the
suitability for employment to the judicial service shall be decided with
reference to his record at the school, College and University and his
character, personality, address and physique. The questions which may be put up
to him may be of a general nature and will not necessarily be academic or
legal. The candidates will also be put questions to test the general knowledge
including knowledge of current affairs and present day problems.
The marks so awarded shall be added to the
marks obtained in the written test by each candidate.'.
The result of the competitive examination was
announced by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on March 12, 1981 and
respondent Nos. 3 to 41 were declared selected for appointment. Out of the 39
candidates who were selected for appointment, one belonged to the scheduled
castes and the rest belonged to the general category. The last of the
candidates belonging to the general category who was selected for appointment
obtained a total of 190 marks in the examination, 135 in written examination
and 55 in the viva voce. The petitioner who obtained a total of 189 marks, 159
in the written test and 30 in the viva voce was not selected for appointment.
He has filed the present writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution questioning
the selection.
Shri Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner
raised two principal contentions before us. The first was that the entire
selection was vitiated by the allocation of 25 percent of the total marks for
the viva voce examination.
The submission was that the allocation of so
high a percentage of marks for the interview-test introduced an irredeemable
element of arbitrariness so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the
decisions of this Court in Ajay Hasia etc. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & ors.
etc.(l) Shri Mehta's second contention was
that marks were awarded in the interview-test in a single lot instead of sub
dividing and awarding marks separately under various heads for the various
matters tested in the interview. Reliance was placed on Periakaruppan v. Stare
of' Tamil Nadu (2).
The object of any process of selection for
entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person
for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism.
Selection based on merit, tested impartially
and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public
service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost
universally as the gateway to public services". "The ideal in
recruitment is to do away with unfairness(3)". "Competitive
examinations were the answer to the twin problems represented by democracy and
the requirements of good administration. They were the means by which equality
of opportunity was to be united with efficiency.. By this means favouritism was
to be excluded and the goal of securing the best man for every job was to be
achieved(4)". "open competitive examinations are a peculiarly
democratic institution. Any qualified person may come forward. His relative
competence for appointment is determined by a neutral, disinterested body on
the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself. No one has
"pull"; everyone stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly
democratic it is fair and equitable to every competitor. The same rules govern,
the same procedures apply, the same yardstick is used to test competence(S).
How should the competitive examination be devised?
The 325 Kothari Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection methods in their
report said:
"A system of recruitment almost totally
dependent on assessment of a person's academic knowledge and skills, as
distinct from ability to deal with pressing problems of economic and social
development, with people, and with novel situations cannot serve the needs of
today, much less of tomorrow.. We venture to suggest that our recruitment
procedures should be such that we can select candidates who can not only
assimilate knowledge and sift material to understand the ramifications of a
situation or a problem but have the potential to develop an original or
innovative approach to the solution of problems".
It is now well recognised that while a
written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability,
an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and
personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantage
over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a
candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness,
cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness, in
discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability,
judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral
integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree
of error, by an interview test, much depending on the constitution of the
interview Board. O. Glenn Stahl in his Public Personnel Administration points
out:
"Any form of written test possesses
certain administrative advantages over the oral and performance types. The
written form is much easier and cheaper to administer. It can be given to a
large number of individuals at the same time, thus conserving the time of the
examiners. As a general rule it is easier to evaluate objectively, and the
technical proficiency demanded in rating is usually, although not always,
less.-The oral test has long served as a basic selection tool in private employment
but has been more slowly accepted in the public field. This conservatism arises
out of three considerations: (I) the difficulty of developing valid and
reliable oral tests; (2) the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an
oral test; and (3) public suspicion of the oral as a channel for the exertion
of political influence through the destruction of anonymity.
Despite these acknowledged disadvantages,
however, orals have been used increasingly in public personnel testing and have
become important instruments wherever tests of personal attributes are
considered essential.
As we have noted no satisfactory written
tests have yet been devised for measuring such personal characteristics as
initiative, ingenuity and ability to elicit cooperation, many of which are of
prime importance. When properly employed, the oral test today deserves a place
in the battery used by the technical examiner.. The general principle is that
resort should never be had to an oral if the relevant factor to be tested can
be measured at some other point in the examining process. The reason is that
the reliability of the oral, even under the best of conditions, tends to be
lower than that of the well designed written test. The oral test should be
confined, then, to the evaluation of relevant traits which cannot be measured
in any other way" (p. 92) In the United Nations Hand Book on Civil Service
Laws and Practice it is said:
".. the written papers permit an
assessment of culture and intellectual competence. The interview permits an
assessment of qualities of character which written papers ignore; it attempts
to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities".
Thus, the written examination assesses the
man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain
shall meet" for a proper selection. If both written examination and
interview test are to be essential features of proper selection, the question
may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. In the case of
admission to a college, for instance, where the candidate's personality is yet
to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which
greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has
per force to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance
to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. That was what was decided
by this Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Ajay Hasia etc. v.
Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & ors. etc., (supra) and other cases. On the other
hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made
from persons of mature 327 personality, interview test may be the only way,
subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being
satisfied. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield
unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act or cruelty to
those persons. There are, of course, many services to which recruitment is made
from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development
and who show signs of great promise, and the discerning may in an interview
test, catch a glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services,
where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise,
some weight has to be given, though not much too great weight, to the interview
test. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be
given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of
the service. the minimum qualifications prescribed, the age group from which
the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the
interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a
matter for determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not for
Courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with
proven or obvious oblique motives. The Kothari Committee also suggested that in
view of the obvious importance of the subject, it may be examined in detail by
the Research Unit of the Union of Public Service Commission.
In this background, let us now examine the
situation presented by the Rajasthan rules. The Rajasthan Judicial Service
rules leave been made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the
High Court of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The High
Court may be expected to know the precise requirements of the judicial service
of the State and the calibre of the available source-material, while the Public
Service Commission is an expert body thoroughly conversant with recruitment
policies and selection methods. Both the High Court and the Public Service
Commission are independent bodies, outside executive control, occupying special
positions and enjoying special status under the constitution. Neither is an
outside agency.
Both are well-acquainted with the particular
needs of their State and the people. If the Governor, in consultation with the
High Court and the Public Service Commission of the State makes rules stipulating
seventy five percent of the marks for the written examination and twenty five
percent for the interview test, on what basis can a Court say that twenty five
percent for the interview test is on the high side ? It must not also be
forgotten that the interview test is generally conducted 328 and was, in the
present case, conducted by a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court, the
Chairman and a member of the Public Service Commission an d a special
invitee-expert.
There can surely be no legitime grievance or
hint of arbitrariness against this body. Yet another factor worthy of
consideration is that the candidates expected to offer themselves for selection
are not raw Graduates freshly out of college but are persons who have already
received a certain amount of professional training. The source material is such
that some weightage must be given to the interview test and can it possibly be
said that twenty five per cent of the total marks is an exaggerated weightage.
We may add here that it has been made clear by the Chairman, Rajasthan Public
Service Commission on whose behalf a counter affidavit has been filed before us
that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were not
made available to the members of the interview Board either before or at the
time of the interview. We are unhesitatingly of the view that the selection
cannot be struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to
the interview test.
The second ground of attack must fail for the
same reason as the first ground of attack. The rules themselves do not provide
for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test. The
criteria for the interview test bas been laid down by the rules. lt is for the
interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under
different heads or to award marks in a single lot. The award of marks under
different heads may lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions.
On the other hand the totality of the
impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more
accurate picture of the candidate's personality. It is for the interviewing
body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each
service. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts cannot
sit it judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies
unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was
chosen with oblique motive.
Both the cases cited before us Periakaruppan's
case and Ajay Hasia's case were cases of admission to colleges. We have already
pointed out that the provision for marks for interview test need not and cannot
be the same for admission to colleges and entry into public services. In fact
in Periakaruppan's case, even in the case of college admissions the Court
observed:
329 "While we do feel that the marks
allotted for interview are on the high side and it may be appropriate for the
Government to re-examine the question, we are unable to uphold the contention
that it was not within the power of the Government to provide such high marks
for interview or that there was any arbitrary exercise of power".
It is true that in Periakaruppan's case the
Court held that the non allocation of marks under various heads in the
interview test was illegal but that was because the instructions to the
Selection Committee provided that marks were to be awarded at the interview on
the basis of five distinct tests. It was thought that the failure to allocate
marks under each head or distinct test was an illegality.
But, in the case before us, the rule merely
and generally indicates the criteria to be considered in the interview test
without dividing the interview test into distinct, if we may so call them,
sub-tests. We do not think that Periakaruppan's case, which, as we said, deals
with admission to a college, affords any true guidance to us.
Ajay Hasia's case was also a case of
admission to a college.
The Court while upholding the interview test
as not irrational or irrelevant though unsatisfactory and capable of abuse,
made the following observation:
"We would, however, like to point out
that in the matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of public
employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon
as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or
supplementary test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons
who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity,
calibre and qualification".
The Court then proceeded to consider the next
question raised before them, whether the allocation of 33 113 percent of the
total marks for the interview test vitiated the selection procedure as
arbitrary and unreasonable. It was held that it did and reference was made to
the fact that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative
Service the marks allocated for the interview test were only 12.2 percent of
the total. It was then observed, "under the existing circumstances,
allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be
arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as
constitutionally invalid". The observations of the Court were made,
primarily 330 in connection with the problem of admission to colleges, where
naturally, academic performance must be given prime importance. The words
"or even in The matter of public employment" occurring in the first
extracted passage and the reference to the marks allocated for the interview
test in the Indian Administrative Service examination were not intended to lay
down any wide, general rule that the same principle that applied in the matter
of admission to colleges also applied in the matter of recruitment to public
services. The observation relating to public employment was per incuriam since
the matter did not fall for the consideration of the Court in that case. Nor do
we think that the Court intended any wide construction of their observation. As
already observed by us the weight to be given to the interview test should
depend on the requirement of the service to which recruitment is made, the
source material available for recruitment, the composition of the interview
Board and several like factors. Ordinarily recruitment to public services is
regulated by rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and
we would be usurping a function which is not ours, if we try to redetermine the
appropriate method of selection and the relative weight to be attached to the
various tests. If we do that we would be rewriting the rules but we guard
ourselves against being understood as saying that we would not interfere even
in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. There is none in the present
case. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances there
will be no order regarding costs.
V.D.K. Petition dismissed.
Back