Munindra
Kumar & Ors Vs. Rajiv Govil & Ors [1991] INSC 139 (10 May 1991)
Kasliwal, N.M. (J) Kasliwal, N.M. (J) Ramaswamy, K.
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1607 1991 SCR (2) 812 1991 SCC (3) 368 JT 1991 (2) 537 1991 SCALE
(1)935
ACT:
Constitution
of India, 1950: ARticle 14-Selection for the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P.
State Electricity Board-Allocation of 40
marks for interview and 40 marks for group discussion-As against 120 marks for
Written Examination-Whether arbitrary-Whether violative of.
Civil
Service: U.P. State Electricity Board-Assistant Engineers
(Civil)-Section-Allocation of marks-As against 120 marks for Written Test, 40
marks for interview and 40 marks for group discussion-Whether
arbitrary-Selection made on such basis-Whether vitiated-Method of Group
discussion along with interview-Desirability and legality of-Ideal marks to be
allocated for interview and group discussion-Stipulated.
HEAD NOTE:
For
filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil), the U.P. State
Electricity Board issued an advertisement calling for applications. As per the
Scheme of Examination, 120 marks were allocated for Written Test and 40 marks
each were allocated for Interview and group discussion. By following the said
procedure the Board selected the successful candidates and appointed them.
Three
unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions before the High Court. They
contended that the marks allocated for Interview and group discussion were on
the higher side and as such the entire selection stood vitiated and was liable
to be quashed.
Accepting
the contentions, the High Court quashed the entire selection. Aggrieved by the
High Court's order, the appellants who were selected and appointed as Assistant
Engineers (Civil) preferred the present appeals, by special leave.
Allowing
the appeals in part his Court,
HELD:
1. The rule made by the U.P. State Electricity Board keeping 40 marks for
Interview and 40 marks for group discussions is 813 arbitrary and is quashed.
In future the marks for interview and group discussion shall not be kept
exceeding 10% and 5/5 respectively of the total marks. However, the election
already made by the Board for the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) shall
not be disturbed. [820A-B]
2. It
cannot be held that the method of group discussion along with interview for
selection of Assistant Engineers by the Board is in any manner wrong, illegal
or unconstitutional. It is in vogue in the Board since 1979 and it lies in the
wisdom of the Board to keep the method of group discussion as an aid to
interview for selection of Assistant Engineers in future or not. [818A]
3.
Group discussion is a mode of selection in aid of interview in order to assess
the personality of the candidate and determine his/her suitability to the job
in hand. In the case of an interview or oral viva voce it is restricted to a
single candidate at a time while in the case of group discussion it takes place
among a group of candidates themselves. Generally, candidates of same age
level, similar educational qualifications, experience and environmental
background are grouped together and asked to discuss a subject. The purpose of
group discussion is to assess the qualities, mental alertness, manner of
asserting oneself, showing regard for opinion of others, ability to discuss a
subject without losing temper and his initiative, tact and self confidence when
confronted with a problem facing a large number of people. In group discussion
the examiner observes the candidates from behind and makes his own assessment
and as such the allotment of marks for group discussion cannot be equated with
the marks allotted for interview. In the interview every candidate gets a
chance and the members of the interviewing board can in a better manner judge
the intelligence, ability and personality of the candidate to determine his
suitability for the job. The marks for group discussion cannot be kept at an
equal pedestal with the interview. However, the group discussion as one of the
methods for assessing the suitability of a candidate for the post of Assistant
Engineer has not been kept by any other State Electricity Board in India except the Andhra Pradesh and Uttar
Pradesh Electricity Boards.
Taking
into account all aspect of the matter and the procedure adopted at various
examination, it is fit and proper that 15 per cent marks in all are to be kept
for interview, and if the rule making authorities want to keep group discussion
also as one of the modes of selection then marks for interview and group
discussion should not exceed 10 per cent and 5 per cent respectively of the
total marks. [817B-G]
Mohinder
Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., JT 1990 4 SC 704, relied on.
814
4. It
is no doubt correct that the Respondents cannot be stopped from challenging the
rule which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but in moulding
the relief, their conduct in filing the Writ Petition before the High Court
after taking chance and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept for
interview and group discussion, and the equities of those who have been
selected are the relevant considerations. The appellants have joined the post
on 28th December, 1989 and after completing the training
they are discharging their duties at different places. Some of them had left
their earlier jobs and have also become averaged. It is not proper in the
interest of justice to set aside the selection of the appellants. [818G-H;
819A-B]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISIDCTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2433 to 2435 of 1991 etc. etc.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.1990 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos.
10643, 10342 and 10706 of 1989.
S.S.
Ray, P.P. Rao, S.N. Bhat, Narendra Singh Malik, Sunil Gupta, Harish N. Salve
and Pradeep Misra for the Appellants.
U.R. Lalit,
R.C. Verma, Virendra Mishra, Gopal Subramaniam and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondnets.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.
We are
confronted in these appeals with the question as to what percentage of marks
awarded for group discussion and interview for selection of Assistant Engineers
by the U.P. State Electricity Board, is reasonable.
The U.P. State
Electricity Board invited applications for filling up the posts of Assistant
Engineers (Civil) by issuing an advertisement in April, 1989. 120 marks were
allocated for the written test, 40 marks for interview and 40 marks for group
discussion. Written test was conducted by the Board on 9th July, 1989 and then interviews and group
discussion were held in October and November, 1989. The result of the successful
candidates in order of merit was published in daily newspaper on 27th November, 1989. The very next day the Board also
issued individual letters to the successful candidates calling 815 upon them to
join on 26th December, 1989 at Electricity Training Institute' Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow,
The appellants before us joined the institute in December, 1989 and thereafter
they were sent to various places for training and they started drawing salaries
in the prescribed pay-scale and since then they are continuously working on the
respective posts.
The
three unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions in the Lucknow bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabd inter alia on the ground that the marks
for interview and group discussion had been allocated on the higher side and
against the decisions of this Court and as such the entire selection stood
vitiated and was liable to be quashed. The High Court by Judgment dated 28th
March, 1990 allowed the writ petitions by a common Judgment on the ground that
the marks allocated for interview and group discussion were more than 20 per
cent and hence the whole selection was liable to be quashed. Aggrieved against
the Judgment of the High Court, the appellants have come in appeal to this
Court by grant of special leave.
As a
result of the written examination held on 9th July, 1989 as many as 386
candidates were called for group discussion/interview. Later on 49 more
candidates were called for group discussion and interview. A list of 46
candidates who were declared successful was published by the Board. Out of
these 46 candidates, 25 belong to the general category. The Board in its
counter affidavit filed before the High Court admitted that group discussion
was part of interview. If that position is accepted then it shows that 120
marks were allocated for written test and 80 marks for interview 940 for
interview and 40 for group discussion) and thus it comes to 40 per cent of the
total marks for interview. This court had already dealt with the question of
percentage of marks to be allotted for interview for selection to the public
posts in the latest decision Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Ors., JT 1990 4 SC 704 where the maximum percentage has been laid down as
15 per cent of the total marks. All the earlier cases were noted in this case
and the question is no longer res integra. In view of these circumstances the
High Court was right in holding that the marks allocated for interview and
group discussion were arbitrary. The High Court after holding the percentage of
marks as arbitrary also quashed the entire selection. This Court while
entertaining the special leave petition on 23rd April, 1990 stayed the
operation of the Judgment of the High Court and allowed the appellants to
continue in employment and as such the appellants are continuing in service. We
had heard the arguments and at the time of reserving the judgment on 816 8th
February, 1991 had given the following direction.
"We
direct Learned counsel for the Board to furnish the service rules for the
recruitment/selection of the Assistant Engineers of all the Electricity Boards
of the various States in India. The Board shall also furnish the Rules, if any,
of any other public sector undertaking where recruitment are made of Assistant
Engineers or of equivalent technical personnel, where group discussions is one
of the conditions of recruitment. In case group discussion is there, then all
the details with regard to the percentage of marks kept for group discussion
and other details including subjects given for group discussion should be
furnished to this Court.
All
the above material should be furnished within three weeks with an affidavit of
the Secretary of the U.P. State Electricity Board." Pursuant to the above direction of
this Court, the Secretary, U.P. State Electricity Board submitted an
affidavit stating that the Board addressed communications to 16 Electricity
Boards in the country and also to other public sector undertakings. In response
to the said communication, the information received by him has been furnished
before this Court. According to the said information 14 Electricity Boards have
sent their replies stating that there was no provision of group discussion in
their rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers. Only one i.e.
Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board has informed that there was a provision
for interview/group discussion in their rules but the marks provided were 100
for written examination and 10 for interview/group discussion. As regards the
public sector undertakings, there is no provision for group discussion in Coal
India Ltd., Oil & Natural Gas Commission, National Hydro Electric Power
Corporation, National Thermal Power Corporation and Tehri Hydro Power
Development Corporation.
Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited has informed thaqt their rules provide for group discussion
and the marks allotted are 50 for the written examination, 35 for interview and
15 for group discussion. HMT Ltd. has informed that in their rules 100 marks
are allotted for written examination and 100 for interview/group discussion.
Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. has informed that there is no provision for
written examination and 10 for interview/grew discussion. As regards the public
sector undertakings, there is no provision for group discussion in Coal India
Ltd. Oil & Natural Gas Commission National Hydro Electric Power
Corporation, National Thermal Power Corporation and Tehri Hydro Power
Development Corporation. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has informed that their
rules provide for group discussion and the marks allotted are 50 for written
examination, 35 for interview and 15 for group discussion.
HMT
Ltd. has informed that in their rules 100 marks are allotted for written
examination and 100 for interview/group discussion. Hindustan Petroleum Corp.
Ltd. has informed that there is no provision for written examination in their
rules and they have made a provision for 60 per cent marks for interview and 40
per cent for group discussion. The above information shows that so far as
Electricity are concerned.
group
discussion 817 as a method of recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineers
is in vogue in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and the U.P. State
Electricity Board and not in any other State in India. So far as Andhra Pradesh
State Electricity Board is concerned, it has provided 100 marks for written
examination and only 10 for interview/group discussion cumulatively. Even in
case of recruitment for Indian Administration Service and other administrative
posts for various departments in the States Group discussion is not kept as a
method of selection.
W4e
would now deal with the group discussion as a mode of selection in aid of
interview. The group discussion test was first introduced in the western
countries for selection of personnel for their armed forces and finding it
successful, they introduced it in the service selection boards in India.
Gradually the utility and success of this method of testing made it popular
among other organisations in our country in public sector and private
undertakings and enterprises. It is a mode of selection in aid of interview in
order to assess the personality o the candidate and determine his/her
suitability to the job in hand. In the case of an interview or oral viva voce
it is restricted to a single candidate at a time while in the case of group
discussion it takes place among a group of candidates themselves,. Generally,
candidates of same age level, similar educational qualifications, experience
and environmental background are grouped together and asked to discuss a
subject. A group usually consists of 5-10 candidates. The candidates in a group
are given full freedom to express their views on a subjct given for discussion.
In the group discussion the candidate are not told as to who speak first or
last and how much time each candidate will take in such discussion. The
examiner gives two or three topics and asks the group to choose any one of them
and then proceed to discuss them. The examiner acts only as a silent observer
in the background. The examiner may stay behind a partition from where he can
watch candidates and listen to them but cannot be seen or heard by the group.
As the members of the group are engaged in a free and frank discussion of the
topic the examiner notes down the important personality characteristics of the
different speakers. It is observed by the examiner as to how each candidate
interacts and reacts when behaving as a member of th team.
The
aim of group discussion is to encourage members of a group to express their ideas
on a given subject at a short notice with a view to find a solution of the
problem. The U.P. State Electricity Board has submitted that interview test and
group discussion are in vogue for more than a decade as a method of selection
for the post of Assistant 818 Engineers. In our view it cannot be held that the
method of group discussion alongwith interview for selection of Assistant
Engineers by the Board is in any manner wrong, illegal or unconstitutional. It
is in vogue in the Board since 1979 and it lies in the wisdom of the Board to
keep te method of group discussion as an aid to interview for selection of Assitant
Engineers in future or not.
The
question now which calls for our consideration is as to what percentage of
marks may be considered as reasonable for group discussion. The purpose of
group discussion is to assess the qualities mental alertness, manner of
asserting oneself, showing regard for opinion of others, ability to discuss a
subject without losing temper and his initiative, that and self confidence when
confronted with a problem facing a large number of people. However, the group
discussion as one of the methods for assessing the suitability of a candidate
for the post of Assitant Engineer has not been kept by any other State Electricity
Boards in India except Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. In group discussion
the examiner observes the candidates from behind and makes his own assessment
and as such the allotment of marks for group discussion cannot be equated with
the marks allotted for interview. In the interview every candidate gets a
chance and the members of the interviewing board can in a better manner judge
the intelligence, ability and personality of the candidate to determine his
suitability for the job. The marks for group discussion cannot be kept at an
equal pedestal with the interview. Thus in our view as already held in Mohinder
Sain Garg's case (supra) 15 per cent marks in all are to be kept for interview,
and if the rule making authorities want to keep group discussion also as one of
the modes of selection them marks for interview and group discussion should not
exceed 10 per cent 5 per cent respectively of the total marks.
The
next question which arises for consideration is as to what direction would be
just and proper in the circumstances of this case. We do not agree with the
High Court to quash the entire selection made by the Board for the posts of
Assistant Engineers (civil). It may be noted that Rajeev Govil, Vivek Aggarwal
and Gyanendra Srivastava who remained unsuccessful had filed the writ petitions
after taking chance and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept for
interview and group discussion. It is no doubt correct that they cannot be
stopped from challenging the rule which is arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution, but in modulating the relief, their conduct and the
equities of those who have been selected are the relevant considerations. The
appellants have jointed the post on 28th 819 December, 1989 and after
completing the training are discharging their duties at different places. It
has been submitted on their behalf that some of them had left their earlier
jobs and have also become overage. Thus we do not consider it proper in the
interest of justice to set aside the selections of the appellants. We have seen
the marksheet of 295 candidates of the general category who had actually
attended the interview and group discussion. So far as the respondents in
general category are concerned, they have secured the marks in the following manner:
------------------------------------------------------------
NAME WRITTEN TEST GROUP INTERVIEW TOTAL DISCUSSION
------------------------------------------------------------ Rajeev Govil 85 5
29 119 Vivek Aggarwal 87.5 12 28 127.5 Gyanendra Bah- adur Srivastava 81 17 18
116 The last candidate out of the 25 selected candidates in general category
has secured 134.5 marks. Out of the 25 candidates selected in the general
category, 5 candidates have secured lesser marks than Rajeev Govil in written
test, 9 candidates below Vivek Aggarwal and 2 below Gyanendra Bahadur Srivastava.
A persual of the marksheet also shows that 50 candidates are such who have not
been selected instead of having secured 87.5 marks or above in written test, 79
candidates who have secured more than 81 marks in the written test. Even if we
were inclined to give a further chance of interview and group discussion by
keeping 10 per cent and 5 per cent marks respectively for interview and group
discussion, in all fairness it would be necessary to give chance to all such
candidates who have secured higher marks in the written test in comparison to
the respondents- writ petitioners. We have already taken the view that we do
not consider it just and proper to set aside the selections already made. In
these circumstances even if we were inclined to give direction to the Board to
create three more posts and give chance to all the candidates securing equal or
higher marks in the written examination than the writ petitioners, there was a
remote chance of the writ petitioners being selected.. In our view such
exercise would be in futility, taking in view the chance of success of the writ
petitioners.
820 In
the result, we allow these appeals in part and quash the rule made by U.P.
State Electricity Board keeping 40 marks for interview and 40 marks for group
discussion being arbitrary. We direct that in future the marks for interview
and group discussion shall not be kept exceeding 10% and 5% of the total marks,
respectively. The selection already made by the Board for the post of Assistant
Engineers (civil) shall not be disturbed. In the facts and circumstances of the
case parties shall bear their own costs.
G.N.
Appeals partly allowed.
Back