ty o° No
. JAVID RASOOL- BHAT & ORS: ETC. 1 , - yp . ‘ 2 x
Sate ‘OF JAMMU. &f KASHMIR ‘AND ORS. C£ ebruary 16, 1984
(0. \CHINNAPPA Rey, ES | VENATARAMIAM. AND R: 3. Misra, JJ.].
Educational. Institutions ~Admisston 10, ’
. Medical Colleges—A Jmission to—Viva voce test— Whether Court could go.into relevane ‘y of questions - pul io candidates.
Natural’ Justice: Medical Colleges—-Adiission to—Candi ite e relate t to Member
: of Selection Commitee— Selection whether vitiated.
The’ State Government issued an advertisment inviting. application for admis-
_ sion. to the first year MBBS" course in the two medical colleges inthe State. It _* was mentioned therein that the candidates would have to appear in- a written ‘test . which would be followed by a Viva-voce test and that 85 points were allowed for thewritten test'and 15 points weré Viva-voce test. The Selection Committee for the selection was constituted to consist of the Chairman of the State, Public, Service Commission as Chairman, and two members, viz., the Principals of the two
‘Medical Colleges..The quorum fora meeting of the Cornmittee was stipulated as the Chairman and.one member. When the Selection Committee held its. first meeting one of the mambers, the Principal of the College informed the’ Cominittee that
‘as his daughter was one of the cartdidates competing for admission, it would not be desirable for him to be associated, at any stage, with the written test, and that he, would not like to be preset when his dauhghter was interviewed>-The Committee took'note of the information and agreed with the suggestion... ..
f
. The petitioners in their writ petitions under Atticle 32, questioned the select-
“ jon of candidates for admission : It “was, contended: on their behalf that-: (1)sthe entire selection was vitiated by the presence on the Committee’ of the father of a
‘catldidate, and this was a gross violation of one the ,principles of natural justice :
(2) the entire procedure was bad as the marks obtained bythe candidates at the
- qualifying examination (T.DC-—Part I Medical group) were not taken into account + -. and not given any weightage; (3) the’ viva—voce test’ provided for 7 points for - general knowledge and general ‘intelligence whereas it would have been more appro-
. priate to test general knowlege aid g general intelligence’ of candidate by holding .- a written instead of a viva—voce’ test;. (4), general knowledge and general ‘intelligence Were not matters to be tested in a written examination; () there .was delay in the. announcement of. the results and the delay made the selection suspect, and (6) the regulations made by thé Indian Medical Council prescribed | that the marks obtained. in the qualifying examination § should be taken in to consideration.
~ ?
Dismigsing the writ Petition ; 3. .
_, HELD :1. It is not unusual for candidates related to members of the Service Commission or other ‘Selection Committee to seek employment. _ Whenever such a
¥ y
- ad ry va aon a < knowledgeable in regard to men and matters may surely be expected to put the right -
AY
- and should not have been asked at any interview. Perhaps, irrelevant questions *”
\ . le wos . . *
TAVID RASOOL.¥._J &K STATE (Chinnappa Reidy, J ) * 583:
\
JO situation arises, the practics gently i is for.the' member concerned to- excuse pis when the particular candidate is interviewed. . :
In the instant case, the Principal of the * Medical ‘College, whose davghter “was a candidat for admission ‘to - the Medical College informed ithe Selection
‘Committee at the very outset about this fact and told them that he would ‘not’
“have anything’ to do with the written’ test and woul i not be present when his daughter was interviewed.” The other members of ‘the Selection Comniittee accepted the suggestion of the Principals and did not address the Government to appoint a substitute ‘member of the Selection Committee, since the Govern-’
ment had fixed the “quorum for a meeting of the Selection Commitiee, as_the
Chairman and one other member and it was possible to have a quorum’ without the Principal. The procedure adopted by the Selection’ Committee and -
. the. améember™ eoncerned was in accord with the quite well-known. and generally ‘ accepted Procedure adopted by the Public. Service Corimissions ‘everywhere.
Nagarajan y. State of Mysore; [1966]3- S.CR. 682, refert.d to. " [5S96A- q
2. It is not for’the Court ‘to “sity in judgment. over the nature of the .questions to be put’ by, the members of the Selection Committee. ’ “Tt is for the’ members: of the Selection Committee, to decide’ what they should ‘ask and so dong as the questions are not'such as to indicate ‘that the intervicw was nothing’ but a make-belicve, ‘the matter must be allowed to rest ~ . there. It is not the function of the Court to weigh each question to find out the extent ‘to which it is ‘related to aptitude, general Knowledge or general intelligence. if the
_ question is not flippant, it is not for the Court to say that the question was irrelevant
‘may also" be asked to explore the candidate’s capacity to detect - irreleyancies.’ It is not for the Court to claim to itself the task of determining the nature of the questions to be put to candidates appearing at an interview. , The persons constituting the Selection Committe’ who may generally be assumed to be men ‘of experience. and questions. In th _absence of malatfides, the matter Is best left to them. [589E-G]
_ “30 Th question as to “the subjects in which an entrance test may be held is hardly a niatter for the Court, unless, of course, the subjects are_so arbitrarily chosen as to, ‘have not. the: slightest connection with’ the object of the examination. Such a situation is not Jikely to arise as:the authorities may be expected to act reasonably.’Again it.is not for “the Court 40 lay down whether ‘an interview test " should, ebe held at all or how many marks should be alloted for the interview test. of course, the: ‘marks must be minimal so as to‘avoid charges of arbitrariness but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appoiitments where the only proper
‘méthod of sclection may be by an interview test Even ‘ini (pe case of admission to higher degrees courses, it may sometimes be necessary to allot a fairly high Percentage, oe of marks for the interview test. ‘That‘is why rigid rules cannot be laid down in these matters, and not by courts. The experts are generally the -best ‘judges. _The Courts duty lies i in preventing arbitrariness and denial of equal opportunity, (592C-E, 592B}
‘
-3ii) : $ interfere when the risk of arbitrariness ’ is so high that’ arbitra- riness is inevitable. Agaif the Court is not the bést judge of what questions may .
be askéd at the inter-view. All that is ‘ncessary is that the questions should not be
“. amere pretence. [592F]
\ vs
584 . “SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1984) 2 s.r. -
A ; “Ajay Hasia’s case, {1981} 2s. C. R. 79; Chitra Lekha and Ors.¥. State of Mysore and Ors., [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368; A. Peeriakaruppan vy. State of Tamil Nadu & ew. Ors., [1971] 2 S.C.R’ 430; and Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, [1982] 15.C.R. 320 referred’ to. ; / ae * 4(i) The Selection Committee apparently ‘thought it would be better to have .
a common entrance test. It appears to’ be a perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it is always open to a Selection Committee to insist on taking into con-
B sideration marks obtained at the examination held by it and excluding from consi- derdtion marks obtained in examinations held by other bodies. There is nothing’ wrong in this Procedure: [595C-D] . ~
4(ii) It was a matter for the Selection. Committee to decide whether _shneral knoWledge and general intelligence could be more appropriately tested in the viva- ' voce test or in the written test. That is not.a matter for the court to decide- (S9SF] ,
Cc ~ 3. There was, in fact no delay i in the announcement of results and the suspi- ~e sion, if. any, was unfounded. [595G) — - . 7 *6 ‘The regulation of the Indian Médical Council prescribing that the marks otbiained. at the qualifying examination should be taken into consideration has no application because there are two Medical colleges in the state. Though only one wy Board conducted’ ‘the qualifying’ examination, the examinations were conducted , D separately for Jammu and Srinagar areas: ‘and. on two different occasions. Moreover, the- regulations of the Council have been held to be -directory and not mandatory by this Court. [597 D-E} , ¥ Madhya Pradesh, v. Kr. Nivedita Jain [1981] 4 S CC. 296, referred to. ae “ ORIGINAL JorIsprcrion : Wait PETITION (Civit)Nos. 13305- 37. + he E 13366, 13683 to 13687 of 1983, 256-260 & 579. 81 of 1984 (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).
Anil Dev Singh, Ashok Sen and S.B. Bhasme R. Satish, SS. Gupta, a J. L, Kotidhar and . SS. Khanduja, for the Petitioners. a
FF | YS. Chitale, G.L. Sanghi, S.N. Kacker ‘and V.M.. Tarkunde, " ‘Altaf Ahmad for Respondents. - . : ¥
The Judgment of ‘the Court was delivered. by
CHINNAPPA Reppy, J.. Writ petitions questioning admissions
G _. to the medical colleges at Srinagar and Jammu appear to have become . an annual feature in this court. In the previous years, there was some~ L justification. Tt does not appear to be so this year. In these writ peti- 4 tions, the selection of candidates for’admission to the two medical colleges at Srinagar and Jammu as well as the nominations by the H Government of Jammu & Kashmir to medical. colleges outside the
_ State are in question. On Max 24, 1983, the Government of ‘Jammu
«.
“ or ho & Kashmir issued an advertisement. inviting applications from. per manent residents of Jammu & Kashm‘r’State for admission to: the - first year. ‘MBBS in the medical colleges at Jammu & Srinagar. One
~ of the conditions ‘of eligibility was that a candidate should have passed
_ + the “First TDC (Medical Group) éxainination from Jammu & Kash mir.
. ‘Board: of School Eduction with ‘not less than’ 70%, of the total. marks’ | in English ; and Science subjects - taken, together”. . There was some Te~ - laxation in favour candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes; ‘etc. -& ~~ with ‘which We are not-now concerned, We are also not concerned in
_ thesé writ petitions with the ‘reservations’ made in favour of various ~
; Sen, ; classes. We are only concerned with ‘the seats or places available for
' ‘candidates would have to appear in a written test of ‘TDC-Part I Stan-
}
Physics and Chemistry and the other, “Biology and English, It wag .
_ ‘red to: appear at a! Viva-voce examination. -On 7th July, 1983, the . Government of Jammu.& Kashmir’ ‘published a notification called the
, Jammu & Kashmir Government Medical Colleges (Sélection of Candi-, dates for Admission to First Year MBBS Course) Procedure Order 1983, Paragraph 4 of the order which i is relevant i is as follows:. > v ay ao - ag, Merit:—The inter-se-merit ‘of the candidates ‘shall, be .
determined: on the. basis of the following: —
, AGS a - te ‘G) Written test . _ i Oo 85 Points” (ii) Viva voce = —s 15 Points ma Foo Total _ 100 Points |
- % -
‘The points earmarked for. viva-voce will further, be sub. >
"divided into the, followipg ae orn oe . . oO Aptitude a 7 = 48 8 Points | oO v , bd
WKS Po ek 7 Points rool a + Total’. ..15 Points”
TAVID RASOOL I & K ‘STATE (Chinappa Reddy, I ). 585.
open comfsetition. The advertisement: expressly méntioned: that the. ° .. dard’. comprising of two papers, one / paper consisting of the subjects, ~ also’ mentioned in'the advertisment that the candidates would be requ-"
o
386 ~ SUPREME: court REPORTS {1984} 2 s.c.r.
-On' 26th August 1983, a Selection Committee was constituted - consisting of the, Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Public. Service : Commission as Chairman and’ two members, namely, the Principals f of the two, Government Medical Colleges at Srinagar and Jammu. The quorum for a meeting of the Committee was! stipulated as the —
Chairman’and ong member. .On the same day by another notification it was directed that the Selection Committee should arrarige and conduct the written test and evolve its own procedure for appointing €xaminers and for. thé. conduct of.the examination, etc. The Selection ‘Committée held its first meeting,on September 2, 1983 when one of “the members, the Principal of the Government Medical College, Sri- nagar informed the Committeethat his daughter was one of the caridi- - . dates and that it would not be desirable for him to be associated, at
" Vany’stage, with the written test to be conducted by the Committee and further that he would not like to-be piesent when his daughter was interviewed. The Committee took note of the information and, agreed with the suggestion. As the Government had also fixed a quorum for ~a meeting of the Commitice, it was not considered necessary to have ad substitute member appointed, Thereafter a détailed’ procedure was
~ evolved for the written test and interviews. ,The Charirman wasjautho- riséd to consult the Chairman of the Jammu & Kashmir Board of
School Eduction and select the required number of examiners and paper—settors. The written test was conducted simultaneously at
. Jammu & Kashmir on September 22, 1983. The written test was followed by. interviews from. September 26, 1983 to October 11, 1983. One important factor whiich requires to be.mentioned here is that the marks secured in the written test by the respective candidates was not available to the Selection\Committee when the Committee interviewed the candi- dates. The Committee met again on October 25, 1983 by which time .
the results of the written test were also available. The Selection Committee ptoceeded with the task‘of finalising the selection. The selected
' candidates were sent indiviudal intimations and on December 3, 1983, a notification was published by the Governinent of Jammu & Kashmir informing the public that the result of the written test/Viva Voce‘held for 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 at Jammu and Srinagar. Candidates were also. told that marks card would be issuéd on payment of a fee of Rs. 5/- and that any candidate interested in seeing his/her 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 affida- - :
vits filed on behalf of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and were — not admitted by the petitioness. We do not however have the slightest . | . x * °
" JAVID RASOOL Y y&K STATE (Chinnappa ‘Reddy, J) _ 587. a a doubt about the cortectness of these facts, as they are fully supperted |
4 "by conteyppraneous official records,
«
‘The. petitioners, ‘have ‘filed these writ: petitons impunging the : selection made ‘by, the Committee on various grounds. In their” peti- . tions, they have indulged in serveral allegations and insinuations for. whic there is no basis whatsoever. Shri Anil Dev Singh, Jeamned coun-, a . .. Sel for some of the petitioners raised three contentions: The first was © x
- as
+
‘that the.entire selection was vitiated, by the. presence on the Commit- .
» . tee of the father of, a candidate. The second contention was that tho entire. procedure was’ bad as the marks oblained by the candidates
- at the qualifying examination (TDC-Part I Medical 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 géneral knowledge and general intelligence whereas it’ would have ‘been more... |
-_> appropfiate to test-the general knowledge and general intelligence of
' candidates by holding a written test instead of'a viva voce. test. Shri
* Anil Dev Singh also genétal'y submitted that the viva voce .test was a mere manoeuvre designed to-bring'in candidates who had fared badly
- in the written test. Shri A.K. Sen, learned counsel who appeared for some of the other petitioners made only one submission and it Was.that-
‘the viva voce test. had worked in'an unreasonable and arbitiery m:n
_ner! in fact and as a matter of principle’. ‘He «‘aboraied the submis-.
sion by arguing that though the two papers in. the written tes carried
550 marks, ‘they were reduced to 85 points as against 15 points for the
’, °°: \wiva voce test. The result, according to him, was that candidates who
—— got a lead of 20-25 marks in the written-test liad. to"bow dewn te candi:
~ datés who got a lead of 3 or 4 points in the viva voce test'as the mar ks. obtained in the written test were reduced to points.in the ratio of 550 - to 85. Shri Sen also submitted that the questions put to the candidates © .
' at the interview were not designed to! test- either aptitude or general hnowledge or general intelligence and for that reason, the selection’.
was vitiated. He suggested that the final results tore cle quent testic oO c ‘fnony to the injustice done to the minority community in the State.”
; Co. We: find. no substance whatever in any of the submissions made by Shri Anil'Dev Singh and Shri.A.K, Sen. We. may Straightway .
~ ' sobserve that the insinuation that the interviews were so conducted as to do injustice. to the minority community appears to us to be unchari- ~ . “j . table and impetuous. We find that ‘there aye candidates belonging © to both the majority and the minority communities among the candidates who were able, to’ secure admission because of the points scored by them 1 in the viva voce est, as also amongst the candidates who
1 ne (
* . . , . 5 ' ’ ~
‘588 _ SUPREME COURT REPORTS, - Wesal? 28.0R° | ’ failed to secure admission because of their low score in the viva voce test. The inconsiderateness of the allegation i is evident from the fact bee _ that. the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test were not even available to the Selection Committee when , they, conducted the viva voce test. This circumstance. is sufficient to repudiate the broad. . allegation freely ‘made by Shri’ Anil Dev Singh that the viva voce test was designed to facilitate the selection of candidates who had fared badly i in the written test. oo
The submission that the questions put to the candidates at the interview were not designed to test either the aptitude, general hnow- \.. _ ledge or general intelligence of the candidates is equally without sub-. ' ww stance. In the writ petitions, no such averment was made and no instances ‘were given. In the petition a general allegation was made that,the viva voce 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 a ' the Government Medical College, Jammu filed a counter-affidavit in which, he stated ‘........ Not Jess than six minutes were. spent on each candidate though | in certain cases interview lasted for more. than.
ten minutes, All the candidates weie. 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 ‘Selection Committee only in respect of factors of interview prescribed in SRO-380 *. dated 7-7-1783 and the entire process was above board and extremely - fair. I submit thatthe result of the written test- became available to the members of the selection committee only after the interviews had -- yy been completed”, After this counter—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 in- * ‘telligence 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 become a doctor and so on.” Aarti Kaul stated in her affidavit that’
she was also asked to give an example of Collard (7) of the human: -
- body, that she replied that it was blood and she was then asked what . the constitution of blood was, to which she replied ‘‘Plasma Haemoglo-
~ bia RBC Serum”, Rajesh Gupta,-another candidate, stated that his a interview lasted for two ot three minutes and apait from questions
"relating to the name and occupation of his father and: brothers, he‘was also asked to define ‘absolute zero’ and ‘international ampere’: He
_ answered both the questions. He claimed that he was asked no que-
Pay
+
" JAVID RASOOE | y.I&K ‘grate (Chingapy Reddy, I ) 589: , stion relating to aptitude, goneral Knowledge or general intelligence. . AD : che i We; are of the veiw that- therei is no senuirie basis for any ‘complaint Se _ in regard to the nature: of the questiqns which ‘the candidates were. ~, '° asked in the viva voce test. We accept the statement of D. ‘Verma that _ the Selection Committee’ put. relevant question to the candidates to. . test their aptitude,. general knowledge and general intelligence. Anyone -B -who has served on a Selection Conimittee and interviewed candidates. _ knows that “a large’ number of candidates are. nervous andin orderto "|, . - put them at ease. it is aecessary ‘to‘ask them, to’start with, innocuous co } questions, such as, what Is your father’ 8 occupation?, whieh part of an oe the country, do you come. from?, what is your mother-tongue? and. eS, so on, Such. questions areintended to enable the condidate ,to feel C. .. : at ease and get over his nervousness .- No complaint can-surely to made St -~* -\ that'candidates were put such questions. We also failto see. howany.. | 7s , _ complaint can ‘be. made of the fact that questions en science ‘subjects oo ‘we . were asked of candidates’ seeking admission to medical Colleges, Surely), a . such questions are at least ds good as questions about the name of the == “3. _ €apital of an obscure Latin American State or who captained India ‘D. .. in the’ Second test match: against Pakistan in 1980. We entertain or * doubt that the questions asked were proper and relevant. We add that ; it is not for the court to sit in judgment over, the nature of the’ ques- - tions to be put by the members’ of: the Selection : ‘Committee. eis. 8 for. “the membe ars’ of. the. Selection Committee . to” ‘decide what és - ‘questions | they should ask’ cand so long as the questions - are ‘not E Mo such as to indicate’ that the interview was nothing but a make-believe, ~~ = ix Sanwe 1 must allow the matter té-rest there, . It is not the function of the. mo * court to weigh each question to find out the extent to whcih it is related vane to aptitude; general knowledge or genenral intelligence. If the question) is not flippant, ifis.not for the court to Say. that the question was irre- . > levant and should not have’ been asked at an interview. Perhaps irrele- - FE. -¥ vant questions inay also be asked to explore the ‘candidate’s capacity." 4 |, to detect irrelevancies. It is not for the court to ‘glaim to itself the task “3° ~ -*.) + of determining the nature of the questions to be put to candidates i © appearing at-an interview. “The petsons’. constituting the Selection ae ; Committee: who may generally be assumed to be men of*experience mk _ : and knowledgeable in regard to men and mattérs may surely’ be expe- GG”... _ cted to put-the right questions. Mn the absence of malafides, the mdatter © 3‘. Lo ‘is best'left to them. 1 Se i a, oe Mr. Sen made a “complaint that the marks obtained i in the writ. rs ten Aest ‘were: “reducec™ to points and this. had “resulted in candidates a HB. a » who had fared well i in the interview w stealifig a march over some candi- wy a ey a ; . . ee - . ma . v ane.
4 , of
~~ 590 _° "SUPREME COURT REPORTS . : [1984] 2's.cR. A dates who had fared well in the written test. The rules require that _ 85 points should be awarded for the written test and 15 poirits for the ln viva: voc? tést. Therefore, although the written tests carried: a total oy of 59) mirks, the marks obtained by each candidate had to be necessarily reduced to points onthe basis that 85 points equalled 550 marks ’ The grievance. is plainly imaginary. . . ~ Both,Mr. Anil Dev Singh and Mr. A-K. Sen invited our atten- » tion to the observations of this court:in Ajay Hasia’s™ case in regard a to the desireability of holding viva voce test tap select candidates for > admission to professional colleges andin regard to the manner of ae conducting such tests. The Court after referring to the criticism level- wad C ied against viva voce test observed: “Now this criticism cannot be said to be wholly. unfounded and it reflects a pdint of view which has certainly some validity’ The court then quoted M.P. Sharma on ‘Public Administration’. in ‘Theory and Practice’. and Glenn Stahl _ _ on ‘Public P2rsynael Administration’ and observed “But, despite all . w / this criticism, the oral interview method conjinues to be very, much ‘in Vogu2as 1 suppelmentaty test for assessing the suitability of candidates wherever test of personal traits is considered essential. Its réle- _ vance asa test for determining suitabilty based on. personal characteristics has been recognised in a number of decisions of this court which’. * are‘binding upon us’’. The Court then quoted from Chitra Lakha and — Others v. State of Mysore and Others and A. Pseriakarupran v. ~ E _ State of, Tamil Nadu & Others and observed:
J ry
“Tt.is therefore, not possible to accept the contentions of A the petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that
. . | Selecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral interveiw EO ‘in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The 7 oral inter view test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test * w for assessiig and evaluating the. capacity. and calibre of candi- "dates, vut in the absence of any better test for measuring personal , “characteristics . and traits, the ora! interview test.must, at the .present, stagé, be regarded as Not irrational ’ or irrelevant though itis subjective and based on first j impression; its result is influen- . ced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We | ty would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission to © college or even in the matter of public employment, the a t (1) [1981] 2 S.C.R. 79, Fs (2) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368. ot * (3) (1971) 2 S.C R. 430. ‘ oe 9 a
; w “JAVID- ‘RASOOL Vv. J p& K STATE 3 (Chinmappa Reddy, J. ) 7 591, :
oral interview test as presently held should not be relied ‘upon » 48 an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as ani additio- ~.nal-or supplementary test and, moreover, “great care must, be* °
_ be taken to see that persons who are appointed ; to. conduct the
>> oral nprvew test are nen of. high. integrity, calibre and qualifi-. ; cation” . , .
The Court then proceeded 10 consider whether the Allocation of as high ‘percentage as 331/3 of the iota] marks for thé viva voce test. did not render the: admission procedure arbittary. If was held. that vit did. make the selection procedure arbitrary but evén so the selection -was not Set,.aside as 18months had ‘elapsed since the selection and no mala. fides, had: beer established. The court finally considered the |.
_ argument that each candidate was not’ interviwed, for more than two ‘or three | minutes and televant questions. were not. asked. Taking
-note’ of the cifcumistance that no ‘affidavit had been filed either - bya member of the Seection Committee or by any other officer who - was present at the interview, iteyas thought that the- allegations of the Q.
, hd petitioners had. tobe accepted, "Tt was then said that “‘if. that be so, the
- otak interview test must.be held to be. vitiated and the selection made on the. basis of such test must be hold’ to be -arbitrary””, However,
«for the. reason that 18 months had already elapsed, it was not thought ~ proper ‘to strike down: ‘the’ selections. alrgady thade. Threafter ‘the - _ following observations were, made: ;
“We may. point Sut, that, ‘in our “opinion, if ‘the: raarks
“allocated. for the. oral interview do. not-exceed 15% of the total
_ marks and the candidates “are propefly interviewed and. “relevant questions are asked with a view to assessing their suitability-with reference to the factors required to -be taken ‘into . ~ consid?ration, the oral interview test would satisly the criter- .
: ion of reasonableness, and fon- -arbitrariness. “We think that ~ it would. also be desirable if the interview of the candidates : ‘is tape-recorded, | for in that. « even there will be. contempo- .tancous evidenct to. show. what were the questions asked tothe candidates by the interviewing committee and what were the answers givenand that will éliminate.a lot of unnecessary *
* contraversy besides acting as a check on the possibl e. arbitr-
- ariness of the interviewing committee”.
tw
« «<I would be noticed that niast of the observations were made ° with a view to enable the Government to‘devise a selection procedure which would be "above reproach.. Inv was: never r intended to lay down’
‘ a _ SUPREME COURT REPORTS: ae ‘sia S.C.R.
any. ‘hard ind fast rules. Th ihe very y nate: ‘of thiigs it would not be. : within the province or even the competence of the Court and. the, Court.
“would ‘not venture ‘into: such | exclusive thickets to discover: ways out, "when the matters afe mere: appropriately left to the wise expertise of medical academicians interested i in the quality and integ@ity. of medical: : .- . education and. public administrators. conversant with various admini-’
“trative and socio-economic problems, ;needs and. requirements. ‘The
. Court’s duty lies in. preventing ‘arbitrariness and denial of equal oppor- tunity. The question as to the subjects in. which an entrance test may ~~ ‘"\- be held is hardly 2 matter for'the court, unless; of course, the Subjects »~ - "are so. arbitrarily chosen as ‘to have not the slightest, connection with: _ " . the object of the examination. Such a situation is not likely to arise |
‘as ‘the. authorities’ may be expected: to. ‘act reasonably. Again itis not for the court to lay down whether.an interview test’ should be. held at ©
“all or how many .marks should be allotted: for the inverview test. Of course;:the marks must be minimal so as.to avoid charges of arbi- tratiness but not necessarily always. . There. may be posts and appoint-. ments where the only. proper method $f selection may be by ‘an inter-view. test,’ Even in: the case of. admission to. higher degree courses, it may some .times be neccssary to allot a fairly. high. percentage of nfarks : .
. for the: interview test. ‘For’ admission to.a Ph. D course, for example, - "candidates may have to” ‘be consummately interviewed, each of thém — , ‘for a. few hours; perhaps, ‘pefore any decision can be'taken.as to. ‘who | - may be admitted, That. is why we -say: Tigid rules cannot be. laid in| these, matters, and not by Courts. “The expert bodies are generally the . best judges. ‘All that we may say is that allocation ofa high percentage. _ of marks for admission to, -under-Graduate courses should be avoided . as there is a risk of 4'certain amount. of arbitrariness which thay lead; ‘to frustration ‘of the very object of the selection and disrepute of the . -
-. system, Courts interfere when the risk-of arbitrariness is so high: that =
_ arbitrariness. is inevitable. Again the court is not the best judge of | what.questions may. be asked at the: interview. As mentioned by us. earlier, all that is necessary i8 that the questions should | not be a mhere o.
, pretence.
” Ail that we. have said : above i$ only to supplement what has been said in, Ajay Hasia’s case and in the case of Lila Dhar vs. State of” Rajasthan™. In the latter.case after referting to the Kothari Committee’s report on ‘Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods, we said:
© 2) () (1982) SCR. 320.
i Al jo at.
i 4 As tg | is NOW well recognised ‘that while a written exaniina- oes tion assesses a. candidate’ $ knowledge and- intellectual ability, woe _. .an interview test is valuable to assess. 4 candidaté’s overall: ” “intellectual and personal. qualities: While a written’ examination’ | _ has certain-distinct adyantage over thé interview test there "are yet ro written tests which .can evaluate a candidatts’s 7 ‘initiative, alertness; resourcefulness; dependableness, coope-- “\-. * rativeness, capacity for clear and’ logical presentation, cffecti-, S . -‘veness, in discussion, effectiveness. in meeting and dealing with — . others, ‘adaptability, judgment,- ability » to’ make decision, : “ability. to, lead, intellectual arid moral. integrity. "Some of, these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with. some: degree of | etror, by.an interview test; much depending ‘on ‘the: constitu- :
no ~ tion of ‘the’ interview Board.”
oe
““Thus,. the written examination ‘assesses ‘the ian? $ intellect | - and the. interview test the man himself and “the twain shalt meet” *. for a: ‘proper selection.! If both written examination and interview ; test are to be essential featutes of proper. selection, the question may’ arise as. to: the. weight to be attached respectively, to them:
In the case of admission to ‘a college, ‘for instance, where the.” 0 candidate’ s personality i is: yet, to develdp' and it is ‘too’. early to, “identify the: personal qualities for: which greater: importance. may.
have. t6-be attached in later life, greater weight-has per force to.”
be given to performance i in the written examination. The impor: . ‘tance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. ‘That :
was what -was decided by this Court in. Perjakaruppan y. State’
- of Tamilnadu, Ajay Hasia: etc..v. Khalid Mujib Seharvardi: & hoe Ors. -etc.; (supra) and, other cases. “On the other hand, tn the case , of services to which recruitment has’ necessarily to be made'from . persons: ‘of. mature personality, interview test may -be ‘the: only
“way,. subject to, basic and essential ‘academic ‘and professional
"requirements being, satisfied. To Subject” such persons t6-a written ”
examination may. yield cunfruitfal: and negative: results, _ apart |
"from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. ‘There are, “of course, Many services to which tecruitment is made from. younger - candidates whose personalities: aré‘oit the thréshold of develop- a “= ment and who show: signs of. great'promisé, ahd the discerning me 7 may in an interview ‘test, catch a glimpse of the future. personality. Oo
‘ “yavin nasoot Y, v é K, STATE © (Chimpa edly, Z L$ 593. A
_ We then. ‘yeferred: to Giana ‘Stab on. 1 “Pablie Personnel” Adminis. fay : tration. and the. United Nations Hand book on Civil. Service Law and. . Practice”. We further ‘said: OO oe .
- SUPREME COURT REPORTS ° (1984). 2 ‘BOR. *
In the case of such services, where sound selection must combine “academic ability with personality promise, some’ weight has to ‘be given, though not much too great ‘weight, to the interview .
test. There. cannot . ‘be: any rule of thunib regarding the ‘precise’. - . weight to be given. It must vary from. service to service according ..
“t to the requirements of the service, the minimum qualifications
- .prescribed, the age group from which the selection. is to be made, thé body to’which the task-of holding the interview test is prope- of the subject, it may be examiricd in detail by the Research
; Unit of the Union of Public Service Commission.”
of the: court'in: Liladhar v, State of Rajasthan, We may as well refer — - tothe criticism: of. Shri Anil Dev Singh that block’ marks should not sed to be entrusted anda host of other factors.: It'isa matter for -determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not * '* for Courts to proriounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has’ '. been given with proven or obvious oblique motives. The Kothari Committee also suggested that in view of the obvious importance °
At this. juncture while” we are quoting froin the earlier decision .
have been allocated. for general knowledge and general intelligence, Our observations in Liladhar’s case, which we have extracted below,
. answer this point, also:
“The rules’ themselves do not provide for.the allocation of marks under. different heads .at the interview test. The ctitéria for the interview test has been Jaid down by. the.
‘rules. It is for the interviewing body to take a general:
decision whether. to allocate marks under different heads or | to award marks in a single lot: The award of marks under different heads may. lead to a distorted: picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality cf the impress- ”-
7 ion created by'the candidate on the interviewing bedy may
‘give.a more accurate. picture of the candidate’ S personality, It’
is for the interviewing body to choose. the appropriate’method of sharking at the selection to each service. There cannot be .- any magic formulatein ‘these matters and couris cannot sit it judgment over the, methods of marking employed by inter- ; viewing bodies unless, as wé said, it is proven or obvious that
. the:method of marking was chosen with oblique motive,
“It is true that in Periakaruppai’s case the Court. held that the nén-allocation of-marks-under various heads in the
_ interview test was illegal but that was because the instructions ww
=~
«
TAVID RASOOL ved & K STATE (Chiinappa Redd J. on . 595
J be awarded at the interview on the basis of five distinct . tests. Tt was- ‘thought. that the failure to eqocste marks, oe under each head: or distinct test, waggan illegality”.
The ctiticism, that- the Selection procedurey was bad ‘becausé the marks ‘obtained by the candidates at the respective " qualifying exami-- ro “nations were not taken into account; but only the marks’ in the written .- ~ test and, the oral test conducted: by the Selection Committce;-has also
-no force. We were told that the qualifying examination, that is, - the os | First. TOC: (Medical Group) exatnination -was held at: different times _ in Jammu and Srinagar. Naturally ‘the question papers, etc.must © shave ‘been different. The Selection: Committee: apparently ‘thought.
_ that it would be better to have a common entrance test. It appears to — . us to bea perfectly reasonable procedure. Even’ otherwise itis always. -
* open to a ‘Selection Committee to insist on taking ‘into ‘consideration marks obtained-at the examination held by it only and.excluding from
‘consideration marks obtained in examinations held by other bodies..
‘We are unable to see anything ‘wrong-in this: procedure. A similar
' contention was s negatived i in Ajay Hasia’ s case also. where it was obser-
, ved: ~
“It is difficult to appreciate how a ‘procedire for admission which.
does not, také’-into account the ‘marks dbiained:at the: ‘qualifying oe a .examination, but prefers to test the comparative merit.of the candidates
“by: insisting on, an entrance’ txamination can ‘every be said to be, arbi- e
' Two. “other submissions which were ‘made | in- the course of the 7 . argument may also bé disposed of here, One was. that ‘general know: ~
“z ledge and. gerieral intelligence were not matters to. be.tested in the | viva
” voct-test, but should have been tested'in a. written examination. That is’
not a. matter for this Court to decide. It was a matter for the Selection.
Committee . to decide whether general, ‘knowledge and general intelli-
_ gence‘could be more appropriately tested in the viva voce test or, in the
_ Written test. The other submission was that. there was delay in the announcement of results and the delay made thé selection suspect.. We
', find that there was in fact no delay'a and we. only add that the. suspicion,
. if any, was unfounded.
i] ‘We finally come to the submission on which Shri Anil: Dev. Singh
- laid considerable emphasis, namely, that the entire selection’ was vitia-"
Pd ted, by, the presence on the Selection’ ‘Committee of the. father of one ;
‘to the: Selection Commitiee ‘provided that marks” were tow
+”
i: 596 Ho SUPREME COURT REPORTS — “980 2 2 sex.
q
> of the candidates, T his was said to be a: gross Yiolation’ of one of the , 7 principles. of natural justice. The. grivance is not real. The . Principal - of-Medical. College, Srinagar, ’ whose. daughter . was a “carididate, for — - admission to the’ Médical College informed: the Selection Conimittee at’ the very outset about thigfact and told them that he would. not have' a anything. to do. with the written test and’ would -not “be present | when - “his daughter _ was interviewd: The other members :of the, Sélection 7 Committee’ accepted the suggestion of” ihe Principal‘ and ‘did . not. think it necessary to address the Government to appoint a’. substi- :
tute ‘member of the. Selection: Committee since the Government had fixed. the quorum for a meeting” of the’ Selection Committee: as ;the Chairman and one other member and it was possible to have a quorum. ‘ without the Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar. The precedure > ied adopted by thie Selection Committee and’ the member concerned was ~ in accord. with the quite well- known and generally: accepted procedure ao
| adopted by. the Public Service Conimissions’ every where, It is not:
'.. unusual for candidates related to members of the Service Commission
_. 6r other Selection. Committee to scek- employment. Whenever such - “4 situation arises, the practice generally is. for the‘ member concerned
» to excuse. ‘himself when the particular candidate ib, interviewed. We
- hotice. that such a’ Situation had also been noticed by this court in: the | case of Nagarjan v. State of Mysore where it was pointed out'that in the absence of mala fides, it would not be fi ight to set aside the. selec-" .’ tion merely. bécause one of the candidates happened te be related “toa member ‘of the “Sélection Commission who had abstained from. “participating in the interview of that candidate, Nothing’ unusual was °
_ done by+the present Selection ‘Committee, The girl’ $ father. was ‘not present when : she was. interviewed. She was one among several hundred cadidates. The marks obtained by her in the written test were’ not | -
" even: knows: when she was interviewed. And, in fact, we find that as © a result-of her performance at the interview, she lost rather than gained: Sole places, TE, — oo
Great reliance was. placed by the learned counsel on A. K: - Kraipak ;
'& Ors. v. Union, of India.“ onthe" question of natural justice. We.’ “do ‘hot, think that the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was - -a case where. one of the persons, who. sat as member of the Selection, Board,. was himself one of the persons to be considered for selection: _ He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Board when, the. claims of his rivals v Were. considered. He participated in the: decisions, co
‘@) [1979] i SCC. 457.
.. (2) [1966] 3 S.C.R, 682.
“JAVID RASOQL ?. 1h K STATE © (Chimapra Redly ty. 2 9T, co :
oa relating, to ‘the orders” “of: preference and seniority, He: participated at. "every stage” in the. deliberations of. the Selection Boardand at every stage there was ‘a cotiflict between his ifiterest and diity. The court had
_ no hesitation in coming to the’ conclusion’ that-there’ was a reasonable. " _ likelihood of bias and therefore, there was ‘a violation of the principles’ a of. natural justice. | In thé case before’ us, the’ Priticipal of the Medical ‘ College, Srinagar, dissociated himself fron the written, test and did: °. not’ ‘participate in the proceedings: when his daughter was interviewed.-
“When the’ other canididates were ‘jnterviewed, he: ‘did not know’ the a aS :
~S mafks obtained: either by..his: daughter or. by any of the’ candidates. ;
_ There. was no occasion to: suspect his bona fides. even ‘reinotely, There.” was not éven a a suspicion of bias, leave alone’a reasonable likelihood... - of bias. There: Was no ) violation of the principales, of natural Justice. o
One last submission, “which we: may note, was that there was 5.
‘a contravention of one of the- regulations made. ‘by the Indian Medical «:
Council. It was.said that the ‘regulation prescrited that the marks... 0.
obtained at the qualifying examination Should be‘ taken into conside=
-fation in States having only one Medical College: ‘and. one University/ . . ' Board/Examination Body . conducting the - qualifying examination. .’ This regulation:.has no’ application because there are-two Medical” . woe Colleges‘i ‘in, this State. Though otily one Board conducted the qualify-. * ing examination; the. examinations: “Awere. Conducted, sepaiately™ for:
Jamina ‘and Srinagar. dreas and. on two. different occasions; In the - second filace; these regulations have been. held to be directory and jot’ ’ “mandatory by this court in- State of Madhya Pradesh Vv; Kr. Nivedita a pagan a t.
"We haye ‘considered. the” various ‘points ‘raised by the petitioners,
“at some length, we. have: said so. much arid we. have quoted from the, . ‘previous judgments of: this ‘Court in exterise ‘not because. we find any
+ stibstance’in any of the contentions, but: because these. contentionsare *,
- being repeatedly. raised in’ “many such cases and wwe. desité to. discou-’_
'. rage, the raising of unnecessary hope in the minds of thé young-men
« and women seeking the aid of: courts for admission into ‘professional . colleges, ready as they. are to clutch at any. straw. We dismiss all the he Watt t petitions but ia. . the cireumstances without costs.
a
@..° ~~ (19817 4'S.C.C. 296,
At
N.V-K. Pe me _ oS Betitions. dismissed.