---- . c

. -G

582 ....

JA:VfD RASOOL- BHAT & ORS; ETC.

-· "' . v.' : -STATE OF JAMMU &'KAS!-lMJR AND ORS.

February 16, 1984 ' "

(0. CH!NNAPPA REDD¥, E.S. VEN](AJ:ARAMIAH AND R:B. MJSRA, JJ.]. .-. . .

EducationaJ. lnstitutions-Adniisston to .

. M; dical. Colleges-AJn1ission to-Viva vote 1est-W!ieti1er Court Could io .into relewu.1cy of qiestions pu1'o candidates. ·· . . -~ . - . . .

Nat, ura/justice: .Medical Col/eges-Ad111issionto_:_Ca11did.tte elated to Mrnber of Selection Com11litee-SeleCtlo11 whethei vitia(ed. • .

The' State Governtnent issued an adveitiS111ent _inviting. application for ac!mis sion -to t)le fir.st year MBBScourse in the two medical colleges in'.the State. Jt ·.Was nlentio'ned therein that the candidates would have to appear ina written'tcst which would be followed by a ViYavoce test and that 85 points were _allowed for thewritten test 'and 15 pOints -were Vivavoce test. The 'SeleCtion con1mittec for the selection. was constitut.cd t_o conSist of the Chahn1p.n of the State. Public, Service Co1nmissi'on as Chainnan; and two members. vii., the Principals of the two -Medicil Colleges .. The quorun1 for a nJeeting of the Cori1111ittee was stipulated as the chair.man and .one me1nber. When the Selection Corrimittce held its -first n1eet i.ng Orle Or the 1nnbJrs, thC Principal of the College inforn1cd the~ Com'1nittee that as his daughti::r was one of the cartdidates con1peting for adn1ission, it' would nOt be desirabl~ for him to bC associated, at ny stage, with the wrlttcn test, arid that he, would not like to be preseht when liis.daulihtcr \Vas interviewed>The Com1nittce took'note of ih_e inform<j.tiorl and agreed with the suggeStion ...

. The petitioners in their writ petitions under Article 32, questioned the seleCt ion'ofcani:lidates for admission: It -was .. contendcdoi1 their behalf that.: (l)the entire selection_ was vitiated by th(: prescrice on the Comi:nittee of the father of a caddida.t~, and this was a 'gross violatiOn of one the .principles of najural Justice :

(2) the entire procedure was ad as the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination (T.DC.:_art I Medical group) were not taken into account and 'not giVen any We_ight3.ge; (3) the viva.....:.....voce test provided for 1points for . general kno"'.ledge and general 'inteIIi£-ei:iSe whereas it \\{ould have been_ mOre appro- . priate to test general knowlege ail(( general ii, telligencc' of t; andidate by holding..·

a written instead of a viva-voce test;. (4f gerieral knowledge and general intelligence ere not matters to be tested in a written exaininatiOn; ·(5) there . w_as delay in the-annOuncement of the results and the delay made the seICction suspect, and (6) the regulaiionS made by the , Indian Medical' Councii prescribed .thilt the marks obtained in the -qualifying examination Should be taken in to Conside1ation. . . . . ' :DismiSsing the writ petition ; . - HELD: 1. I{ is not unusual for Candidates.related to inembers ofthCService Commissiou. or othe'r Selecticin Committee t~ sek . elnp~yrneu~ .. -_Whenever St1ch a

' '

. . \

. } I.AVID RASOOL.V._J & K S~ATE (Chinnappa Rei/4y,_J.) 583 .

\' sitution arises, the' praCtice genreally is for, the' n1en1ber concerned io.exuse himstlf ~- <. .wlreii'thc parti'cular candjdateis interVieWed.

Iri the iristant cas~, .the Pricipa[ of th~·. Medicl college, wf1osc d~Ughter Was a canOfctai~ for adffiission to the Medical College .informed the Selection

Committee at the very outset about fhis f<Lct 3.nct told theQl that h~ woUJd 'not ·have anything to do with the writtentest and woul.i not be present When his daughter as inierviewect.-." The other members' -of the Selection COmtrtittee

cepted th'C sugges'tion Of the PrinciPal\ and did not addrc;:ss the G.overnmnt 'to appoint a sllbstitute member of the Selection. Committee, since ihc Govern-' .4.. ment had :(ixcid the quor 1 um -for a meeting of te Selection Committee, as_tbe

 1.

Chairman and one o her member and it was possible to have a qudru_m -{ without ihe Pfincipal. The procedure adopted by the SeleetiOn Cornri::iitteC aod ·

~ ... - ' the. !member' eonCerned was -m. accord with. the quite well-known.and generally accepted procedure adoptCd by the Public- Service Coihmissions 'everywhere.

- ' - ' . . .

Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, Jl966J3- S.C.R. 682, . referr. d. to .. [5%A-CJ

2. It is no't for.the Court tCI ·sit'.!. in judgmcµt. Over tc nature of the ...... ·- questiol1s t? be put' by, the membefs of. the_ Selection' Committee.

'f'F _'It is for the, members' of the. Seleqtion Committee, to dec_ie what they should ask and so ong as the questions arc notSuch as to indicate-that the intefvicw' \Vas nothing but. a ake--belicve, 'the matter mUSt be allov.ed" to rest . there. It i~ not the function oftheCoµrt to weigh e:aCh questioll io find out the extent

to which it is ·~\.:.latedto aptitude,·. general knowledge_ or gerieraJ ntclligencc. If tl1e . question is riot fJ.ipparit, it is not for the cOurt to say that the question was irreleVant

and ShO'qld not have beeti. asked. at any -inierview. Perhaps. irrelcv.allt questiolls , may also~ be asked to explore the candid3.te's capacity' tO detect: .irrelcyancies. lt is j..... not for the Court to clain1 to hself the task of determining the na, ture of the questions

 _ ./to be pi.it to candidates., apPearing t an i1:1terview .. , The persons consti.tuting the _; .. ?" Selection Co111fQ.ittect who. may generally be assumed _to be n1en i of experience. and

...--t~. _ knowledgCable in regar4 to men and nlaiters may st1rely be expe-ctCd to pu~ the fight

questios .. In th absence of rnalafidcS, th~ mitter, is bet left t~ the-n1. [58.9E'.GJ

. ' ":3{i) Th qutin a-S to the subjects in wlic~· ~~ entran~ test may be heI~ is hardly a natter fof the Court, unless, of course, ihe subjects arq_ sO arbitrarily chosen as to.\.ave not. the slightest-cnneciion witli the objeC~ of , th~ exami1a1ion.

Such a ; ituation is Uot likely to arise B.s:the authO}itieS rllay be expects:ci" tO .act reasonably. Again it.is 1; ot fof the COurt to lay .down whether an interview test

sliouldbe held .at 'all or how illany marks -hould be allOted for the intei-v:ieW test.

Of coufse,. thernai:-ks n1ust-be. mini_mal so as .to :H.void charges of arbitrarinCss bllt not necessarily al\vayS. There may be. posts and appoihtrrients whefe. the only proper method of selection may be by an interview test Even iii the case of admission to

/ F

higher degrees courses, it may sOnietimes be necessary to allot a fairly high percentage. ' . G of nlarks for the interview test. -That'is why rigid iules cannot bC laid down in these.

atters, ahd.· not by -purts .. The , experts ae generally the -best.judges:. TheCourts

~: duty IieS in pretenting arbitrariness and. denial ofeqUal opportunity. [592C-E,592B]

. -3ii) , s interfere when the risk of arbitiariness 'is so high that" arbitrafiness is inevitable .. AgaifJ. the Court is not the best judge of.what questi9ns :ffiay be asked at .the inter-view. All that is' 'nc6ssary is that the questions should not be H.

_. ... amere pretence. [592F] · , ..

'_,. . '•

, .

', -

' Ajay Hasia's case, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 7.9 ;' Chitra 1i"ekha a1!d Ors. 11. State of Mysore and Or_s.. [1964) 6 S.C.R. 368; A. Peeriakaruppan v.


 4(i) Tle Selcctin Co1n1nittee appa:rentl; r 'bought it would be better .to have ' . va comrµon entrance test. It appears to be a perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it is always open to a Selection Co1nn1ittee to insist on taking into consideration marks Obtained at the exan1ination held by it and eXcluding from Considera'.'tion 1narks obtained in examinations held by Other bodies. There is nothing-' wrong in this procedure, [595C-D]

4(ii) It wa's a matter for .the Selection. Conm1ittce to decide whether ., gfneral kno\Vledge and general intelligence could be more appropriately .tested in the vivavoce tCst or in the written test. That is not a matier 'for the court to decide: [595F].

5. There ,.was in fact no delay in The announcement of results and the suspicion, if.anY, was uounded. [595G] ' . ' -

6. 'The regulation of the-Indian Mddical Council prescribing tha.t the marks otbiained, at the qualifyipg examination should be taken into consideration has no application becatise, ithere are two Medical colleges .in the sta'.te. Though only one Board conducted .. the qualifying exan1ination, the examinations ere conducted. separately for Jamr'nU and Srinagar areas and. on tv-io different occasions.

Moreover, 'the-regulations of the Council haYe been held to be directory and ilot mandatory by this Court. [597 D-E) .

' Madhya Prdesh. ;_ Kr. Nivedita Jain [1981] 4 S.C.C. 296, referred to. - ,_ ,,------ - OmGINA'L JumsmcTION : WRIT PETITION (C1v11)Nos. 13325-37. 13366, 13683 to 13687 ef 1983, 256-260 & 579-81 of 1984 (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).

~ '

. .__,_ ' __,. ' Ani/ Dev Singh, As/wk S.en and S.B. Bhasme R. Satish; S.S. Gupta, J.b. Kotidhar 11nd S.S. Khanduja, for the Petitioner's.

Y.S. Chitale, G.L. Sanghi, S.N. Kacker •and V.M. Tarkunde. 'Alta/ Ahmad for Respondents.

The Judgment of .the Court was deiivered by ..

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Writ petitions questioning admissions 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" justification. It does not appear to be so this year. In these writ petitions, the selection of candidates for. admission to the two medical. colleges at Srinagar and Jammu as well as the _nominations by the

Governmentof Jammu & Kashmir to medical colleges outside the State are in qustio\l On Max 24, 1983, the Governmen.t ofJammu

...

.JI

' { -

I•~•

• ' ' ..

' . . ~-·

...

JAVID RASOOL v, J & K s:rATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) ·.' 585

.· & Kashmir issed an advertisement inviting applications from per-

A .. manent residents of Jammu & Kashm'rState 'for admission to• the first year MBBS in the medical colleges it Jammu & Srinagar. One

of the conditions of eligibility was that a candidate should have passed the "First toe (Medical Group) xainination from Jammu & Kashmir . Boardof School Eduction wi!h ·at less than 50'.Y., oft.he total marks' in English , and Science subjects taken. together" ... There w&s some re: · B laxation in favour candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, etc. with 'which we are not no\;; coricernd, We are also riot concerned in these. wiit petitions with the 'reservations' made in favour of various , lasses. We are only concerned with the sea!s or. places available for ' open competition. The adve.ftisement expressly .mentioned, that the . candidates would have to appear in a wriiien test of 'TDC-Part I Stan-

.. C 1

. dard' comprising of two papern," one' paper consisting of .the subjects, .· Physics and Chemistry' and the other, .Biology -and English, It wao; - alsomentioned in'the advertisment that the candidates would be requ- , ired 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 (Siection of Candi-. , D •" •' . _ _,) dates for Admission tb First Year MBBS _Course) Procedure Order 1983, Paragraph 4 of the . order which is relevant is as follows:. - .

,_,:

I "4. Merit :-:-:The inter-se•merit of the candidtes determined on the basis of the following:- . . . - .

'(i) Written test

(ii) Viva voce

' .

Total

., 85 Points

.. 15 Points

 100 Points '

shall , be

:..----:<.,...-..

The points earmarked for .. viva-voce will . further be sub- . divided into the following factors: . ' ' ' . ' ' . ~' .,. ,. .

\· '

(a) Apptitude

(b)G.K.GI

8 Points.·

•· . ; . 7 Points

. ~~~~-'--~~~~~ Total.' .. 15 Points" ,,

>. ..

':1'

- E

'i86 [l 984] 2 s.c.R.

: 011 26th August 1983. a Selection Committee was constituted consisting of the, Chairman of the Jainmu and Kashmir Public._Se1'ice ' Commission as Chairman nd two members, namely, the Principals t of the two, Government Medical C~Ilegcs at Srinagar and Jammu.

The quorum for a meeting of the Committee was• stipula, ied as the Chairmanand one.member .. On the. same day by another notification it was directed that the Selection Committee should arrange and conduct the written test andevo\ve its own procedure for appointing examiners and for .. the yonduct of. the examination, etc: n.e Selectio1; 'Commiitee held its first meeting , on September 2, 1983 when one of t]1e members~ the Principal of the Government Medical College; Srinagar informed the Committee'that his daughter was one of the candidates and that it would not be desirable for him to be associated, at any'stage, with the written.test to be conducted by the Corrimittee and further that he would not like to be pfesenr when his daughter was interviewed. The Committee took note of the information and agreed with the supgestion. As tlic.Govrnment had also fixe(L1 quorum for a rrteeting of the Committee, it was not conside.red necessary to have a substitute member appointed. Thereafter a &tailed' procedure was evolved for the written test and intcrviews.'_The Charirman waautho Tised to consult the Chairman of the Jan:unu & Kashmir Board of School Eduction and select the required number of cxainihcrs and paper-settors. The written test was conductd simultaneousiy at Jammu & Kashmir on Septembe_r 22, 1983. The written test was followed by. interviews from September 26, 1983 to October 11, 1983. One important factor wl\ich requires to be.mentione.d here is that the marks secured in the written test by the respective cari~.idates was not available• to the Selection1Committee when the Committee interviewed the candidates .. The Committee met again on October 25, 1983 by which time 1 - ' - , the results of the written test were also available. The Selection Committee proceeded. with the task'or'finalising the selection. Jhe selected candidates were sent indiviudal intimations and on December 3. 1983, a notification was published by tlie Government of :rammu & Kashmir informing the public that the.result of the written test/Viva Voce:held

fr 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 atJamtnu and Srinagar. Candidates were also told that marks card would be issued on payment of a fee . of Rs. ~/- and that any candidate interested in seeing his/lier 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 affidavits filed on behalf of th<> Government of Jarrrrnu & Kashniir and were ncit admitted by the petitioners. Wedo not however have the slightest

. _

 .

...

. '

. JAVID RASOOL v. J &KSTATE (\hinnappa .Reddy, J.) 587,

. .· . . ; ' .' ·, ' , doubt about the coriectness of these facts, as they are fully supp0rted . . l)y tontepraneous official records,,

The. petitifjers,'have fil, ed these writ. petitons inipunging .the : se/ection made 'by the Committee .on various grounds. Jn their-peti~. !ions, they have inc1.ulged in serveral , allegati.Ons and insinuations for whic there is no basis whatsoever. Shri Anil Dev Singh, .learned coun. . sel for some of the petitioners raised .th'.ee tonteptions: The first was ·

'that the entire selection was vitiatecl~ by the. prese, iJce o_n the C_ommji- . , 'tee (if the father of a candidate.' The second contention was th2t tho

ntire. procedure was.bad ciS the .tnarks 0b!.aii1ed by the- Candidates

·~·· at the qualifying examination (TDC, PartfMedicai 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 general knowledge 'and general intelligence wher.eas it would have been more. appropriate to t, est:the general knowledge and general intelligence of

''l"'

candidates by holding a written test i, nstead of a viva voce. test. Shri Anil Dev Singh also general 'y submitted that the viva voce , test was a rnere manoeuvrdesigned to bring in candidates who had.fared badly iii the written test Shri A.K. Sen, le.arned counsel who appca; ed for .'some of the other petitioners made only 'one 5ubmisionand it '..Jas.that . . 'the viva voce est .. Iiad wofked in an unreasdnal; Jc 'arid arbitir:fy n-·: nner; ir{Jact and as a matter of principle'. -He i:- 1aboraTfd tf:r subndssiori by arguing that though the two papers in. the writt•:n te~V curried

550 marks, they were reduced to 85 points as against 15 points for the ·\; viva voce test. The .result, according to him, was ihat candidates who ;'i.. got a lead of 20-?5 marks in the writtentes1 had to'bow dc\\n to f3ndi,

~ dates who got a lead of 3 or 4 points in the viva vcce test as the marks . . . ' '- ' . ' .

...

·~

' '

obtained in the written test were reduced to points in the ratio of 550 to 85. Sh.ri Sen also 'submitted that the questions put lo the candidates .at .the iliterview were not designed to(test.ithH aptitude or general

hnow!edge or general intelligence and for that reason, the selection"

was vitiated, He suggested that the final results bcre 'c!c c; uont lesti.C 'inony t? te ij_ustice dQne tO t_he_ miority_comunity in -te State.~·

\ ~- We find no substnce whatever in any .of tlie subm'issions made by Shri Anii Dev Singh and Shr, i A.K,.

Se11. We may straightway

observ.e tat the .insinuatio1i that the interviews were so cn, ductd as to do injustice to 'the minority community appears to us to be unchari- . table and impetuous. We find that there ai; e candidates belonging to both the majority and the minority communities among the cndi-· dates who were able, to' secure admi.s'sion because of the points scoed by them in the viva voce , test, as.also amongst the candidtes who

'' '.

' \

' '

.. ----·

•. -.

A failed to secure admission because of their low score in the viva voce test. The inconsiderateness of the allgatioif is evident from the fact that the marks obtained by the candidates in the writien test were not even available to the Selection Committee when, they conducted the viva v.oce test. This circumstance is sufficient to repudiate the broad allegation freely made by Shri' Anil Dev Singh that the viva voce test B was designed to facilitate tlie selection of candidates who had fared badly in the written test.

The submission that the questions put ti:> the candidates at the intervie\v were not designed to test either the aptitude, general hno\'{- ledgeor gerieral .intelligence of the candidates is equally without sub-· stance. In the writ petitions, no such averment was made nd no instances were given. In the petition a general allegation was made thaUhe viva voc; e 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 the Government Medical College, Jammu filed a counter-affidavit in which, he stated'. ....... Notless than six minutes were. spent on each candidate though

0 in certain cases interview lasted for more than. ten minutes. All the candidates were. 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 seJectfon Corµmittee only in respect of factors of interview prescribed in SR0-380 dated 7-7-1783 and the entire process was above board and extremely fair. I submit that. the result of the written test became available to .the members of the selection committee only after. the interviews had . been completed", After this couhter-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 intelligence 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 becbme

0 a doctor and so on.Aarti Kaul stated in her affidavit that1 G she was also asked to give an example of Collard (?) of the human' body, that she replied that it was blood and she was then asked what the constitution of blood was, to which s\le replied "Plasma Haemoglobin RBC Serum''. Rajesh Gupta,.another cano.idate, stated that his interview lasted for .two or. three minutes and apatt from questions 'relating to the name and oocupatin of his father and brothers, h~'was

also asked to define 'absolute zero' and 'international ampere': He answered both the questions. He claimed that he was asked no que- . ' .

. '

JAVID RASOOE v. J & K

00STATE

0 (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) \- - . 589

stin relatillg to aptitude, generaJ.kno:.vledg~ or general Intelligence.· A-

' . . ' . ' ' - ' ' ~.' . , . . -· We are of theveiw'thatthere is no genuine basis for any compfaint in regard to the nature of .the questions which the can4idates were

asked in the. viva voce test. We accept. the statement ofD.'Vrma that the Selection Committeeput relevant qriestion to the candidates to test their aptitude, general knowledge , and general intelljgence .. Anyoe who has served on aSelection Con1mit(ee and interviewed candidate.s ·

knows that a large number of candidates are nervous and inorder to "... put them at ease.'it is wcessary to' ask thenitostart with, innocuous . _ 4-, . questions, such: as what is vour father's occupation'? whi@h part of the country do yo~ cbme f;; m ?, 'what is your m'other-tongue? and .. so on.' .Such qustions are intended to enable the candidate, to fec; l at ease and get over his nervousness. No complaint can surely to made that' candidates were put .such questions. We also fail to see. h'ow any . . complaint can be made of the fact thai questions t>n science subjects . _ ·~ were asked of candidates seeJdng admission to medical colleges, Surely

. such questions are at .least as good as questions about the name ofthe

'capital of n obscure Latin American State or .who captained India

 D , in the SeconU test ma, tchagaii1st Pakistan.in I?SO, W~ entertain on'

doubt that the questions asked .were proper and relevant. We add that it is not for the co.urt to sit in judgment over the nature. of the questions to be put by the members of the Selection Committee. It is

....

~ for 'the members of. the . Selection Co1nmittee . to' decide what questions they should ask and so log 'as the q; i-estions are not _. &uch as to. indicate' that the i;\erview was nothing but a make-believe.

-"'-we rnst allow the matter to rest ther~ .• It 'is not the function of the ·

EI'

'°Cburt to weigh eacl; question to find out the extent to whcih it is related

o aptitude, general knowledge or gep.enral intelligence. ff the question \ ..

is not flippant, it is not for the court to say.that the question was iire- ·" Jevant and should riot have been asked at an interview. Perhaps irrele' :,- . vant questions !nay also be asked to_explo're the 'candidate's capacity !> to detect irrdevancies~ It is nt for the court tolaimto.itselfthe task ·.: 'r . of determining tlie nature 9f the questions to be put to carididates appearing at an interview: The persons constituting. the Selection . Coin'mittee who may generally be assu!"ed to be. men ofle, Wrience,

and knowledgeable rn regard to men and matters my surely be expe- G cted to put the right questions. 'Jn the absence of malafides, the maatter is best'left to them." ; · -~

. ;--, /

. . . .. . / .. . .. ' . ' / Mr. Sen made a complaint that \he mrks obtained in the writ' ten 1:est :.vere reducec to pomts and this -hail ·-resulted in ca11didate• who had fared well in the interview stealing a march over •oine candi- . ' •

,_,

:H-·

. \.

'~ ,_

I n:

. H

590 SUPREME COURT R!Sl'ORTS


' dates whn had fared well .in the wriUen test. The rules require that 85 points should be awarded for the written test and 15 points for the viva voco test. Therefore, although the written tests carried a total of 5~'.) m irks, the marks obtained by each candidate had to be necessarily reduced to points onthe basi's that 85 points equalled 550 markS The gr.ievance is plainly imaginary. ·. • ' " Both.Mr.. Anil Dev Singh and Mr. A.K. Sen invited our attentiOn to the observations of this courl'•in Ajay Hasia 's'11 case in regard to the desireability of holding viva voce test !Cl) select candidates for ad1nission to p'rofessional colleges and in regard to the manner of conducting suchtsts. The Qourt after referring to the criticism levelled against viva voce test observed:. "Now this criticism cannot be said to be whoHy. unfounded and it reflects a point of view whi'ch has certainly some validity'.' The court then quoted M.P. Sharma on Public Administration'. in 'Theory and Practice'. and Gle1\n Stahl on •Public P 'Cs Jnnel Admi'nistration' a.nd observed "But, despite all this criticism, ihe oral interview mefod con1inues to be' very. much ; in vogue as l suppelmentary test for assessing the suitabi!jty of candidates wherpver test pf personal traits is con;; idered essential. Its relevance as' a .test for determ'ning suitabilty based on personal characteristics h3.S been recognis6d ih a number of decisions of this court which. 1 are1Jinding Up Jn us". The Court then quoted from rhitra Lakita and

Others v. Slate' of My.iore and Others"> and A. Pseriakarupfan v.

State of Tamil Nadu & Others<a> and observed: . / . ' . ·,

".ft is therefore, not possible to accept the contentions of the .Petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that

eJ.ecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral intervciw in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The' oral interview test is und<mbtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and eva]u;1ting the capacity and calibre of candi-

' ' ' da teS, ~'ut in the absenc2 of any better test for measurin, g perisonal ,

, ch, iracterLstics .and traits, the oral iTiterviev.1 test '.must, at the , pNsent stage be regarded as 11ot irrational or irrelevant though \ ' ' . ' _it is subjective and based on first i.mprcssion_; its result is jf!ue:-iced by m1ny uncertain factprs and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, Ji ke to point out th, it in the matter of admis, sion to college or even in the matter of public employment, the

• \ I ' • 0 ' '


(3) {1971) 2 S.C.R. 430. .. .

' '

JAV!D RASO()L v. J & K STATJJ' (Chimzppa Reddy, J.) . 591.

 oral inte; view test as presently held should not be_ relied upon A. • as an exclusive test, but it niay be resorted to only as a1i additfo- .. - . . . e .. - . nal or supplementary test and, moreover; great care must. be be taken tci see that persons who are appointed iO_ conduct the_ ornl in, rview test are inen of high integrity, calibre and qualification' . . . . . . . . . .. .• . e . _The Court the_n pro.cceded to consider whether the allocation of •.. as _high percentage as 331/3 of t)je .total marks for the viva voce test did: .not render the-· admissio_n procedure arbitray. Jt was held• that . ..., ·· .it did make the skctiori procedure arbitrary but even so theselec.tio"n

_.I . was_ not _set .. aside _as 18m_onths had 'elapsed since the selection and. -'!:;' no rr, iala fids had bee1iestablished. _The court finally considered the C. "argument that each candidate wa:S not in-tervhved for more than two

r three minutes and rele_vant questions were .not asked. Taking . note. of the cii'cunisfahce , that .no affidavii had been filed either by a member pf the Seection Committee or by any other officer who_ was present at ihe interview, ihvas thought that the allegations of tne.

• .• -. ' ' '. ' >'-· ' ' ' - ' ,. .. petitioners had tobe accepted: It was then said that "if that be so, the D .' oialo iuteriew test must be hCld to be. vitiated and the selection made

on the basis ot such test must be hold to b~ -rbiirary". However, for the reason that IS months had already elapse; i., it was not thought proper to strike down the' :selections alr.ady made. Threafter the.

. ,. ··. folloWing obervation, s. \vee .. mad~: · E

, J. .. . "Vie may point out. that, in our opinion, if 'the marks allocated for the. oral interview do not exceed J 5% of the total . marks ad the candidates ·. are properly interviewed . and ...

- ~-'-:

•· .. ..

 .. releva1\t questions are aked with a view to _assessi1ig their .suit- ability.with reference to the factor~ equired tci ·.be taken into

consid, ration, .the oral interview test would satisfy the critr ion of reasona_bleness an_d non-arbitrariness. • We thii1k that it wottld. also be desirable .if the interview of-the candidates is tape-reeorded, for" in that eventhere will _be conteinpo, .

.r~cousevid~11ce to. s~()w. wl1at''were the C}_ueStions asked to ihe candidates by the interviewing committee and what were . . the answers give11 and _that will eliminate _a lot of unnecessary ·

contraversy besides acting as a clieck on the possible_. arbitrrine_ss of. the intervieWing co!llmittee". . ·

F .·

• It wold be noticed tha_t niost of the observations were. made . with a vie_; to enable the Government to devise a selection prncedure H , which would he above r.eproach, H: was never intended to lay down .

: . .

. F

--' .•

any hard and fast rules; In the very nature ofthihgs it would not .b~ . within the proviric.e or even the competence of the Couri and the.court would not venture ; into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, . when the matte{$ ate mere appropriately kft to the. wise expertise of medica 1 academicians intllres!ed in the quality and intety of medjcal ·• . education and public administrators conversant with various adini.'

strative nd socio-economic problems."., needs and requirements. The Court's duty'iil's in preventing arbitrarines.s and denial of equal opporc tun.ity. The question as to the subjects in which an entrance test may · · be held ishardly a matter for' the cou; t, unless; 'or course, the subjects ' . . .:: are so arbitrarily c!iosen as to have not the slightest connection with

, the object of the examination.' S.uch a situation is not likely to arise : -j. . as the aut)iorities may be expected to. act reasonably. Again it is not 1 for the court to lay down whether.an interview test should be. held at . all or how many marks should .be allotted for the invefview test.

Of course, the marks must. be mininiaPso as.to avoid charges'ofarbitrariness but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appoint-.. ments where the only proper method pf selection may be by an intervew test. Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses, it may some .times be necessary to allot afrurly high percentag~ of nlllrks .. forthe interview test; For'admission tq a Ph. D course, for example, :' · ·.candidates niay have to be consumn1ately interviewed, each of them

.•. t :for a few hours;. perhaps; efore any decision can be taken a.s to 'who. inay be admitted_. That. is why we say rigid rules cannot be_ laid in t]lese matters, and not by Courts~· The xpert bodies are generaliy the bestjudges, 'An that we may say is that allocation ofa high percentage of marks for admission to.under-Graduate courses should be avoided as thee isa risk of a certain amount of arbitrariness which may lead to frustration of the very object of t_he selection. ai1d disrepute. of the .

svstem.· Courts interfrre when the rlsk of arbitrarine.ss is so high that

abitrariness is invitable. Again the. court is i1pt the best judge of .

what questions may. be asked at the interview. As mentiol'led by' us ._. oatUer; all that is nece'ssary is that the questions should nvt be a ri\ere ,. pretence. . .. . . . . ,•

AU thit we lia ve said above i~ oly to supplement wat has been said in Ajay Hasia"s case ai\d in the case .of Lila Dhar -vs. State of Raja' sthan'". In the. latter .case after refefring to the K_othari Committee's report on Recruitment Policy a_nd Selection Methods, we said: .

. .

. (I) [1982] l S.C.R. 320.

_,_._.

. .-

J AVID RASOOL V. J

' - . .. . . -. ; . .~,· . . . . . &. KSTATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 593 . . . . - ~

.· ·. ''It is now well recognised that while a written examina~ . tion assesses it caJfdidate'sknowledge and intellectual ability; ·· . ari interview test is valuable io assess a candidate's oerail . · inteliectual and perional.qualitie~: whil~~ writtenexaminqtiori has. certaindistinct dvantage . over the: inter~; ew test ti1ere are yet rio writteri tests. whiCh ,<:an evaluate a candidatcs's initiative, alertness, rsourcefulness; dependableness, coope- . ·. rativeness, capaciil' for clear and logical' presentation, cffecti' .

 'VMess, in discussi_on: elfetiveness in IJleetingand dealing with others,"adaptability,. judgment, ability . to make decision, "ability to lead, fotellectual arid moral integrity:. Sbme of. the.se

qualities may be.evaluated, perhaps ; vith soine .. degree . of error,. by. ap interview fest, much depe.nding on thecoristitu- . ti oh of iJie ·.interview Board." ··

We then .re!erred to CJlrtn Stahl on .'Ptibli~ PersnneF Adlnis- .. . . tration and the United Nations Hanel.book ri Civil.Sorvice Law and

Pfactice". We furt1i"er said:

- • . ·.,.

"Thus, the written examinatio~ assesses .ihe Jna~'s inieliect a.nd theinterviw te.stthe man himself and "the twain shall njeet" .• for a proper skction.: ifbpth written exainination ancHnterview . . test are to be esseritjal feiturcs of proper.selectin, .the question

. may aris.e as to. ihe weight to be attached respectively. to them ..

In the case of.admissio11 to 'a college; :for instance, where the candidate's petscinality is yet.to develop arid it is too' erly to. idontify thepersonai qualities for which greater impo"riance may . have to be attached in later !ifo, gceate(weight h.as per. for.ce td . ·.be given to .performance in.the written examination. The imper' . '

tantc to be attached to the.interview testmust be minial..That

- ws what was decided by this Court in Perfakaruppai1 v. State' .

of Tamilnadu, Ajay Basia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Seharvardi & ors:ctc.; (supra) and other cases. on th.ii other han'd, in the case of services.to wbkh .recruitmeni has'nccessarily fobe made"from .persons• f m:; ture personality, interview test may be "the only

way,".stibject'to basic: and essenti~I acadeinic and professiori0.l . requirements being satisfied. 'ro.subjecJsuchpersons to a written

examination . may yield unfruitful and. negative re§ults, apart fron1 its being an act of cr11elty to those perso:fis, There a.re/of co Urse~ many services to WhiCh tecpJit:illerit .is made ffom: yo"unger'. cimd\dates whos~ personalities areoihhe threshdld of ct6velopc. ment nd , who show signs of great pr6Il)ise, ahd the' ·.discerning may in an intervie1~ test, catch a glimpse of.the future personality .. ·

.~·. '' .•

D .

. F

594 -SUPREME com\T' REPORTS

. Iri the case of such services, where sound. selection mµst combine . academic ability with p'ersonality promise, sonie weight has to

- be given, though not much too great weight, t<;> the interview test. There_ cannot -be-any-rule of thumb regarding the 'precise . weight to be given. It must varylromservice to.service according .

t,0 the requiremets of the service, the 1ninimum qualifications .prescribed, the age group from which the selection-iii to be made, the body to' which the tasl<-of holding th!) interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other.factors.: it'is a matter fer determinatiori by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not._ 4 , for Courts to proriouce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvi_ous oblique motives. The Kothari _ ~: .

Committee also suggpted that in view o( the o_bvjous importanc~ · ( of the subject, it may be exami1icd in detail by the Research Unit of the Union of' Public Service Commission.". ·

. . , At this.juncture whilewe are quoting froin the earlier decision -. _, . of the court in Liladhar v. State Of Rajasthan, we may as well refer to the criticism of. Shri Anil Dev Singh that block marks should not have been _allocated. for' general knowledge and general intelligence.

Our observationsin Liladhar's case, which we have extracted below, _. answer this point. alsci: .

'.'The rules 'themselves do not provide for. the allocation of . marks under different heads .at .the in\ervi(:w test. The ct'ite.ria for the interview test has been laid down by the. -rules. It is fqr ihe intervie1ving. body to take a geceral ·

decisibn whether. to allocate mark.sunder different heads or to award marks in a single Jot: The award of marks under different heds ma~Jad to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality cf the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing bcdy may ' give. a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality.· It is f<;>_r the interviewing body to choose. the appropriate' method of marking at the selectjon to each service. There cannot be any magic formulate"in these matters and courts cannot sit it judgment over the, methods C:f marking employed by i1ter, viewing bodies unless, as we said, it is proven or obvious that the: method of marking was chosen wlth oblique motive.

"It is frue that in Periakafoppah's case the. Coqrt held that the n<iriail9catioff Of.mar.ks under variolls heads in the interview test was illegal but that was bccau_se the ins!ructions

-, ..

,..

. , .. ·,

• JAV!D RASOOL v. J .& K STATE(Chbinappa Reddy; J.)_ .. 595 . . . ' . . . .

 to the -Selection Committee . 'provided that marks were to c · be awarded at the interview on tJie basis of five disti11ct . tests. H was thought that the failllre to allocate markS.

under each bqd or distihCt tet~ wa'n illegality''.

The criticism thatthe Selection procedurcwas bad becalis~ the marks obiained , by the candidates at the respective qualifying exami- :., nations wore not taken into account; but only the niarks in the written test a1id. the oral test conducted by the Selection Committee, has also

 {c-, · no force. We we1'e told that the qualifying examination, that is,· the . , First TDC (M, a, ical Group) exawination was held at diffrent times

 ih Jamnrn and Srinagar. Naturally the question papers,, etc.··must have been different. The Selection Committee aprarently thought that it would be better to have a :common entrance te'st. It appears to us to be a .perfectly reasonable procedure. Even otherwise it is always.· open to a Seledon Committee to insist on taking into' c-0nsideration marks. obtained-at the examin_alion held by it only and excluding from cansideration marks. obtained ih examinations held by other bodies.

We are unable to see anything .\vrong .in this procedure. A similar . contention was negatived in Ajay Rasia's case alo where. 'it was obser- ., ved:

Ji....: . '~It is diflic.ult to appreciate how aprocedurc for admission w, hich

•• I

. C'

.. does not. take· into account the . marks bbtjlineUat the qualifying .· .J..[_, exa1nination, but prefers fo test th.e comparative merit of the candidates E by insisting on an entrance hamination can every Ile said to be arbi:.. rary"; •.· · -

. !.:., .....

Two. other submissiohs which were made in the . course of the · 'r argument n\ay also be disposed of here. Orie was.th<t_t general knowc " ·;;.ledge and, gerieral inteHigcnce were not matters to be.Jested in 4:he jva ' vocetest, but should _have been tested in a. written examination. That is not a. matter for this Court t6 .decide. It was .a matter for the Selection Committee. to de.cide whether general. knowledge ad general .intelligence could be more appropriately tested in the viva voce test or in tlie written test. The other sµbniissiori was tl; iat there was delay jn the anno.uricement of results and the delay made the .selection suspect. We .... ·, find that there was in fact no delay and.we only add that the.suspicion, ·

if any, was unfounded. _. ·

di; j _We finally come to the submission on which Shri Anil Dev-Singh laid considerable emphasis, namely, that the entire selection was vitia- ted. by the presence cmthe Selection' Committee of theJather of oe

_, ,_,

.G •

. R

G ;

~ of the candidates .. This was said to be a gross violation of one ofthe '

. principles otnatural justice. The grivance is not reaL The .Principal .

of Medical. College, Srinagar,' whose daughter. was a caric\idate; for admission to the Medic:al College informed. ihe Selection Committee at the very outset aboutthi.cact and told them that he would not have' • . anything to do. with the written test e.11d would no.t 'be present when • . . . ·,' . . . . . his daughter was interviewd; The 9ther members •of the. Selection

Committee accepted the suggestion of ibe Principal and did . not . think it ne.cessary t~ add; ess the . Governm.ent to appoint a . snbsti- ·

. ...: . '

tute •member of the: Selection Coriimittee since the Government had :1' fixed.the quo'rum fot a meetingof the Selection Co, mmittee as:th~ Chairman.and' one other member and'it was possible to have a quorum. without the .Principal of the Medical College, Srinagar. The prccedure adopted by the Selection Commit.tee ad the member .cqncerned .was in accord.with the quite well-known and generaIJy:acceptedyrocedure : adopted bi the Public Service Commissions every \\.here. It is not umisual for candidatenelated to members of the Service Commission .. er other Selection Committee t<) seek employment Whenever such

a situation arises, the practice generaJ'Jy is. for the' m<mber concerne.d to ecuse. 'himseif . when the pa1:ticlar candidate is. inter.viewed. We notice. that such a 'situation had also .been noticed by this court in: the case of Nagarjan ~- State of Mysore w where it was polnted out'that . in ihe absence of mala fides, it would not be' tight to.set aside the slec- '* tfon merely because one, of tlie c; andidates happened t" be reiated . ·

to 'a . me1nber •of the Selection Commission who had abstained froin. parliipating-in the interview of that candidate. Nothing" unusual was ~~

dne by 'lhe preseni Selection Committee, The girl's fat]1er wat not present .when she was interviewed, She was one among several hundre.d cadidates. The marks obtained by her. in the written test were not. ·

.'f. . eveii :kno,;, n: when she was interviewed, And, in fact, ;,., e .find that as

· a resu. It of her P.erformance at the "interview, slie l.st rather.than gainecl . . ~· . soine ·.places. - · · · • • I . ' .

. Great re.liance was. placed by the learned couns.cl 011 A..K,· Kraipak .·& Ors. v, Union, of india 12.i on "the question of natilral justice. We. do J; ot .think that .. the case is of any assistance to the petitioners. It was a case where one of the person~, who sat as member oLthe Selection

Board,. was. himself one of the persons to .be considered for selection:· . He participated in the deliberations of the Selection Boad when. the claims. of bis rivals were.considered. He participated in thedecisions

' (1}{1970] I S.C.C, 457,

(2) [1966) 3 S.C, R. 682.

.. ' '.

.. .

597' •

I . . . relting to the prdors'.or preference and s<mioriiy .. He particiated at . A . : . 'every stage" in the .. delibeq!.ions of the Selecti.on .Bo.ardan<l at every

rstage there 1vas a cortffict between his'hiterest arid dnty. The court bad1 '

.· no hesitation in.coming lo the :tonc!Bsion that.there was a rea~'9nab!e. .. Iikelihoqd of bias and therefore, ther, e wai a xiolatioii of the principles

of natt:ral justice. Jn the' case , before us .. the "Principal of the Medical . College~ Srinagar, dissociatedJiimself from the Written test ai{d did. :fl Ir.;. nofpartici.pa te in. the proceedings. when his daughter was interviewe<l .. . ·.When the other candidates were interviewed, he '.ctid not know 'the

::~ ; .marks bfained .eiiher by .. his dai.lghter .or by ny of the candidates. ·

. There ;.va~ no occasion to: suspet his. bona ftdes even remotely .. There .. was not eyen suspicfon of bias.leave alone a reasonable Jikelih.ood 'of bias. There was no viola.lion of the principale_s of natural justice.

. C ',·. ., ':", . ,,. _ ..

One last submissio11, which we may note: was that there was f a contravention of one Of the regulations made.by .the Indian Medical . CounCil._It was. said. that .the regulation pescrili6d that the marks . . .. obtained at the qualifying examination should be taken into .conside~·

 fatiori in States l)aviµg only one Medkru College and one University/. . D Board/Examination BJdy . conducling .the qualifying examination .. ·.

This . iegi.tfatio, n., has no. application because the<e are two Medical ._ Coilegesfo this , Sfate. Though olily one Board conductec1 theiqualify~ .. fog , eaniination; .the, examinat)ons:•were ·. Conducted. separateiy .'.for,

Jamiriu .and .Srinagar aroas and on fwo different' occasi6ns; In the );. .. second. place; these regulationshave benheld. to be directory and not E 'mariilatory by th.is court , in State of Madhya Pratfesh v; Kr. Nivediia . J.ilin; 11 >

-?' ~- \ .. . We hayeconsidered the various points 'raised by the petitioners. r. ·at sonie length, .we have said so much and we 11ave quateariom ihe

. :F previous judg1nents of thisC<iurt in exterise not because we find any ... ' : substance in' any of the contentions, but .because these .conten, tionsare '. .

b.iirig reeatedly. rai, sed in many such cases and .we desire to .discou- . .. ra.ge, the raising. of un, necessary hope'in th.e minds .cif thC. young:men : . arid wome~ seeldng the aid' of courts for itdinission into professional. collegis, ready as t\ley are t~ chich at any straw .. We dismiss all the . G: ·

Writ petitions but in the circums.tances without costs. . • . . . . . ' ..

' Petitions dismissed. : .. '

: - I • ' . '

., =:·