# STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER v. M. FARIDA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 323
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-08-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1261-1264 of 1975
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, P. N. Bhagwati, A. C. Gupta, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-karnataka-and-another-v-m-farida-and-others-6924
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Kamat aka Recmitment of Gazetted Probationers
(Class l and ll Posts
appointment by competitive Examination) Rules 1966-Rule 9 read witlz Part IV
of Schedule Tl-Scope of-Awarding block marks in interview-If violative of
the rule.
A
B
Rule 9 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and
C
IL Posts appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966, Prescribes a
written examination for selection of candidates for the service followed by a
personality test.
The qualities to be fudged at the time of viva voce, stipulated
in Part IV of Schedule II to the rules, are mental alertness, critical powers
of assimilation, clear and logic;:;! exposition etc.
In their writ petitions before the High Court the respondents, who were the
unsuccessful candidates in the selections, impugned the personality test on the
ground that the Selection Committee did not award separate marks for each
.D
of the _seven qualities required to be judged in tb.e candidates at the test.
Following,the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan & Anr. v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors. the High Court allowed the petitions and directed the
Service Commission to hold a fresh personality test.
On the question whether r. 9 read with Part IV of Schedule II required the
Selection Committee to award separate marks fo1· the seven qualities :
Allowing the State's appeal,
HELD : (I ) It would not be correct to assume as a general proposition
that in every case where the interviewing body is asked to take into consideration
several specified qualities, they must be of equal value and separate marks
should be allotted under each bead. Where the rules do not contain a cfear
direction, it would be reasonable to suppose that the intention is that there
should be a block assessment on an integrated test. [327 BJ
E
In the instant case the interviewing body was required to a ward a bloek
F
mark on a total impression of the personality of each candidate giving due
consideration to the seven qualities specified in Part IV.
Part IV of the Schedule
never intended that separate marks should be allotted for the seven qualities
stated therein. [328 Fl
(2) Personality is commonly understood as an aggregate of traits that identifies a person and distinguishes him fr.om others.
Quite often with some practical aim, emphasis is laid on some of the attributes. The end result may nn
G
be an assessment of the whole personality, but attributes are abstracted for
study in an attempt to evaluate the man for the purpose in view. [328 CJ
In the instant case the qualities are mentioned only as guide, as indicating
the attributes to be kept in view in assessing the personality of the candidates.
It is hardly possible in the test contemplated to allocate separate marks for each
of the various qualities specified because most of them overlap and are so
intermixed that they cannot be separated.
The test carries a maximum mark
of 2.00; it is a I ittle absurd to suppose that the seven qualities to be
judged
at the interview are of equal value each carrying 28-4/7 marks.
[328 El
A. Periakaruppa11 & Anr. v. Stdtc of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [1971] 2 SCR 430
distinguished and held inapplicable.
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore & Or3. [1964] 6 S.C.R. 3fi8,
B
c
D
E
'
G
H
382 referred to.

## Text

I
323
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
v.
M. FARIDA AND OTHERS
August 23, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL
ALI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Kamat aka Recmitment of Gazetted Probationers
(Class l and ll Posts
appointment by competitive Examination) Rules 1966-Rule 9 read witlz Part IV
of Schedule Tl-Scope of-Awarding block marks in interview-If violative of
the rule.
A
B
Rule 9 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and
C
IL Posts appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966, Prescribes a
written examination for selection of candidates for the service followed by a
personality test.
The qualities to be fudged at the time of viva voce, stipulated
in Part IV of Schedule II to the rules, are mental alertness, critical powers
of assimilation, clear and logic;:;! exposition etc.
In their writ petitions before the High Court the respondents, who were the
unsuccessful candidates in the selections, impugned the personality test on the
ground that the Selection Committee did not award separate marks for each
.D
of the _seven qualities required to be judged in tb.e candidates at the test.
Following,the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan & Anr. v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors. the High Court allowed the petitions and directed the
Service Commission to hold a fresh personality test.
On the question whether r. 9 read with Part IV of Schedule II required the
Selection Committee to award separate marks fo1· the seven qualities :
Allowing the State's appeal,
HELD : (I ) It would not be correct to assume as a general proposition
that in every case where the interviewing body is asked to take into consideration
several specified qualities, they must be of equal value and separate marks
should be allotted under each bead. Where the rules do not contain a cfear
direction, it would be reasonable to suppose that the intention is that there
should be a block assessment on an integrated test. [327 BJ
E
In the instant case the interviewing body was required to a ward a bloek
F
mark on a total impression of the personality of each candidate giving due
consideration to the seven qualities specified in Part IV.
Part IV of the Schedule
never intended that separate marks should be allotted for the seven qualities
stated therein. [328 Fl
(2) Personality is commonly understood as an aggregate of traits that identifies a person and distinguishes him fr.om others.
Quite often with some practical aim, emphasis is laid on some of the attributes. The end result may nn
G
be an assessment of the whole personality, but attributes are abstracted for
study in an attempt to evaluate the man for the purpose in view. [328 CJ
In the instant case the qualities are mentioned only as guide, as indicating
the attributes to be kept in view in assessing the personality of the candidates.
It is hardly possible in the test contemplated to allocate separate marks for each
of the various qualities specified because most of them overlap and are so
intermixed that they cannot be separated.
The test carries a maximum mark
of 2.00; it is a I ittle absurd to suppose that the seven qualities to be
judged
at the interview are of equal value each carrying 28-4/7 marks.
[328 El
A. Periakaruppa11 & Anr. v. Stdtc of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [1971] 2 SCR 430
distinguished and held inapplicable.
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore & Or3. [1964] 6 S.C.R. 3fi8,
B
c
D
E
'
G
H
382 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1261-1264
of 1975.
(From the Judgment and Order dated l/2.7.i975 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1202, 1607, 1608 and 2739/7'-
respectively) .
V. P. Raman, Addl. Sol. Genl. (in CA. 1261/75) and B. R. G. f;..
Achar (In CAs. 1261-1264/75) for the Appellants.
D. V. Patel (In CA. 1261/75), S. S. Khanduja & S. IC Jain tor
Respondents 1-2 in CA. 1261/75 and Respondent No. 1 in CA~.
1263-1264/75.
V. P. Raman, Addi. Sol. General and Girish Chandra for Intervener in CA 1261/75.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J.-These are four appeals brought on
certificates
of
fitness granted by the High Court of Karnataka.
The question which
according to the High Court needs to be decided by this Court was
framed as follows :
"whether in the personality test of candidates for selection to public appointments, the selecting authority should
allot separate marks for each of the seven qualities required
to be judged in a candidate or whether it is permissible for
the selecting authority to allot marks in a lump in each personality test."
Considering the facts of these cases which we will presently state, tkc
question seems to have been framed a little too broadly. The Kamataka Public Service Commission (called the Commission hereinafter)
by its notification dated September 7, 1972 called for applications for
the combined competitive examinations under the Karnataka Recruitment
of Gazetted Probationers
(Class I
and II Post appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966. In response to this
notification, the respondents in these appeals along with others applied
for selection. The Commission held a written examination followed
by a personality test as provided by rule 9 of the rules and sent a li8t
of 30 candidates whom they selected for appointment as class I
gazetted probationers, and another list of 88 candidates for appointment as class II gazetted probationers. The manner in which
th•
personality test is to be held is laid down in Part IV of Schedule II
to Rules, the relevant portion of which is as follows :
. "Personality test carrying a maximum marks of 200 for
all Services.
The candidates will be interviewed by
the
Commission who will have before them their particulars
such as qualification, experience, age etc.
They will
be
asked questions of ~eneral interest, the object of the viva
voce is to assess the personal suitability of the candidates for
the semce or services for which they have applied. The
\
)....
(
KARNATAKA v. M. FARIDA (Gupta, J.)
325
qualities to be judged at the time of viva voca are the menA
tal alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical
exposition, balance of judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership and intellectual
depth of the candidates."
Five of the respondents in the four different appeals who were
not selected, M. Farida, P. V. Mohan, B. R. Kulkarni, L. V. DharJ!J
mayat and M. R. Devappa had applied for the posts of gazetted ·
probationers, class II, two of them, Farida and Mohan, were also
applicants for the class I post.
They filed writ
petitions in
the
Karnataka High Court, Farida and Mohan jointly, and each of thei
three others separately, challenging the selections made. Their
common grievance was that the personality test held by the Commission was invalid as the selection committee did not award sepac
rate marks for each of the seven qualities which were required to
be judged in the candidates at the test.
Admittedly, the selection
committee did not allot separate marks for each of the specified
qualities, but awarded a block mark to each candidate in assessing
hiB personality with reference to those qualities.
The argument for
the writ petitioners in the High Court was that the personality test
as required under the Rules was an objective test based upon seven
D
factors or criteria, and, therefore, it was essential that separate marks
were allotted in respect of each such factor or criterion. In support
of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of the Mysoro
High Court, D. G. Viswanath v. Chief Secretary,
Government ol
Mysore,(') and the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan & Anr.
v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.(2) which appears to affirm the view
expressed in Viswanath' s case.
On behalf of the State of Karnataka
E
it was contended that the seven qualities referred to in Part IV of
schedule II were merely different facets of the integrated personality
of a candidate which could not easily be demarcated from one another, and, therefore, awarding a block mark on an appraisal of the
personality of the candidate as a whole was the correct method. Tho
High Court found that there was "considerable force in the contention
of the learned Government advocate", but felt that in view of the
I"
decision in Periakaruppan's case the writ petitions must succeed, and
by a common judgment allowed the petitions directing the State of
Kamataka and the commission to hold a fresh personality test. These
appeals arise out of these four writ petitions.
In Periakaruppan's case this Court was considering a case of admission to certain medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.
In
that case the selection committees were authoriised to give a maximum
of 75 marks at the interview on the
basis
of
the
following
tests
1. Sports or National Cadet Corps activities;
2. Extra-curricular special services;
3. General physical condition and endurance;
4. General ability; and
5. Aptitude.
(1) [1963] 2 Mysore L.J. 30:i.
(l) [1971] 2 S.C.ll. '430.
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
I'eriakaruppan's case came up on a writ petition before this Court.
The petitioners in that case challenged the selections, inter alia, on
the ground that the selections were manipulated by the Government.
This Court came to the conclusion that the allegations of malafide had
not been established, but by its judgment and order dated September
23, 1970 directed the State of Tamil Nadu to con>titute a separate
committee for selection on the view that as the previous selection
committee had not divided the "interview" marks under the aforesaid
five different heads but awarded marks in a lump, the interview was
vitiated.
This Court accordingly ordered that the Committee should
allot separate marks under the five heads
mentioned in the rule.
Periakaruppads case approved the decision of the Mysore High Court
in Viswanath's case. The Mysore High Court had held that it could
not be said that the Government had conferred an unguided power
on the selection committees and, therefore, "in the absence of specific
allocation of marks for each head, it must be presumed that the Government considered that each of the heads. . . . as being
equal in
importance to any bther," and that it must be inferred that the intention
of the Government was that each one of those heads should carry
equal marks. It appears that Periakaruppan came to this Court a
second time challenging the selection made by the new selection Committee constituted pursuant to the order of this Court dated September
23, 1970; one of the grounds of challenge was that d~spite the direction
in the earlier judgment, the selection committe(j. did not distribute the
"interview" marks equally among the five heads.
The second writ
petition made by Periakaruppan also succeeded and this Court again
quashed the impugned selection.(')
Mr. Raman, Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for
the appellants and the intervener, Union Public Service Commission,
sought to distinguish Parliakaruppan's case from the cases before us
on the same ground on which the Government Advocate made a
similar attempt in the High Court.
Mr. Raman submitted that admission to technical or professional. courses with which Periakaruppan's
case was concerned stood on a different footing from selection of
candidates for administrative services as in these cases. It was argued
that the test in the former case may be regarded as an objective test
but in the latter it has to be subjective because the qualities specified
here are intangible qualities.
We do not think it is possible to distinguish Periakaruppan's case on this ground. For, as pointed out in
the judgment under appeal, some of the qualities for test in Viswanath's
case which Periakaruppan approved, were also intangible, like aptitude
and personality.
Further, even where the qualities to be tested arc
intangible qualities, if the relevant rule required that separate marks
should be allotted for each, the interviewers have to follow the rnle
and do ~he best under the circumstances.
Whether a block mark should be given after the interview on a
consideration of the qualities evinced by a candidate, or marks are
to be allotted separately under each head depends, in our opinion,
upon the rule regulating the examination.
In Periakaruppan's
case
it was held that the intention of the Government was that each of the
(I) [1971] 3 S.C.R. 449.
\
A_
•
/
'
KARNATAKA v. M. FARID,\ (Gupta, J.)
327
.specified qualities should carry e'lual marks.
In these appe~ls v:e
ha\c not been called upon to decide whether the rule concerned m
Perwi;i.i uppan's case was correctly interpreted.
We do not. ~owever
.think that it would be correct to assume as a general prop~s1twn th~t
in every cti;,c whuc the interviewing body is asked to take mto consideration several specified qualities, they must be of equal value and
.. separate marks should be allotted under each. head; on th~ coi;itrar~,
in our opinion, where the rules do not contam a cle~r
d1.rect~on, 1t
would be reasonable in such cases to suppose that the mtentwn 1s that
.there should be a block
assessment on an integrated test. It was
observed in Periakaruppan's case that conceding to the selection c~m
mittee the right to award block marks would enable the selectwn
.committee to act arbitrarily and allot marks "as it pleased". 1t is not
.clear how the position is altered if the committee has to allot marks
.separately under each head if it. wished to proceed ."as it
plea~ed'.'·
.on this point i~ may be relevant to refer t;- what th~s Court said m
.R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. Sta~e of Mysore & Ors.( )
"In the field of education there are divergent views as
regard the
mode of testing the capacity and
calibre of
students in the matter of admi.ssions to colleges.
Orthodox
educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in
the· annual
examination.
The modern trend of
opinion
insists upon 9ther additional tests, such as interview, performance in extra-curricular activities, personality test, psychiatric tests etc.
Obviously we are not in a position to judge
which method is preferable or which test is the correct one.
If there can be manipulation or dishonesty in allotting marks
at interviews, there can equally be manipulation in th~ matter
of awarding marks in the written examinations. In the ultimate analysis, whatever method is adopted its success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting
the selection committee and their sense of objectivity 'and
devotion to duty.
This criticism is more a reflection on the
examiners than on the system itself. The scheme of selection,
however
perfect it may be on paper, may be
abused in
practice.
That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for
quashing it."
We do not think that th~ total arriv~<;I at. by adding up the separate
marks awarded for the different quaht\es 1s always a true measure of
a candidate's suitability.
An illustration from Periakaruppan's
case
would serve to clarify th(> point.
Of the five qualities
mentioned
there, suppose a candidate secures full 15 marks for extra-curricular
activities but fails. to get any credit under any of the other four heads,
and another candidate gets a few marks under each head aggregating,
say,
14 marks, one mark Jess than the tot'll marks secured by the
flrst can?i~ate.
Whi~h of the t"'.o should be considered more qualified
ro: adm1ss1on to medical prof~ss1on ? It would take great courage, we
th~nk. to hold that the candidate who secured 15 marks was more
'Suttable.
(I) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368 {p. 382).
5-1104.sCI/76
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
The question therefore is whether rule 9 read with Part IV of
Schedule II of the Mysore Recruitment of
Gazetted Probati0ners
(Class I. and II Posts Appointment by Competitive
Examinations)
Rules, 1%6 required the selection committee to award separate marks
for the seven qualities mentioned in Part IV. Rule 9, so far as it is
relevant for the present purpose, says that the Commission shall call
for a personality test five times the number of candidates at> there are
vacancies in the services in the order of merit on the basis of the
results of written papers.
Personality is commonly understood as an
aggregate of traits that identifies a person and distinguishes him from
others.
Quite often with some practical aim, like selecting the most
promising student_s for admission to particular courses or picking out ·
the suitable ones from a group of job applic.,.nts, emphasis is laid on
some of the attributes. The end result may not be an assessment of
the whole pers_q_nality, but attributes are abstracted for study in an
attempt to evaluate the man for the purpose in view.
Part IV of
Schedule II which provides the details of the test calls it a personality
test, the object of which is to assess the pocsonal suitability of the
candidates for the service or services for which they have applied.
The candidates will be asked questions of general interest, on the
answers to which, it appears, the assessment would
depend. It is
further provided that the qualities to be judged are : mental alertness,
critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical exposition, balance of
judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and
leadership and intellectual depth. It seems to us in the context that
the qualities are mentioned only as guide, as indicating the attributes
to be1rnpt in view, in assessing the personality of the candidates. It
seems hardly possible in the test contemplated to allocate separate marks
for each of the various qualities specified, because mo&t of faem overlap one another and are so intermixed that they cannot be separated.
Also, the test carries a maximum mark of 200; it seems 11 little absurd
to suppose that the seven qualities to be judged at the interview are
of equal value, each carrying 28 4/7 marks.
This further confirms
the view that Part IV of Schedule II never intended that separate
marks should be allotted for the several qualities
stated therein.
Reading Rule 9 with Part IV of Schedule II, we are of opinion that
the interviewing body was required to award a block mark on a total
impression of thc;i personality of each candidate after giving due oonsideration to the seven qualities specified in Part IV. For these reasons
we think that the appeals should succeed.
We therefore allow the
appeals and dismiss the writ petitions. There will be no order as to
costs.
P.B.R.
Appeals allowed.