# MADAN LAL AND ORS v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1995] 1 S.C.R. 908
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-02-06
- **Bench:** J.S. Verma, S.B. Majmudar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/madan-lal-and-ors-v-state-of-jammu-and-kashmir-and-ors-12941
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Service Law-Selection process-Interview test-Validity of-Unsuccessful candidate--Whether can challenge result of interview test on
merits-Held, Ncr--Scope of interference--Extent of.
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules of
1967-Rule lO(l)(b}-Selection process-Viva voce examination-Split up of
marks on various sub-heads noi necessa~Tape recording of questions and
answers given at oral interview-Not provided-Effect of.
D
Rule 9-Appointment-Post of Munsi!f-Words 'actual practice!-Certificate issued by the concerned District Judg~J & K Public Service Commission not empowered in going behind the certificate.
Rule 41-Appointments-Merit list and waiting list-Held, such list will
E have a !if e of one year from date of publication or till it is exhausted,
whichever is earlier.
An advertisement notice issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Public
Service Commission in 1993, invited applications for filling up posts of
Munsiff in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Commission conducted
p
the written examination and thereafter 79 candidates mentioned in the
notification were declared to have qualified for viva voce test. That included the petitioners and the respondents. A viva voce test was conducted
by four Members of the Commission and an Expert. The petitioners
challenged the process of selection, while challenging the selection of the
successful respondents. Petitioners alleged that viva voce test was so
G manipulated that only preferred candidates were permitted to get into the
select list, and therefore the selections should be made on the basis of the
written test alone or to conduct fresh viva voce test after removing defects
in it for assessing the merits of the candidates objective_ly, that when a
candidate is orally interviewed, the members of the. Committee should
H assign separate marks for the different faculties of the concerned can908
(
)
- '
MADANLALv. STATEOFJ.ANDK.
909
didate namely, intelligence, general knowledge, etc. as laid down in rule A
lO(l)(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment
Rules of 1967; that the Expert, namely, the sitting Judge of the High Court
was entitled to award only 60 marks for viva voce test while the remaining
80 marks were permitted to be given by other members of the Commission
and that affected the overall assessment of the candidates in the viva voce
test which as a whole comprised of 140 marks; that there was nothing to
show that any tape recording was done regarding the question put to
candidates and the answers given by them at the viva voce test and that
had vitiated the said test; that the petitioners fared very well in the written
test as compared to the selected candidates and still at the viva voce test
they were pushed down by assigning very low marks as compared to
contesting respondents and th11s they were treated unfairly at the said viva
voce test; that the viva voce test was co11ducted in an unfair manner only
with a view to select candidates belonging to a particular community; that
respondent Nos. 10 and 13 whose names were included in the impugned
B
c
list of recommended candidates were not eligible to be appointed as D
MunsitT as they failed to satisfy the eligibility requirement of rule 9 of the
rules in as much as they had not put in 2 years of actual practice at the
bar by the date he or she submitted application for such recruitment; that
· the daughter of the Chairman of the Commission and daughter-in-law of
another Member thereof was given a special favourable treatment by
unduly inflating her marks in the viva voce test; that preparation of the E
merit list of 16 candidates from general category and 4 candidates from
reserved category was in any case bad and violative of rule 41 of the rules
as the vacancies for which the advertisement was issued by the Commission were only 11 and requisition was sent by the Government for selection
of suitable candidates through the Commission for those vacancies.
F
After petitioners move

## Text

_Characters 0–39,632 of 67,245. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39632 for what follows._

A
B
c
MADAN LAL AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
[J.S. VERMA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
Service Law-Selection process-Interview test-Validity of-Unsuccessful candidate--Whether can challenge result of interview test on
merits-Held, Ncr--Scope of interference--Extent of.
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules of
1967-Rule lO(l)(b}-Selection process-Viva voce examination-Split up of
marks on various sub-heads noi necessa~Tape recording of questions and
answers given at oral interview-Not provided-Effect of.
D
Rule 9-Appointment-Post of Munsi!f-Words 'actual practice!-Certificate issued by the concerned District Judg~J & K Public Service Commission not empowered in going behind the certificate.
Rule 41-Appointments-Merit list and waiting list-Held, such list will
E have a !if e of one year from date of publication or till it is exhausted,
whichever is earlier.
An advertisement notice issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Public
Service Commission in 1993, invited applications for filling up posts of
Munsiff in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Commission conducted
p
the written examination and thereafter 79 candidates mentioned in the
notification were declared to have qualified for viva voce test. That included the petitioners and the respondents. A viva voce test was conducted
by four Members of the Commission and an Expert. The petitioners
challenged the process of selection, while challenging the selection of the
successful respondents. Petitioners alleged that viva voce test was so
G manipulated that only preferred candidates were permitted to get into the
select list, and therefore the selections should be made on the basis of the
written test alone or to conduct fresh viva voce test after removing defects
in it for assessing the merits of the candidates objective_ly, that when a
candidate is orally interviewed, the members of the. Committee should
H assign separate marks for the different faculties of the concerned can908
(
)
- '
MADANLALv. STATEOFJ.ANDK.
909
didate namely, intelligence, general knowledge, etc. as laid down in rule A
lO(l)(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment
Rules of 1967; that the Expert, namely, the sitting Judge of the High Court
was entitled to award only 60 marks for viva voce test while the remaining
80 marks were permitted to be given by other members of the Commission
and that affected the overall assessment of the candidates in the viva voce
test which as a whole comprised of 140 marks; that there was nothing to
show that any tape recording was done regarding the question put to
candidates and the answers given by them at the viva voce test and that
had vitiated the said test; that the petitioners fared very well in the written
test as compared to the selected candidates and still at the viva voce test
they were pushed down by assigning very low marks as compared to
contesting respondents and th11s they were treated unfairly at the said viva
voce test; that the viva voce test was co11ducted in an unfair manner only
with a view to select candidates belonging to a particular community; that
respondent Nos. 10 and 13 whose names were included in the impugned
B
c
list of recommended candidates were not eligible to be appointed as D
MunsitT as they failed to satisfy the eligibility requirement of rule 9 of the
rules in as much as they had not put in 2 years of actual practice at the
bar by the date he or she submitted application for such recruitment; that
· the daughter of the Chairman of the Commission and daughter-in-law of
another Member thereof was given a special favourable treatment by
unduly inflating her marks in the viva voce test; that preparation of the E
merit list of 16 candidates from general category and 4 candidates from
reserved category was in any case bad and violative of rule 41 of the rules
as the vacancies for which the advertisement was issued by the Commission were only 11 and requisition was sent by the Government for selection
of suitable candidates through the Commission for those vacancies.
F
After petitioners moved this petition, stay of appointments of concerned selected candidates was granted.
The respondents comprising of selected candidates as well as the
State submitted that there was nothing wrong with the selection process G
so far as viva voce test was concerned.
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The result of the interview test on merits cannot be
successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected H
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 1 S.C.R.
A at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful.
In this petition, this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to
re-assess the relative merits of the concerned candidates who had been
assessed at the oral interview nor could the petitioners urge that they were
given less marks though their performance was better. It was for the
Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High
B Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally
interviewed considering the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules
governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made
by such an expert committee could not be brought in challenge only on the
ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be
C the function of an appellate body. (917-G-H, 918-A-B]
D
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Ku.mar Shukla and Ors., AIR (1986)
SC 1043, relied on.
1.2. Rule 10(1) (b) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial)
Recruitment Rules of 1967, does not provide for any separate assessment
of marks for candidates at viva voce examination faculty wise; i.e. on
intelligence, general knowledge, etc. As per the said rule, while conducting
viva voce examination the Committee has to keep in view the overall
performance of the candidate at the oral interview and while doing so their
E intelligence, general knowledge, personality, aptitude and suitability have
to be kept in the center. The rule merely lays down the object of assessing
such candidates in the viva voce examination. It is a general guideline given
to the interviewing committee members. For candidates aspiring to be
appointed to such a judicial office, apart from the written test, his overall
F
performance at oral interview is more important and consequently split
up of the marks on various sub-heads at oral interview of such a candidate
may not be strictly necessary unless the concerned rule regulating such a
viva voce test expressly provides to that effect. (918-H, 91.9-A-B, 920-C]
Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (1971) 1 SCC 28,
G distingushed.
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159; Ashok Ku.mar
Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985] 4 SCC 417 and Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v.
U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, All and Ors., AIR (1986) SC
H 597, relied on.
..
. ..
f.,
-
. ..
...
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K.
911
13. Rule lO(l)(b) nowhere provides that tape recording should be A
kept of question put by the members of the committee and the answers
given by the concerned candidates at the oral interview and that in the
absence of such.tape recording the interview process would fail. [922-C]
Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujeb Sehravardi and Ors., [1981] 1
SCC 722 (Constitution Bench), relied on.
B
1.4. It remains in the exclusive domain of the expert committee to
decide relative merits of the concerned candidates before whom these
candidates appeared for the viva voce test. It could not be subject of an
attack before this Court as this Court was not sitting as a court of appeal C
over the assessment made by the committee so far as the candidates
interviewed by them were concerned. Merely on the basis of petitioners'
apprehension or suspicion that they were deliberately given less marks at
the oral interview as compared to the rival candidates, it could not be said
that the process of assessment was vitiated when there was no allegation
of any personal bias. (923-G, H, E]
D
1.5. The validity of viva voce test cannot be judged simply on the basis
of the result thereof unless there is anything to show that the entire
selection process was vitiated on account of mala fides or bias or that the
interview committee members had acted with an ulterior motive from the
very beginning and the whole selection process was a camouflage. (924-E]
1.6. Rule 9 requires production of certificate by District Judge within
whose local limits of jurisdiction the concerned Advocate would have
practiced at the bar. The Commission would be justified in not going
E
~
..
behind the certificate issued by the concerned District Judge and in not F
holding any further enquiry into the extent of actual. practice put in by
such candidate at the bar for being permitted to appear at the written and
viva voce test. A member of the bar can be said to be in actual practice for
2 years and more if he is enrolled as an Advocate by the ·concerned Bar
Council since 2 years and more and has attended law courts during that G
period. The words 'actual practice' as employed in rule 9 indicate that the
concerned Advocate must be whole time available as a professional attached to the concerned court and must not be pursuing any other full
time avocation. [925-D, G, H, 926-A]
1.7. Only because respondent no. 13 was the daughter of the Chair· H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995) 1 S.C.R.
A man and daughter-in-law of another Member of the Commission, both of
whom disassociated themselves from the selection process as she was
competing, could not be said to be disqualified from being considered for
selection only on the ground of her relationship with the concerned Members of the Commission. [926-C-D]
B
1.8. The actuat appointments to the posts have to be confined to the
post for recruitment to which requisition is sent by the Government. The
requisition in the instant case by the Government was for holding selection
tests by the Commission for filling up 11 clear vacancies. The Public Service
Commission may send merit list of suitable candidates which may exceed
C 11. But according to rule 41 such a merit list will have a maximum life of one
year from the date of publication or till all the required appointments are
made whichever event happened earlier. [929-F, C, 930-C]
1.9. There were 2 Scheduled Castes and 2 Scheduled Tribes candidates and the open category candidates were shown in the order of merits
D upto SI. No. 16. The extent of selected Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes candidates on reservation quota worked out to be 1/5 of the total
20 selected candidates. If this list had to operate only till 11 vacancies were
filled up, then on the ratio of 1/5 of the total vacancies to be filled up, the
posts to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes out of
E total 11 posts could be one each for SC and ST candidates. The remaining
9 posts will be available to general category candidates. For computing one
year's currency of impugned select list as per rule 41, the period during
which appointments were stayed during pendency of these proceedings
would get excluded. [934-B-F]
F
Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1993] Supp. 4 SCC 377
G
and State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors., AIR (1994) SC 765,
referred to.
Asha Kaul and Anr. v. State of J and Kand Ors., [1993] 2 SCC 573,
distinguished.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 546 of
1994.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
H
M.L. Bhat and Ms. Purnima Bhat for the Petitioners.
\
~
....
,.I
...
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]
913
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Meera Mathur for A
JBD & Co. for the Respondent Nos. 2-4.
.
DD. Thakur, N.N. Bhat and Y.P. Rao for the Respondent Nos.
19-22, 28-29.
Ashok Mathur for the Respondent No. 1.
Mrs. Pallavi Shroff for Shroff and Co. for the Respondent No. 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. This petition by petitioners has brought in
challenge the process of selection of Munsiffs in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir undertaken by Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as Commission), pursuant to an advertisement
notice, inviting applications in the months of July and August, 1993. The
said selection of the concerned successful respondents has been challenged
on diverse grounds to which we will make a reference a little later.
Now a glance at a few introductory facts. An advertisement notice
issued by the Commission in the closing months of 1993, invited applicac
tions from eligible candidates for filling up posts of Munsiffs in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners being eligible for competing for
the said advertised posts submitted their applications to the Secretary of
the Commission. Similarly, the concerned respondents who are selected for
the said posts also submitted their applications. The Commission conducted the written examination in July and August, 1993 and thereafter
vide notification dated 27th April, 1994 candidates mentioned in the
notification were declared to have qualified for viva voce test. In all 79
candidates were found qualified for viva voce test. That included the
petitioners and the contesting respondents. Under the Jammu and Kashmir
Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules of 1967 (hereinafter referred to
as 'rules') examination for selection of Munsiffs consists of written examination and viva voce test. The Commission, respondent no. 2 accordingly conducted the said viva voce test under rule 10 of the aforesaid rules.
On the request of the Commission the Chief Justice of the High Court is
to nominate a Judge to act as an expert on the Commission for the purpose
of conducting the viva voce test. In pursuance of this rule a viva voce test
was conducted by four Members of the Commission and an expert (sitting
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS
(1995] 1 S.C.R.
A Judge of the High Court) Mr. Justice B.A. Khan. The Chairman of the
Commission. respondent no. 3 and one member, namely, respondent no. 4
did not participate in the viva voce test on the ground that one of the
candidates selected as per the result of written test, namely, respondent
no. 13 - Zaneb Shams is a daughter of respondent no. 3 and daughter-inB law of respondent no. 4. -
According to the petitioners in the written test they fared well and
therefore they were called for oral interview. According to them they also
fared well in the viva voce test but they were kept guessing as to the result
of this test. They came to know that concerned respondent nos. 6-18 and
C some others who had appeared at the test were given confidential information to appear before Medical Board for medical test while no such
intimation was sent to the petitioners. That gave them a cause for apprehension that they may have been illegally left out of selection for the
said posts and that is why the present petition is filed. The main prayers
_in the petition read as under :-
D
E
F
G
H
(a) Call for the records of the examination conducted by Respondent
No. 2 for scrutiny by this Hon'ble Court;
(b) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the viva voce test of the said examinatio11: as
being invalid, arbitrary and against the principles of natural
justice and quashing the candidature of the respondents 10 &
13.
(c) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to declare the
result of the -written test of the candidates and may give selections
on the basis of the written test alone and in the alternative to
conduct fresh viva voce test after removing defects in it and for
assessing the merits of the candidates objectively.
(d) To issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction in the nature
of prohibition restraining the Respondents No. 1 & 2 and 5 from
issuing the appointment letters to the Selected Candidates whose
list has not been published as yet till the filing· of this Writ
Petition, but are required to undergo medical test vide Annexure11.
-
f
..l
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]
915
A mere look at the prayers makes it clear that the attack of the A
petitioner is on the manner and method of conducting viva voce test and
result thereof. So far as the result of written test is concerned not only the
petitioners have no grievance against the same but they rely on the same.
Their main contention is that viva voce test was so manipulated that only
preferred candidates, by inflating their marks in the viva voce test, were
permitted to get in the select list. It may be mentioned at this stage, as
revealed from the record of this case, that the second respondent prepared
B
a select list of twenty successful candidates in the order of merit on the
basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by them in written as well as viva
voce test. The said merit list of candidates recommended by respondent
no. 2 for appointment as Munsiffs consists of two parts. The first part at
annexure-C collectively deals with the general category candidates. Sixteen
such candidates have been included in the general category merit list while
there is also a waiting list of five such candidates. At annexure-C collectively is also found merit list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
candidates who have been recommended for appointment as Munsiffs D
pursuant to aforesaid selection. Two candidates belonging to Scheduled
Caste and two candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe are found to have
been listed in reserved categorY. as seen from the said annexure. It thus
becomes clear that sixteen candidates from general category and two
candidates each from reserved categories of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe, in all twenty candidates are so recommended.
c
E
After petitioners moved this petition, it was admitted to final hearing
and the stay of the appointments of concerned selected candidates was also
granted.
At the final hearing of this petition the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners raised the following cvntentions in support of the petition.
F
(1) The impugned viva voce test conducted by the respondent no. 2,
Commission is patently illegal as there is nothing to show that the Members
who conducted the test had assig~ed separate marks faculty-wise for G
assessing the performance of the concerned candidates as per rule 10 of
the rules.
(2) The expert, namely, the sitting Judge of the High Court was
entitled to award only 60 marks for viva voce test while the remaining 80
marks were permitted to be given by other members of the Commission H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 1 S.C.R.
A and that affected the overall assessment of the candiates in the viva voce
test which as a whole comprised of 140 marks.
B
(3) There is nothing to show that any tape-recording was done
regarding the questions put to candidates and the answers given by them
at the viva voce test and that has vitiated the said test.
(4) The petitioners fared very well in the written test as compared to
the selected candidates, respondents herein and still at the viva voce test
they were pushed down by assigning very low marks as compared to
contesting respondents and thus they were treated unfairly at the said viva
C voce test.
(5) The viva voce test was conducted in an unfair manner only with
a view to select candidates belonging to a particular community as the list
of candidates recommended shows. Therefore, the entire test is vitiated
"-
being totally arbitrary and lopsided.
D
(6) Respondent No. 10 and respondent no. 13 whose names were
included in the impugned list of recommended candidates were not eligible
to, be appointed as Munsiffs as they failed to satisfy the eligibility requirement of rule 9 of the rules in as much as they had not put in 2 years of
actual practice at the bar by the date on which be or she submitted his or
E her application for such recruitment and hence their names should be
eliminated from the merit list of open category candidates.
(7) In any case respondent no. 13 being daughter of the Chairman
of the Commission and daughter-in-law of another Member thereof was
given a special favourable treatment by unduly inflating her marks in the
F viva voce test so that any how she would get selected for the advertised
post and hence her selection is had in law.
(8) That preparation of the merit list of 16 candidates from general
category and 4 candidates from reserved category, in all 20 is in any case
G bad and violative of rule 41 of the rules as the vacancie's for which the
advertisement was issued by the Commisstion were only 11 and requisition
was sent by the Govt. for selection of suitable candidates through the
Commission for those vacancies.
The learned counsel for the contesting respondents comprising of
H selected candidates as well as the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the
)
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.]
917
Commission have resisted these contentions and have submitted that there A
was nothing wrong with the selection process so far as viva voce test was
i
concerned and that the petition is devoid of merits and is required to be
dismissed.
..
It is now time for us to deal with the contentions canvassed by the
learned senior counsel in support of the petition. We shall deal with these
contentions seriatim.
Contention No. 1
B
Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient
fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candiates being C
concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks
obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview.
Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners
also appeared at the oral interview canducted by the concerned Members
of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the conD
cerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get
themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not
find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined
performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed
this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated E
chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the
interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently
contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee
was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v.Akhilesh
Kumar Shukla and Ors., AIR (1986) SC 1043, it has been clearly laid down
by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner F
appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he
would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said
examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a
petitioner.
Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be sueG
cessfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at
the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessul. It is
also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of
appeal and try to re-assess the relative merit of the concerned candidates
who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners H
918
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 1 S.C.R.
A successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their
performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst
others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits
..
of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines
laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the
B
assessment on merits as made by such an expert· committee cannot be
/
brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper
or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are
certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such
an expert committee.
"'
c
In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position let us see whether
there is any substance in the contentions canvassed before us by the learned
senior .counsel for unsuccessful candidates at .the oral interview.
So for as the first contention is concerned learned senior counsel for
petitioners submitted that rule 10 of the rules lays down that the examinat-
D tion for selection of candidates shall consist of written examination as well
as viva voce test. So far as weitten examination is concerned it is not
challenged before us as noted earlier. So far as viva voce test is concerned
....
rule lO(l)(b) lays down as under :-
E
"The object of viva voce exaniination is to assess the candidates'
intelligence,. general knowledge, personality, aptitude and
suitability."
Lte learned senior counsel for petitioners submitted that when a candidate
is orally interviewed, the members of the committee should assign separate
F marks for the different faculties of the concerned candidate namely, intelligence, general knowledge, etc. as laid down in the rule and that does not
appear to have been done by the interviewing committee and hence the
entire viva voce test is vitiated. In this connection, reliance was placed on
the decision of this Court in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan & Sobha Joseph v.
G State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., [1971) 1 SCC 38.
It is not possible to agree with this contention. So far as rule lO(l)(b)
is concerned it does not provide for any separate assessment of marks for
f--
candidates at viva . voce examination faculty-wise, that is on intelligence,
general knowledge, etc. listed in the said rule. On the contrary; it appears
H that as per the said rule, while conducting viva voce examination the
-
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]
919
•
Committee has to keep in view the main object of assessing such candidates A
in the light of the guidelines given therein. In other words, the Interviewing
committee has to keep in view the overall performance of the candidates
at the oral interview and while doing so their intelligence, general
knowledge, personality, aptitude and suitability have be to kept in the
centre. The rule merely lays down the object of assessing such candidates B
in the viva voce examination. It is a general guideline given to the interviewing committee members. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the
submission of the senior counsel for petitioners that the members of the
..
interview committee must separately assess and give marks on different
listed topics faculty-wise as per the said rule. So far as the decision of this
Court in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. is c
concerned it has to be kept in view that this Court was dealing with
admissions to M.B.B.S. course in the State of Tamil Nadu. The selection
committee was constituted for assessing the merits of the concerned applicants for such admissions at oral interview after written test. 75 marks
were assigned for oral interview. The selection committee was asked to D
award these marks on the basis of following five tests :
~
1. Sports of National Cadet Corps activities;
2. Extra curricular special services;
3. General physical condition and endurance;
E
4. General ability; and
5. Aptitude.
,..
Now it becomes at once clear that when 75 marks were to be assigned F
~
to a candidate called for oral interview on the basis of the aforesaid five
types of performances by the candidate, the assessment on first three tests
would depend upon documentary evidence regarding his career record
q
which the candidates can furnish to the interview committee while the last
two tests will depend upon· his performance at the interview. In view of this G
hybrid type of tests for which assessment was to be made ·at the oral
interview, 75 marks assigned for all these five tests necessarily had to be
""l
split up and from the career record of the candidate, separate marks had
to be assigned for first three tests and that necessarily required separate
assessment of marks on the remaining tWo heads of tests. It is in the light
of this requirement of peculiar type of marking at the oral interview that H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995) 1 S.C.R.
A it has been observed in para 16 & 17 of the report that it was clearly illegal
to give marks in a lumpsum and that the committee had not divided the
·marks under various heads nor on the basis of item-wise. It is also to be
kept in view that while selecting a student for admission in M.B.B.S. course,
what is more important is his performance in the written test and even at
the oral interview his past record of performance has its own weight. A
B student while undertaking study is not required to perform any duty of a
public office. But in the case of recruitment to the posts of Munsiffs he is
required to work at the grass-root level of State Judiciary. For candidates
aspirkg to be appointed in such a judicial office, apart from the written
test, his overall performance at oral interview is more important and
C consequently split up of the marks on various sub-heads at oral interview
of such a candidate may not be strictly necessary unless the concerned rule
regulating such a viva voce test expressly provides to that effect. As we have
seen earlier rule lO(l)(b) does not so prescribe and hence it was open to
the members of the committee to make an overall assessment of the
interviewed candidates keeping in view the various factors for such assessD ment as laid down by the said rule. That is precisely what has been done
in the present case as sated by Dr. Girija Dhar a member of the interview
committee in para 3 of her affidavit in reply. It is stated by her that the
only considerations which the Members of the Interview Board had during
the viva voice test were to judge the candidates on the basis of their
intelligence, general knowledge, personality, aptitude and suitability as
E required by rule lO(l)(b) of the recruitment rules, that all the question
directed at the viva voce test to the candidates were with this object in view
and the assessment had been made of the candidates at the viva voce test
accordingly. As a matter of fact, the particulars furnished by the candidates
in their applications in pursuance of the advertisement only had been
F placed before the Members of the ·Interview Board. The results of the
candidates atthe written examination -were not placed before the Members
of the Interview Board. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned senior
counsel for petitioners to disbelieve this version. No bias is also alleged
against her or any other member who made the selection. It cannot
therefore be said that rule lO(l)(b) was violated by the interview committee
G while conducting viva voce test. It may also be mentioned at the stage that
decision of this Court in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu
and Ors., (supra) (1971) 1 SCC 38 was later considered by this Court in the
case of Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159. In Lila Dhar's
case this CCll.lrt distinguising the ratio in Peeriakaruppan's case (supra)
observed as under :-
H
.,
r.,,
l
r
I
~
r
)
·-
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)
921
"It is true that in Periakaruppan case ((AIR) 1971 SC 2303) the A
Court held that the non-allocation of marks under various heads
in the interview test was iliegal 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 ................. "
B
The aforesaid decision in Lila Dhar's case was approved by a Constitution C
Bench of this Court speaking through Bhagwati, J. as he then was in Ashok
Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1985] 4 SCC 417. This aspect was also
considered later by a Division Bench of this Court speaking through
Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. U.P. Higher Education
Services Commission, A/lhabad & Ors., AIR (1986) SC 597. An ide1;tical D
contention concerning viva voce test conducted by the interview board
which had not sub-divided the total marks into sub-heads was rejected in
that case. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Division Bench observed
that interview board was not under any obligation to sub-divide the marks
under various heads. The Court noted that the basis of selection in that
case was to assess the candidates academic attainnients, technical exE
perience, administrative experience and suitability for the post of Principal.
In the light of that rule it was held by this Court in the aforesaid decision
that the interview board was not under any obligation to sub-divide the
marks under various heads. Almost an identical position obtains in the
present case. Consequently, it must be held that there was no obligation p
for the members of the Commission to give separate marks under various
heads faculty-wise as mentioned in rule lO(l)(b). The first contention
therefore fails and is rejected.
Contention No. 2.
So far as contenction no. 2 is concerned it is difficult to appreciate
how it can be urged that expert was allotted only 60 marks for assessment
while the remaining assessment was done by the other members. There is
no factual basis on the record of this case for supporting this contention.
G
On the other hand, the averments made by Dr. Girija Dhar in the reply H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 1 S.C.R.
A affidavit clearly shows that all the members of the interview committee
participated in the process of selection.of candidates at the oral interview
tkeeping in view the requirement of rule lO(l)(b). The second contentio~
therefore also, being devoid of any factual basis, stands rejected.
B
Contention No. 3
It is difficult to appreciate this contention. Rule lO(l)(b) to which
we made reference earlier nowhere provides that tape-recording should be
kept of questions put by the members of the committee and the answers
.....
given by the concerned candidates at the oral interview and that in the
c absence of such tape-recording the interview process would fail. The
learned senior counsel for the petitioners in this connection invited our
attention to a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ajay
Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., [1981) 1 SCC 722. That
was a case in which the Constitution Bench dealt with the claim of
~
D petitioners for admission in B.E. course. The candidates had appeared in
i
written test and then they were called for oral interview. Rejecting the
contention of the petitoners that the oral test was defective, it was observed
'r
_.,,
that oral interview is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing
and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence
E
of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral·
interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or
!£relevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is
influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. However,
in the matter of admission . to college or even in the matter of public
employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied
F 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. It is to be kept in view that
Bhagwati, J. as he then was, speaking for the Court in that case ultimately
G
dismissed the petitions subject to certain general observations and direc~
tions. So far as tape-recording is concerned, as one of the contentions of
the peritioners was that the oral interview was held in an arbitrary and slip
sort manner, an observation was made in para 20 of the report to the affect
·..i..:.
that it would also be desirable if the interview of the candidates is taperecorded, for in that event there will be contemporaneous evidence to show
H what were the questions asked to the candidates by the interviewing
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.]
923
committee and what were the answers given and that will eliminate a lot A
of unnecessary controversy ·besides acting as a check on the possible
arbitrariness of the interviewing committee. These observations cannot be
read to mean that in the absence of tape-recording of questions and
answeres the interview process would fail or the result of the interview
would get vitiated. In the very writ petitions decided by the Constitution
Bench, even though there was no tape-recording of questions and answers,
interview test was upheld. It appears that the aforesaid observation only
suggests a better method for insulating oral interviews against possible
future attacks of arbitrariness and nothing more. Consequently, it cannot
B
be said that merely because there is nothing on the record to show that
any tape-recording of questions and answers at the interview was done, the
viva voce test should on that score fail. Therefore, this contention also
stands rejected.
Contentuion No. 4
In the light of what is stated above, while dealing with contention no.
1, this contention also must fail. The petitioners subjectively feel that as
they had fared better in the written test and had got more marks therein
c
D
as compared to concerned selected respondents, they should have been
given more marks also at the oral interview, But that is in the realm of
assessment of relative merits of concerned candidates by the expert comE
mittee before whom these candidates appeared for the viva voce test.
Merely on the basis of petitioners' apprehension or suspicion that they
were deliberately given kss mark~ at the oral interview as compared to the
rival candidates, it cannot be said that the process of assessment was
vitiated. This contention is in the realm of mere suspicion having no factual F
basis. It has to be kept in view that there is not even a whisper in the
petition about any personal bias of the members of the interview committee
against the petitioners. They· have also not alleged any ma/a [ides on the
part of the interview committee in this connection. Consequently, the
attack on assessment of the merits of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. It remains in the exclusive domain of the expert committee to G
decide whether more marks should be assigned to the petitioners or to the
concerned respondents. It cannot be the subject matter of an attack before
us as we are not sitting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by
the committee so far as the candidates interviewed by them are concerned.
In the light of the affidavit in reply filed by Dr. Girija Dhar to which we H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 1 S.C.R.
A have made reference earlier, it cannot be said that the expert eommittee
had given a deliberate unfavourable treatment to the petitioners .. Consequently, this contendion also is found to be devoid of any merit and is
rejected.
B
Contention No. 5
This contention is equally devoid of any merit.