Case: State Of Karnataka And Another Vs. M. Farida And Others

each head depends, in our opinion, upon the rule regulating the examination. In periakaruppans case it was held that the intention of the Government was that each of the specified qualities should carry equal marks. In these appeals we have not been called upon to decide whether the rule concerned in Periakaruppans case was correctly interpreted. We do not however think that it would be correct to assume as a general proposition that in e very 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 head; on the contrary, in our opinion, where the rules do not contain a clear direction, it would be reasonable in such cases to suppose that the intention is that there should be a block assessment on an integrated test. It was observed in Periakaruppans case that conceding to the selection committee the right to award block marks would enable the selection committee to act arbitrarily and allot marks "as it pleased". It 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 pleased". On this point it may be relevant to refer t.? what this Court said in R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore &Ors. ([1964] 6 S.C.R. 368 (p. 382).)"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 admissions to colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in the annual examination, The modern trend of opinion insists upon other 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 the matter of awarding marks in the written examinations. In the ultimate analysis, whatever method is adopt ed 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."3. We do not think that the total arrived at by adding up the separate marks awarded for the different qualities is always a true measure of a candidates suitability. An illustration from Periakaruppans case would serve to clarify the 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 less than the total marks secured by the first candidate. Which of the two should be considered more qualified for admission to medical profession ? It would take great courage, we think, to hold that the candidate who secured 15 marks was more suitable.The question therefore is whether rule 9 read with Part IV of Schedule 11 of the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966 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 as 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 students for admission to particular courses or picking out the suitable ones from a group of job applicants, emphasis is laid some of the attributes. The end result may not 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. Part IV of Schedule 11 which provides the details of the test calls it a personality test, the object of which is to assess the personal 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 be kept in view, in assessing the personality of the candidates. It seems hardly possible in t he test contemplated to allocate separate marks for each of the various qualities specified, because most of them overlap one another and are so intermixed that they cannot be separated, Also, the test carries a maximum mark of 200; it seems a 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 11 never intended that separate marks should be allotted for the several qualities stated therein. Reading Rule 9 with Part IV of Schedule 11, we are of opinion that the interviewing body was required to award a block mark on a total impression of the personality of each candidate after giving due consideration to the seven qualities specified in Part IV.4.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We do not however think that it would be correct to assume as a general proposition that in e very 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 head; on the contrary, in our opinion, where the rules do not contain a clear direction, it would be reasonable in such cases to suppose that the intention is that there should be a block assessment on an integrated test. It was observed in Periakaruppans case that conceding to the selection committee the right to award block marks would enable the selection committee to act arbitrarily and allot marks "as it pleased". It 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 pleased". On this point it may be relevant to refer t.? what this Court said in R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore &Ors. ([1964] 6 S.C.R. 368 (p. 382).)"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 admissions to colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in the annual examination, The modern trend of opinion insists upon other 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 the matter of awarding marks in the written examinations. In the ultimate analysis, whatever method is adopt ed 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 quashingdo not think that the total arrived at by adding up the separate marks awarded for the different qualities is always a true measure of a candidates suitability. An illustration from Periakaruppans case would serve to clarify the 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 less than the total marks secured by the first candidate. Which of the two should be considered more qualified for admission to medical profession ? It would take great courage, we think, to hold that the candidate who secured 15 marks was more suitable.The question therefore is whether rule 9 read with Part IV of Schedule 11 of the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966 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 as 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 students for admission to particular courses or picking out the suitable ones from a group of job applicants, emphasis is laid some of the attributes. The end result may not 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. Part IV of Schedule 11 which provides the details of the test calls it a personality test, the object of which is to assess the personal 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 be kept in view, in assessing the personality of the candidates. It seems hardly possible in t he test contemplated to allocate separate marks for each of the various qualities specified, because most of them overlap one another and are so intermixed that they cannot be separated, Also, the test carries a maximum mark of 200; it seems a 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 11 never intended that separate marks should be allotted for the several qualities stated therein. Reading Rule 9 with Part IV of Schedule 11, we are of opinion that the interviewing body was required to award a block mark on a total impression of the personality of each candidate after giving due consideration to the seven qualities specified in Part IV.