ition No 2701 of 1981
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India section K Mehta P N Puri E M Sardul Anam M K Dua and K M Jain for the Petitioner
V M Tarkunde and section K Jain for Respondents Nos 7 8 15 25 28 29 31 33 38 41
K Parasaran Sol
Gen and Badri Das Sharma for Respondent No 1
NL Jain and Badri Das Sharma for Respondent No 2
Badri Das Sharma for Respondent No 3
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
What is the ideal mode of selection to a Public Service by written examination by oral test viva voce or by a combination of both  If the last what is the proper relative weight that should be attached to the written examination and the oral test  Is the oral test so pernicious in practice as suggested by some that it should be abandoned without regrets or the weight to be attached to it be made minimal  Has any such consensus emerged among the informed and the cognoscenti as to require the Court to scrap a selection as arbitrary on the sole ground that the weight accorded to the oral test appeared to be high  323 Pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service rules made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the High Court of Rajasthan the Rajasthan Public Service Commission held a competitive examination for recruitment of Munsifs
The competitive examination consisted of a written examination with two papers in law carrying 100 marks each and two papers one in Hindi and the other in English each carrying SO marks and a viva voce examination carrying 100 marks
The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board consisting of Hon ble Mr Justice P D Kudal Judge Rajasthan High Court Shri Hari Datt Gupta Chairman Rajasthan Public Service Commission Adaviappa Member Rajasthan Public Service Commission and an expert
The expert Member was either Dr I C Saxena or Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by rotation
Schedule III of the Rajasthan Judicial Service rules prescribes the criteria to be considered and the matters to be tested in the viva voce examination
The relevant paragraph is as follows In interviewing the candidates the suitability for employment to the judicial service shall be decided with reference to his record at the school College and University and his character personality address and physique
The questions which may be put up to him may be of a general nature and will not necessarily be academic or legal
The candidates will also be put questions to test the general knowledge including knowledge of current affairs and present day problems
The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each candidate 
The result of the competitive examination was announced by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on March 12 1981 and respondent Nos 3 to 41 were declared selected for appointment
Out of the 39 candidates who were selected for appointment one belonged to the scheduled castes and the rest belonged to the general category
The last of the candidates belonging to the general category who was selected for appointment obtained a total of 190 marks in the examination 135 in written examination and 55 in the viva voce
The petitioner who obtained a total of 189 marks 159 in the written test and 30 in the viva voce was not selected for appointment
He has filed the present writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution questioning the selection
324 Shri Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner raised two principal contentions before us
The first was that the entire selection was vitiated by the allocation of 25 percent of the total marks for the viva voce examination
The submission was that the allocation of so high a percentage of marks for the interview test introduced an irredeemable element of arbitrariness so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In support of this submission reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Ajay Hasia etc
Khalid Mujib Sehravardi  ors
etcl Shri Mehta s second contention was that marks were awarded in the interview test in a single lot instead of sub dividing and awarding marks separately under various heads for the various matters tested in the interview
Reliance was placed on Periakaruppan vs Stare of  Tamil Nadu 2
The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job avoiding patronage and favouritism
Selection based on merit tested impartially and objectively is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service
So open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services
The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness3
Competitive examinations were the answer to the twin problems represented by democracy and the requirements of good administration
They were the means by which equality of opportunity was to be united with efficiency
By this means favouritism was to be excluded and the goal of securing the best man for every job was to be achieved4
open competitive examinations are a peculiarly democratic institution
Any qualified person may come forward
His relative competence for appointment is determined by a neutral disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself
No one has pull everyone stands on his own feet
The system is not only highly democratic it is fair and equitable to every competitor
The same rules govern the same procedures apply the same yardstick is used to test competenceS
How should the competitive examination be devised  The 325 Kothari Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection methods in their report said A system of recruitment almost totally dependent on assessment of a person s academic knowledge and skills as distinct from ability to deal with pressing problems of economic and social development with people and with novel situations cannot serve the needs of today much less of tomorrow
We venture to suggest that our recruitment procedures should be such that we can select candidates who can not only assimilate knowledge and sift material to understand the ramifications of a situation or a problem but have the potential to develop an original or innovative approach to the solution of problems
It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidate s knowledge and intellectual ability an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate s overall intellectual and personal qualities
While a written examination has certain distinct advantage over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate s initiative alertness resourcefulness dependableness cooperativeness capacity for clear and logical presentation effectiveness in discussion effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others adaptability judgment ability to make decision ability to lead intellectual and moral integrity
Some of these qualities may be evaluated perhaps with some degree of error by an interview test much depending on the constitution of the interview Board
O Glenn Stahl in his Public Personnel Administration points out Any form of written test possesses certain administrative advantages over the oral and performance types
The written form is much easier and cheaper to administer
It can be given to a large number of individuals at the same time thus conserving the time of the examiners
As a general rule it is easier to evaluate objectively and the technical proficiency demanded in rating is usually although not always less
The oral test has long served as a basic selection tool in private employment but has been more slowly accepted in the public field
This conservatism arises out of three considerations I the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral tests 2 the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test and 3 public suspicion of the oral as a channel for the exertion of politi 326 cal influence through the destruction of anonymity
Despite these acknowledged disadvantages however orals have been used increasingly in public personnel testing and have become important instruments wherever tests of personal attributes are considered essential
As we have noted no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised for measuring such personal characteristics as initiative ingenuity and ability to elicit cooperation many of which are of prime importance
When properly employed the oral test today deserves a place in the battery used by the technical examiner
The general principle is that resort should never be had to an oral if the relevant factor to be tested can be measured at some other point in the examining process
The reason is that the reliability of the oral even under the best of conditions tends to be lower than that of the well designed written test
The oral test should be confined then to the evaluation of relevant traits which cannot be measured in any other way p 92 In the United Nations Hand Book on Civil Service Laws and Practice it is said  the written papers permit an assessment of culture and intellectual competence
The interview permits an assessment of qualities of character which written papers ignore it attempts to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities
Thus the written examination assesses the man s intellect and the interview test the man himself and the twain shall meet for a proper selection
If both written examination and interview test are to be essential features 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 candidate s personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life greater weight has per force to be given to performance in the written examination
The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal
That was what was decided by this Court in Periakaruppan vs State of Tamil Nadu Ajay Hasia etc
vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi  ors
 supra and other cases
On the other hand in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature 327 personality interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied
To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results apart from its being an act or cruelty to those persons
There are of course many services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise and the discerning may in an interview test catch a glimpse of the future personality
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 thumb regarding the precise weight to be given
It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service
the minimum qualifications prescribed the age group from which the selection is to be made the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors
It is a matter for determination by experts
It is a matter for research
It is not for Courts to pronounce 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 of the subject it may be examined in detail by the Research Unit of the Union of Public Service Commission
In this background let us now examine the situation presented by the Rajasthan rules
The Rajasthan Judicial Service rules leave been made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the High Court of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission
The High Court may be expected to know the precise requirements of the judicial service of the State and the calibre of the available source material while the Public Service Commission is an expert body thoroughly conversant with recruitment policies and selection methods
Both the High Court and the Public Service Commission are independent bodies outside executive control occupying special positions and enjoying special status under the constitution
Neither is an outside agency
Both are well acquainted with the particular needs of their State and the people
If the Governor in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission of the State makes rules stipulating seventy five percent of the marks for the written examination and twenty five percent for the interview test on what basis can a Court say that twenty five percent for the interview test is on the high side  It must not also be forgotten that the interview test is generally conducted 328 and was in the present case conducted by a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court the Chairman and a member of the Public Service Commission an d a special invitee expert
There can surely be no legitime grievance or hint of arbitrariness against this body
Yet another factor worthy of consideration is that the candidates expected to offer themselves for selection are not raw Graduates freshly out of college but are persons who have already received a certain amount of professional training
The source material is such that some weightage must be given to the interview test and can it possibly be said that twenty five per cent of the total marks is an exaggerated weightage
We may add here that it has been made clear by the Chairman Rajasthan Public Service Commission on whose behalf a counter affidavit has been filed before us that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were not made available to the members of the interview Board either before or at the time of the interview
We are unhesitatingly of the view that the selection cannot be struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview test
The second ground of attack must fail for the same reason as the first ground of attack
The rules themselves do not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test
The criteria for the interview test bas been laid down by the rules
lt 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 of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more accurate picture of the candidate s personality
It is for the interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service
There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts cannot sit it judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless as we said it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive
Both the cases cited before us Periakaruppan s case and Ajay Hasia s case were cases of admission to colleges
We have already pointed out that the provision for marks for interview test need not and cannot be the same for admission to colleges and entry into public services
In fact in Periakaruppan s case even in the case of college admissions the Court observed 329 While we do feel that the marks allotted for interview are on the high side and it may be appropriate for the Government to re examine the question we are unable to uphold the contention that it was not within the power of the Government to provide such high marks for interview or that there was any arbitrary exercise of power
It is true that in Periakaruppan s case the Court held that the non allocation of marks under various heads in the interview test was illegal 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
We do not think that Periakaruppan s case which as we said deals with admission to a college affords any true guidance to us
Ajay Hasia s case was also a case of admission to a college
The Court while upholding the interview test as not irrational or irrelevant though unsatisfactory and capable of abuse made the following observation We would however like to point out that in the matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of public employment the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied 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
The Court then proceeded to consider the next question raised before them whether the allocation of 33 113 percent of the total marks for the interview test vitiated the selection procedure as arbitrary and unreasonable
It was held that it did and reference was made to the fact that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service the marks allocated for the interview test were only 122 percent of the total
It was then observed under the existing circumstances allocation of more than 15 of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid
The observations of the Court were made primarily 330 in connection with the problem of admission to colleges where naturally academic performance must be given prime importance
The words or even in The matter of public employment occurring in the first extracted passage and the reference to the marks allocated for the interview test in the Indian Administrative Service examination were not intended to lay down any wide general rule that the same principle that applied in the matter of admission to colleges also applied in the matter of recruitment to public services
The observation relating to public employment was per incuriam since the matter did not fall for the consideration of the Court in that case
Nor do we think that the Court intended any wide construction of their observation
As already observed by us the weight to be given to the interview test should depend on the requirement of the service to which recruitment is made the source material available for recruitment the composition of the interview Board and several like factors
Ordinarily recruitment to public services is regulated by rules made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution and we would be usurping a function which is not ours if we try to redetermine the appropriate method of selection and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests
If we do that we would be rewriting the rules but we guard ourselves against being understood as saying that we would not interfere even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive
There is none in the present case
The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order regarding costs
VDK Petition dismissed


Summary:
Pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the High Court of Rajasthan the Rajasthan Public Service Commission held a competitive examination for recruitment of Munsifs
The competitive examination consisted of a written examination with two papers in law carrying 100 marks each and two papers one in Hindi and the other in English each carrying SO marks and a viva voce examination carrying 100 marks
The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board consisting of Hon ble Mr Justice P D Kudal Judge Rajasthan High Court Shri Hari Dutt Gupta Chairman Rajasthan Public Service Commission Adaviappa Member Rajasthan Public Service Commission and an expert
The expert Member was either Dr IC Saxena or Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by rotation
Out of the 39 candidates respondents 3 to 41 who were selected for appointment one belonged to the scheduled caste and the rest belonged to the general category
The last of the candidates belonging to the general category who was selected for appointment obtained a total of 190 marks in the examination 135 in the written examination and 55 in the viva voce
The petitioner who obtained a total of 189 marks 159 in the written test and 30 in the viva voce was not selected for appointment
Hence the writ petition by the petitioner contending a the allocation of so high percentage of marks for the interview test introduced an irredeemable element of arbitrariness so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution b awarding of marks in the interview test in a single lot instead of sub dividing and awarding marks separately under various heads for the various matters tested in the interview was bad in law
Dismissing the writ petition the Court  HELD 1
The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and tho most suitable person for the job avoiding patronage and favouritism
Selection based on merit tested impartially and objectively is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service
324 C D 321 12
While a written examination assesses a candidate s knowledge and intellectual ability an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate s overall intellectual and personal qualities
While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test there are yet no written test which can evaluate a candidate s initiative alertness resourcefulness dependableness co operativeness capacity for clear and logical presentation effectiveness in discussion effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others adaptability judgement ability to make decision ability to lead intellectual and moral integrity
Some of these qualities may be evaluated perhaps with some degree of error by an interview test much depending on the constitution of the interview Board
Thus the written examination assesses the man s intellect and the interview test the man himself and the twain shall meet for a proper selection
325 C E 326 F 2
As regards the weight to be attached respectively to the written test and the oral test there cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given
It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service the minimum qualifications prescribed the age group from which the selection is to be made the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors
It is a matter for determination by experts and for research
It is not for courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives
326 F 327 C D Periakaruppan vs State Tamil Nadu 1971 2 SCR and Ajay Hasia etc
vs Khalid Mujlb Sehravardi  Ors AIR 1981 SC 487 explained
Ordinarily recruitment to public services is regulated by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and courts would be usurping a function which is not theirs if they try to redetermine the appropriate method of selection and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests
If the courts do that they will be rewriting the rules but however courts would interfere certainly in cases of proven or obvious oblique motives
330 C D In the instant case the selection cannot ba struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview test a The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules have been made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the High Court of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Both are well acquainted with the particular needs of their State and the people
If the Governor in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission of the State makes rules stipulating seventy five per cent of the marks for the written examination and twenty five per cent for the interview test Courts have no basis on which to say that twenty five per cent for the interview test is on the high side b the interview test is generally conducted and was in the present case conducted by a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court the Chairman and a member of the Public Service Commission and a special invitee expert and as such no legitimate grievance or hint of arbitrariness could be made against this body c the candidates expected to offer themselves for selection are not raw graduates freshly out of college but are persons who have already received a certain amount of professional training
The source material is such that some weightage must be given to the interview test 322 and d the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were not made available to the members of the interviewing Board either before or at the time of the interview
327 E H 328 A C 4
Courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive
In the instant case the Rajasthan Judicial Rules generally indicate the criteria to be considered in the interview test without dividing the interview test into distinct sub tests
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 of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more accurate picture of the candidate s personality
328 D G Periakaruppan vs State of Tamil Nadu 1971 2 SCR 430 and Ajay Hasia etc
vs Khalid Mujib Sheravardi and Ors   discussed and distinguished