Case: Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

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 Honble 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 eache 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 Art. 32 of the Constitution questioning the selection.

Reasoning: It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidates knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates 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 candidates 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 integrityThus, the written exa mination assesses the mans 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 aris e as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. In the case of admission to a college, for instance, where the candidates personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater impo rtance 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 minimalIt 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 peopleWe 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. Th e 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 diff erent 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 candidates 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 motiveThe 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 candidate s for the Indian Administrative Service the marks allocated for the interview test were only 12.2 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 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 w eight 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 Art. 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 w eight 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