# [1984] 2 S.C.R. 582 - **Citation:** [1984] 2 S.C.R. 582 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1984-02-16 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1984-2-s-c-r-582-8695 - **Pages:** 16 ## Headnote A B ---- . c D. F . -G I 582 .... JA:VfD RASOOL- BHAT & ORS; ETC. -· "' . v.' : -STATE OF JAMMU &'KAS!-lMJR AND ORS. February 16, 1984 '· " (0. CH!NNAPPA REDD¥, E.S. VEN](AJ:ARAMIAH AND R:B. MJSRA,JJ.]. .-. . . EducationaJ. lnstitutions-Adniisston to . . M;dical. Colleges-AJn1ission to-Viva vote ·1est-W!ieti1er Court Could io .into relewu.1cy of q~iestions ·pu1'o candidates. ·· · . . -~ . - . . . Nat,ura/justice: .Medical Col/eges-Ad111ission·to_:_Ca11did.tte ~elated to M~rnber of Selection Com11litee-SeleCtlo11 whethei vitia(ed. • . The' State Governtnent issued an adveitiS111ent _inviting. application for ac!mis· sion -to t)le fir.st year MBBS- course in the two medical· colleges in'.the State. Jt ·.Was nlentio'ned therein that the candidates would have to appear in- a written'tcst which would be followed by a ViYa·voce test and that 85 points were _allowed for thewritten test 'and 15 pOints -were Viva·voce test. The 'SeleCtion co·n1mittec for the selection. was constitut.cd t_o conSist of the Chah·n1p.n of the State. Public, Service Co1nmissi'on as Chainnan; and two members. vii., the Principals of the two -Medicil Colleges .. The quorun1 for a nJeeting of the Cori1111ittee was stipulated as the ·chair.man and .one me1nber. When the Selection Corrimittce held its· -first n1eet· i.ng Orle Or the· 1n~nbJrs, thC Principal of the College inforn1cd the~ Com'1nittee that as his daughti::r was one of the cartdidates con1peting for adn1ission, it' would nOt · be desirabl~ for him to bC associated, at ~ny stage, with the wrlttcn test, arid that he, would not like to be preseht when liis.dauli~htcr \Vas· interviewed>The Com1nittce took'note of ih_e informThe Com1nittce took'note of ih_e inform. .. .. ':1' A B c D - E F G H 'i86 [l 984] 2 s.c.R. : 011· 26th August 1983. a Selection Committee was constituted ·consisting of the, Chairman of the Jainmu and Kashmir Public._Se1'~ice ' Commission as Chairman ~nd two members, namely, the Principals t of the two, Government Medical C~Ilegcs at Srinagar and Jammu. The quorum for a meeting· of the Committee was• stipula,ied as the Chairman··and one.member .. On the. same day by another notification it was directed that the Selection Committee should ·arrange and conduct the written test and·evo\ve its own procedure for appointing examiners and for .. the yonduct of. the examination, etc: ·n.e Selectio1; 'Commiitee held its first meeting ,on September 2, 1983 when one of · t]1e members~ the Principal of the Government Medical College; Srinagar informed the Committee'that his daughter was one of the candidates and that it would not be desirable for him to be associated, at ·any'stage, with the written.test to be conducted by the Corrimittee and further that he would not like to be pfesenr when his daughter was interviewed. The Committee took note of the information and agreed with the supgestion. As tlic.Gov~rnment had also fixe(L1 quorum for ·a rrteeting of the Committee, it was not conside.red necessary to have a substitute member appointed. Thereafter a &tailed' procedure was evolved for the written test and intcrviews.'_The Charirman wa~autho Tised to consult the Chairman of the Jan:unu & Kashmir Board of School Eduction and select the required number of cxainihcrs and paper-settors. The written test was conduct~d simultaneousiy at Jammu & Kashmir on Septembe_r 22, 1983. The written test was followed by. interviews from September 26, 1983 to October 11, 1983. One important factor wl\ich requires to be.mentione.d here is that the marks · secured in the written test by the respective cari~.idates was not available• to the Selection1Committee when the Committee interviewed the candidates .. The Committee met again on October 25, 1983 by which time 1 - ' - , the results of the written test were also available. The Selection Committee proceeded. with the task'or'finalising the selection. Jhe selected candidates were sent indiviudal intimations and on December 3. 1983, a notification was published by tlie Government of :rammu & Kashmir informing the public that the.result of the written test/Viva Voce:held f~r admission to the First year of the_ MBBS Course for the Medical Colleges of the State was available in the offices of the Principals of the Government Medical Colleges atJamtnu and Srinagar. Candidates were also told that marks card would be issued on payment of a fee . of Rs. ~/- and that any candidate interested in seeing his/lier answer book could do so on payment _of Rs. 20/- as fee for each paper. Some of the facts mentioned above were taken by us from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of th<> Government of Jarrrrnu & Kashniir and were ncit admitted by the petitioners. Wedo not however have the slightest . _ - • · . '' ... .. . ' . JAVID RASOOL v. J &KSTATE (\hinnappa .Reddy, J.) 587, . .· . . ; ' .' ·, ' ,doubt about the coriectness of these facts, as they are fully supp0rted . . l)y tonte~praneous official records,, :. The. petitifj~ers,'have fil,ed these writ. petitons inipunging .the : se/ection made 'by the Committee .on various grounds. Jn their-peti~. !ions, they have inc1.ulged in serveral ,allegati.Ons and insinuations for whic there is no basis whatsoever. Shri Anil Dev Singh, .learned coun·. . sel for some of the petitioners· raised .th'.ee tonteptions: The first was · 'that the entire selection was vitiatecl~ by the. prese,iJce o_n the C_ommji- . , 'tee (if the father of a candidate.' The second contention was th2t tho ~ntire. procedure was.·bad ciS the .tnarks ·0b!.aii1ed by the- Candidates ··~·· at the qualifying examination (TDC,PartfMedicai Group) were not taken into.account and not given ,any, weightage whatever; The third contention was that the viva-voce test provided for 7 points for general knowledge 'and general intelligence wher.eas it would have ·been more. appropriate to t,est:the general knowledge and general intelligence of ''l"' candidates by holding a written test i,nstead of a viva voce. test. Shri Anil Dev Singh also general 'y submitted that the viva voce , test was a rnere manoeuvr~·designed to bring in candidates who had.fared badly iii the written test Shri A.K. Sen, le.arned counsel who appca;ed for .'some of the other petitioners made only 'one 5ubmi~sionand it '..Jas.that . . 'the viva voce ~est .. Iiad wofked in· an unreasdnal;Jc 'arid arbiti·r:fy n-·: nner; ir{Jact and as a matter of principle'. -He i:- 1aboraTfd tf:r subndssiori by arguing that though the two papers in. the writt•:n te~V curried 550 marks, they were reduced to 85 points as against 15 points for the ·\;viva voce test. The .result, according to him, was ihat candidates who ;'i.. got a lead of 20-?5 marks in the written·tes1 had to'bow dc\\n to f3ndi, ~ dates who got a lead of 3 or 4 points in the viva vcce test as the marks . . . ' '- ' . ' . ... ··~ ' ' obtained in the written test were reduced· to points in the ratio of 550 to 85. ·Sh.ri Sen also 'submitted that the questions put lo the candidates .at .the iliterview were not designed to(test.~ithH aptitude or general hnow!edge or general intelligence and for that reason, the selection" was vitiated, He suggested that the final results bcre 'c!c c;uont lesti.C 'inony t? t~e i~j_ustice dQne tO t_he_ mi~ority_com~unity in -t~e State.~· \ ~- We ·find no subst~nce whatever in any .of tlie subm'issions made by Shri Anii Dev Singh and Shr,i A.K,. Se11. We may straightway ~observ.e t~at the .insinuatio1i that the interviews were so c~n,duct~d as to do injustice to 'the minority community appears to us to be unchari- . table and impetuous. We find that there ai;e candidates belonging to both the majority and the minority communities among the c~ndi-· dates who were able, to' secure admi.s'sion because of the points sco~ed by them in the viva voce ,test, as.also amongst the candid~tes who '' '. ' \ A B c D E ' ' F G .. ----· •. -. 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1984] 2 s.c.R. · A · failed to secure admission because of their low score in the viva voce test. The inconsiderateness of the all~gatioif is evident from the fact that the marks obtained by the candidates in the writien test were not even available to the Selection ·Committee when, they conducted the viva v.oce· test. This circumstance is sufficient· to repudiate the broad allegation freely made by Shri' Anil Dev Singh that the viva voce test B was designed to facilitate tlie selection of candidates who had fared badly in the written test. c D E F The submission· that the questions put ti:> the candidates at the intervie\v were not designed to test either the aptitude, general hno\'{- ledge·or gerieral .intelligence of the candidates is equally without sub-· stance. In the writ petitions, no such averment was made ~nd no· instances ·were given. In the petition a general allegation was made thaUhe viva voc;e test had been abused to dilute the otherwise high merit of the. petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, one of the members of the Selection Committee;· Dr. S.L. Verma, Principal of the Government Medical College, Jammu filed a counter-affidavit in which, he stated'. ....... Notless than six minutes were. spent on each candidate though 0 in certain cases interview lasted for more than. ten minutes. All the candidates were. fully and fairly assessed and it is denied that .the candidates. were interviewed only to mainpulate the results. The candidates were questioned by the members ,of ·seJectfon Corμmittee only in respect of factors of interview prescribed in SR0-380 dated 7-7-1783 and the entire process was above board and extremely fair. I submit that. the result of the written test· became available to .the members of the selection committee only after. the interviews had . been completed", After this couhter-affidavit had been filed, some · of the petitioners chose to file 'rejoinder affidavits' to suggest that their 'interviews lasted for about two to three minutes only and that · questions relating to the aptitude, general knowledge or. general intelligence of the candidates were not asked. It was .stated· that some some of the candidates were asked the ·names and occuptions of their / . '' ' . parents or brothers, and some were asked why he or she wanted to becbme 0 a doctor and so on.·Aarti Kaul stated in her affidavit that1 G she was also asked to give an example of Collard (?) of the human' · body, that she replied that it was blood and she was then asked what the constitution of blood was, to which s\le replied "Plasma Haemoglobin RBC Serum''. Rajesh Gupta,.another cano.idate, stated that his interview lasted for .two or. three minutes and apatt from questions 'relating to the name and oocupati~n of his father and· brothers, h~'was also asked to define 'absolute zero' and 'international ampere': He answered both the questions. He claimed that he was asked no que- . ' . . ' .. JAVID RASOOE v. J & K 00STATE 0 (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) \- - . 589 sti~n relatillg to aptitude, generaJ.kno:.vledg~ or general Intelligence.· A- ' . . ' . ' ' - ' ' ~.' . , . . -· We are of theveiw'that·there is no genuine basis for any compfaint in regard to the nature of .the questions which the can4idates were asked in the. viva voce test. We accept. the statement ofD.'V~rma that the Selection Committee·put relevant qriestion to the candidates to test their aptitude, general knowledge ,and general intelljgence .. Anyo~e who has served on· a·Selection Con1mit(ee and interviewed candidate.s · knows that ·a large number of candidates are nervous and inorder to "... put them at ease.'it is wcessary to' ask thenito·start with, innocuous . _ 4-, . questions, such: as what is vour father's occupation'? whi@h part of the country do yo~ cbme · f;;m ?, 'what is your m'other-tongue? and .. so on.' .Such qu~stions are intended to enable the candidate, to fec;l at ease and get over his nervousness. No complaint can surely to made that' candidates were put .such questions. We also fail to see. h'ow any . . complaint can be made of the fact thai questions t>n science subjects . _ ·~ were asked of candidates seeJdng admission to medical colleges, Surely B . such questions are at .least as good as questions about the name ofthe 'capital of ~n obscure Latin American State or .who captained India · D , in the SeconU test ma,tch·agaii1st Pakistan.in I?SO, W~ entertain on' ~doubt that the questions asked .were proper and relevant. We add that it is not for the co.urt to sit ·in judgment over the nature. of the questions to be put by the members· of the Selection Committee. It is .... ~ · for 'the members of. the . Selection Co1nmittee . to' decide what questions they should ask and so lo~g 'as the q;i-estions are not _. &uch as to. indicate' that the i;\erview was nothing but a make-believe. -"'-~we ~rnst allow the matter to rest ther~ .• It 'is not the function of the · EI' '°Cburt to weigh eacl; question to find out the extent to whcih it is related ~o aptitude, general knowledge or gep.enral intelligence. ff the question · \ .. is not flippant, it is not for the court to say.that the question was iire- ·" Jevant and should riot have been asked at an interview. Perhaps irrele' :,- . vant questions !nay also be asked to_explo're the 'candidate's capacity· !> to detect irrdevancies~ It is n~t for the court to·~laimto.itselfthe task ·.: 'r . of determining tlie nature 9f the questions to be put to carididates appearing at· an interview: The persons constituting. the Selection . Coin'mittee who may generally be assu!"ed to be. men ofle,W~rience, and knowledgeable rn regard to men and matters m~y surely be expeG cted to put the right questions. 'Jn the absence of malafides, the maatter · is best'left to them." ; · · · -~ . ;--, / . . . .. . / .. . .. ' . ' / Mr. Sen made a complaint that \he m~rks obtained in the writ' ten 1:est :.vere reducec to pomts and this -hail ·-resulted in ca11didate• who had fared well in the interview stealing a march over •oine candi- . ' • ,_, :·H-· . \. '~ ,_ • '· A B c I n: E F G . H -· 590 SUPREME COURT R!Sl'ORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R. ' dates whn had fared well .in the wriUen test. The rules require that 85 points should be awarded for the written test and 15 points for the viva· voco test. Therefore, although the written tests carried· a total of 5~'.) m irks, the marks obtained by each candidate had to be necessarily reduced to points on·the basi's that 85 points equalled 550 markS The gr.ievance is plainly imaginary. ·. • · ' " Both.Mr.. Anil Dev Singh and Mr. A.K. Sen invited our attentiOn to the observations of this courl'•in Ajay Hasia 's'11 case in regard to the desireability of holding viva voce test !Cl) select candidates for ad1nission to p'rofessional colleges and· in regard to the manner of conducting sucht~sts. The Qourt after referring to the criticism levelled against viva voce test observed:. "Now this criticism cannot be said to be whoHy. unfounded and it reflects a point of view whi'ch has certainly some validity'.' The court then quoted M.P. Sharma· on ·Public Administration'. in 'Theory and Practice'. and Gle1\n Stahl on •Public P 'Cs Jnnel Admi'nistration' a.nd observed "But, despite all this criticism, ihe oral interview mef~od con1inues to be' very. much ;in vogue as l suppelmentary test for assessing the suitabi!jty of candidates wherpver test pf personal traits is con;;idered essential. Its relevance as' a .test for determ'ning suitabilty based on personal characteristics h3.S been recognis6d ih a number of decisions of this court which·. 1 are1Jinding Up Jn us". The Court then quoted from rhitra Lakita and Others v. Slate' of My.iore and Others"> and A. Pseriakarupfan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others and observed: . / . ' . ·, ".ft is therefore, not possible to accept the contentions of the .Petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that ~eJ.ecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral intervciw ·in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The' oral interview test is und'-· ' ' ' - ' ,. .. petitioners had to·be accepted: ·It was then said that "if that be so, the D .' oialo iuter~iew test must be hCld to be. vitiated and the selection made on the basis ot such test must be hold to b~ -~rbiirary". However, for the reason that IS months had already elapse;i., it was not thought proper to strike down the' :selections alr.ady made. Threafter ·the. . ,. ··. folloWing ob~ervation,s. \ve~e .. mad~: · · E ,J. .. . "Vie may point out. that, in our opinion, if 'the marks ·allocated for the. oral interview do not exceed J 5% of the total . marks a~d the candidates ·. are properly interviewed . and ... - ~-'-: ,. • •· .. .. · .. releva1\t questions are a~ked with a view to _assessi1ig their .suit- · ability.with reference to the factor~ ~equired tci ·.be taken into consid,ration, .the oral interview test would satisfy the crit~r ion of reasona_bleness an_d non-arbitrariness. • We thii1k that it wottld. also be desirable .if the interview of-the candidates is tape-reeorded, for" in that eventhere will _be · conteinpo, . .r~~cous·evid~11ce to. s~()w. wl1at''were ·the C}_ueStions asked to ihe candidates by the interviewing committee and what were . . the answers give11 ·and _that will eliminate _a lot of unnecessary · contraversy besides acting as a clieck on· the possible_. arbitr- ·~rine_ss of. the· ·intervieWing· ·co!llmittee". . · ·F· .· ·G • It wo~ld be noticed tha_t niost of the observations were. made . with a vie_; to enable the Government to ·devise a selection prncedure H , which would he above r.eproach, H: was never intended to lay down· . : . . D E . F G H ·--' .• 592 ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19S4] ~ S.C.R. any hard and fast rules; In the very nature ofthihgs it would not .b~ . within the proviric.e or even the competence of the Couri and the.court would not venture ;into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, . when the matte{$ ate mere appropriately kft to the. wise expertise of medica 1 academicians intllres!ed in the quality and inte~ty of medjcal · ·• . education and public administrators conversant with various ad~ini.' strative ~nd socio-economic problems.".,needs and requirements. ·The · Court's duty'iil's in preventing arbitrarines.s and denial of equal opporc · tun.ity. The question as to the subjects in which an entrance test may · · · · be held ishardly a matter for' the cou;t, unless; 'or course, the subjects ' . . .:: are so arbitrarily c!iosen as to have not the slightest connection with· ·, the object of the examination.' S.uch a situation· is not likely to arise : -j. . · as the aut)iorities ·may be expected to. act reasonably. Again it is not 1 for the court to lay down whether.an interview test should be. held at . all or how many marks should .be allotted for the invefview test. Of course, the marks must. be mininiaPso as.to avoid charges'ofarbitrariness but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appoint-.. ments where the only proper method pf selection may be by an interv~ew test. Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses, it may some .times be ·necessary to allot afrurly high percentag~ of nlllrks · .. for·the interview test; ·For'admission tq a Ph. D course, for example, · :' · · ·.candidates niay have to be consumn1ately interviewed, each of them .•. t :for a few hours;. perhaps; ~efore any decision can be taken a.s to 'who. inay ·be admitted_. That. is why we say ·rigid rules cannot be_ laid in t]lese matters, and not by Courts~· The ~xpert bodies are generaliy the bestjudges, 'An that we may say is that allocation ofa high percentage· of marks ·for admission to.under-Graduate courses should be avoided as the~e isa risk of a ·certain amount of arbitrariness which may lead· to frustration of the very object of t_he selection. ai1d disrepute. of the . svstem.· Courts interfrre when the rlsk of arbitrarine.ss is so high· that a~bitrariness is in~vitable. Again the. court is i1pt the best judge of . _y what questions may. be asked at the interview. As mentiol'led by' us ._. oatUer; all that is nece'ssary is that the questions should nvt be a ri\ere· ,. pretence. . .. . . . . ,• AU thit we lia ve said above i~ o~ly to supplement w~at has been said in Ajay Hasia"s case ai\d in the case .of Lila Dhar -vs. State of Raja' sthan'". In the. latter .case after refefring to the K_othari Committee's report on Recruitment Policy a_nd Selection Methods, we said: . . . . (I) [1982] l S.C.R. 320. .. _,_._. . .- J AVID RASOOL V. J ' - . .. . . -. ; . .~,· . . . . . &. KSTATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 593 . . . . - ~ .· · ·. ''It is now well recognised that while a written examina~ . tion assesses it caJfdidate'sknowledge and· intellectual ability; ·· · . ari interview test is valuable io assess a candidate's o~erail . · · inteliectual and perional.qualitie~: whil~~ writtenexaminqtiori has. certain- distinct ~dvantage . over the: inter~;ew test ti1ere ·are yet rio writteri tests. whiCh ,<:an· evaluate a· candidatcs's initiative, alertness, r~sourcefulness; dependableness, coope- . ·. · rativeness, capaciil' for clear and logical' presentation, cffecti' . · 'VMess, in discussi_on: elfe~tiveness in IJleetingand dealing with others,"adaptability,. judgment, ability . to· make decision, · "ability to lead, fotellectual arid moral integrity:. Sbme of. the.se qualities may be.evaluated, perhaps ;vith· soine .. degree . of error,. by. ap interview fest, much depe.nding ·on the·coristitu- . ti oh of ·iJie ·.interview Board." · ·· We then .re!erred to CJl~rtn Stahl on .'Ptibli~ Pers~nneF Ad~lnis- · .. . . tration and the United Nations Hanel.book ~ri Civil.Sorvice Law and Pfactice". We furt1i"er said: - • · . ·.,. "Thus, the written examinatio~ ·assesses .ihe Jna~'s inieliect a.nd theintervi~w te.stthe man himself and "the twain shall njeet" · .• for a proper s~kction.: ifbpth written e·xainination ancHnterview . . test are to be esseritjal feiturcs of proper.selecti~n, .the question . may aris.e as to. ihe weight to be attached respectively. to them .. In the case of.admissio11 to 'a college; :for instance, where the ·candidate's petscinality is yet.to develop ·arid it is ·too' e~rly· to. · idontify the- personai ·qualities for which greater impo"riance may . · have to be attached in later !ifo, gceate(weight· h.as per. for.ce td · . ·.be given to .performance in.the written examination. The imper' . ' tantc to be attached to the.interview testmust be mini~al..That - · w~s what was decided by this Court in Perfakaruppai1 v. State' . of Tamilnadu, Ajay Basia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Seharvardi & ·ors:ctc.; (supra) and other cases. on th.ii other han'd, in the case of services.to wbkh .recruitmeni has'nccessarily fo·be made"from .persons• ~f m:;ture personality, interview test may be "the only way,".stibject'to· basic: and essenti~I acadeinic and professiori0.l · . requirements being satisfied. 'ro.subjecJsuchpersons to a written examination . may yield unfruitful and·. negative re§ults, apart fron1 its being an· act of cr11elty to those perso:fis, There a.re/of ·co Urse~ ·many services to WhiCh tecpJit:illerit .is made ffom: yo"unger'. cimd\dates whos~ personalities are·oihhe threshdld of ct6velopc. ment ~nd ,who show signs of great pr6Il)ise, ahd the' ·.discerning may in an intervie1~ test, catch a glimpse of.the future personality .. · .~·. '' .• 'A c D . E . F H A. B c D G H 594 -SUPREME com\T' REPORTS . Iri the cas·e of such services, where sound. selection mμst combine . academic ability with p'ersonality promise, sonie weight has to - be given, though not much too great weight, t<;> the interview test. There_ cannot -be-any-rule of thumb regarding the 'precise · . weight to be given. It must varylromservice to.service according . t,0 the requireme~ts of the service, the 1ninimum qualifications · .prescribed, the age group from which the selection-iii to be made, the body to' which the tasl<-of holding th!) interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other.factors.: it'is a matter fer determinatiori by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not._ 4 , for Courts to proriou~ce upon it unless exaggerated weight has · been given with proven or obvi_ous oblique motives. The Kothari _ ~: . Committee also suggpted that in view o( the o_bvjous importanc~ · · ( of the subject, it may be exami1icd in detail by the Research Unit of the Union of' Public Service Commission.". · . . , At this.juncture while- we are quoting froin the earlier decision -. _, . of the court in Liladhar v. State Of Rajasthan, we may as well refer to ·the criticism of. Shri Anil Dev Singh that block marks should not have been _allocated. for' general knowledge and general intelligence. Our observationsin Liladhar's case, which we have extracted below, _. answer this point. alsci: . '.'The rules 'themselves do not provide for. the allocation ·of . marks under different heads .at .the in\ervi(:w test. The ct'ite.ria for the interview test has been laid down by the. -rules. It is fqr ihe intervie1ving. body to take a geceral · decisibn whether. to allocate mark.sunder different heads or to award marks in a single Jot: The award of marks under different he~ds ma~J~ad to a distorted· picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality cf the impression created by· the candidate on the interviewing bcdy may ' give. a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality.· It is f<;>_r the interviewing body to choose. the appropriate' method of marking at the selectjon to each service. There cannot be any magic formulate"in these matters and courts cannot sit it judgment over the, methods C:f marking employed by i1~ter, viewing bodies unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious that ·the: method of marking was chosen wlth oblique motive. "It is frue that in Periakafoppah's case the. Coqrt held that the n