There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given to Interview and that 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. The Court said that it was a matter for determination by experts and also a matter for research and that it was not for the Court to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight had been given with proven or obvious oblique motives,
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.
Siya Ram v. Union of India., Lila Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 August, 1981., 1981 AIR 1777, 1982 SCR (1) 320
The allocation of marks for interview depends on the nature of service and that there is no rule of thumb for allocation of interview marks. Also admission to service/ post cannot be equated with the admission to an academic institution.
It is decided by the experts in the field and that the court cannot sit in judgment over the same unless there is an allegation of malafide
Siya Ram v. Union of India; , Kiran Gupta and Ors. v. State of UP; WP(C) 9168/2004 Sadhu Singh Sekhon v. The Executive Officer, decided on 13th February, 2006; and CWP 4747/2001, Suresh Kumar Sharma v. UOI and Anr. decided on 16th May, 2002
It is no more res integra that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it
It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision.Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr. v. N.R. Vairamani and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 778 .,Allen v. Flood (1898) AC 1 .,Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors..,Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd (2003) 2 SC 111 (vide para 59)
In State of U.P. vs . Rafiquddin & Ors ., AIR 1988 SC 162; Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu & Ors . vs . State of Orissa & Ors . AIR 1996 SC 352; Majeet Singh, UDC & Ors . vs . Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Anr. AIR 1990 SC 1104; and K . H . Siraj vs . High Court of Kerala & Ors . AIR 2006 SC 2339, this Court held that Commission/Board has to satisfy itself that a candidate had obtained such aggregate marks in the written test as to qualify for interview and obtained “sufficient marks in viva voce” which would show his suitability for service. Such a course is permissible for adjudging the qualities/capacities of the candidates. It may be necessary in view of the fact that it is imperative that only persons with a prescribed minimum of said qualities/capacities should be selected as 6 otherwise the standard of judiciary would get diluted and sub-standard stuff may get selected. Interview may also be the best mode of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position as it brings out overall intellectual qualities of the candidates. while the written test will testify the candidate’s academic knowledge, the oral test can bring out or disclose overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership etc. which are also essential for a Judicial Officer.
Lila Dhar vs . State of Rajasthan & Ors ., AIR 1981 SC 1777; and Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors . vs . State of Haryana & Ors . AIR 1987 SC 454 stating that interview 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, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity with some degree of error.”
Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 89781 1987 AIR (SC) 454 : 1985(4) SCC 417 : 1985(Sup1) SCR 657 : 1985(1) Scale 1290 : 1985(3) SLR 200 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88 : 1986 LIC 1417 : 1986(2) LLN 804 Before :- Y.V. Chandrachud, CJ, P.N. Bhagwati, Amarendra Nath Sen, V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.
Para 25
‘Glenn Stahl has pointed out in his book on Public Personnel Administration that the viva voce test does suffer from certain disadvantages such as the difficulty of developing a valid and reliable oral test, the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test and public suspicion of the oral test as a channel for the exertion of political influence and, as pointed out by this Court in Ajay Hasia case (supra), also of other corrupt, nepotistic or extraneous considerations, but despite these acknowledged disadvantages, the viva voce test has been used increasingly in the public personnel testing and has become an important instrument whenever tests of personnel attributes are considered essential. Glenn Stahl proceeds to add that “no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised for measuring such personnel 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.” There can therefore be no doubt that the viva voce test performs a very useful function in assessing personnel characteristics and traits and in fact, tests the man himself and is therefore regarded as an important tool along with the written examination. Now if both written examination and viva voce test are accepted as essential features of proper selection in a given case, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. “In the case of admission to a college for instance”, as observed by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Liladhar’s case, “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 file, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination” and the importance to be attached to the viva voce test in such a case would therefore necessarily be minimal. It was for this reason that in Ajay Haisa’s case this Court took the view that the allocation of as high a percentage of marks as 33.3% to the viva voce test was “beyond all reasonable proportion and rendered the selection of the candidates arbitrary”. But, as pointed out by Chinnappa Reddy, J., “in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied”. There may also be services “to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the thresh hold of development and who show sings of great promise” and in case of such services where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given to the viva voce test. There cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter for determination by experts. The Court does not possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for the Court to pronounce upon it, unless to use the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Liladhar’s case “exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives.”
K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 122540 2006(3) S.C.T. 146 : 2006 LIC 2732 : 2006 AIR (SC) 2339 : 2007(3) SLR 1 : 2006(6) SCC 395 : 2006(6) Scale 167 : 2006(11) JT 424 : 2006(Sup2) SCR 790 : 2006(2) KLT 923 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345 : 2006(3) LLN 19 : 2006(2) Ker L.J. 344 : 2006 AIR (SCW) 3136 : 2006(4) Supreme 448
Delhi Bar Association vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC
‘159. A Judicial Officer must, apart from academic knowledge, have the capacity to communicate his thoughts, he must be tactful, he must be diplomatic, he must have a sense of humour, he must have the ability to defuse situations, to control the examination of witnesses and also lengthy irrelevant arguments and the like. Existence of such capacities can be brought out only in an oral interview. It is imperative that only persons with a minimum of such capacities should be selected for the judiciary as otherwise the standards would get diluted and substandard stuff may be getting into the judiciary. Acceptance of the contention of the appellants/petitioners can even lead to a postulate that a candidate who scores high in the written examination but is totally inadequate for the job as evident from the oral interview and gets 0 marks may still find it a place in the judiciary. It will spell disaster to the standards to be maintained by the subordinate judiciary. It is, therefore, the High Court has set a bench mark for the oral interview, a bench mark which is actually low as it requires 30% for a pass. The total marks for the interview are only 50 out of a total of
450. The prescription is, therefore, kept to the bare minimum and if a candidate fails to secure even this bare minimum, it cannot be postulated that he is suitable for the job of Munsif Magistrate, as assessed by five experienced Judges of the High Court. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision in Manjeet Singh, UDC & Ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr., (1990) 2 SCC 367 at 371 wherein the Rules did not prescribe any minimum marks for the interview. The advertisement for the job set a minimum of 40% to the written test and without a minimum for the interview. However, candidates with less than 40% at the interview were not selected. The selection was upheld by this Court relying on a judgment of Punchhi,J in Rajesh Sood vs. Director-General, Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1985 (2) Service Law 699. ‘
In Remany vs. High Court of Kerala, 1996 (2) KLT 439. This case deals with prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 30% for viva voce test. C.S. Rajan, J., in the above judgment, observed as under: “..On the basis of the aggregate marks in both the tests, the selection has to be made. In I.C.A.R’s case, AIR 1984 SC 541 also the relevant rules did not enable the selection Board to prescribe minimum qualifying marks to be obtained by the candidate at the viva voce test. In the Delhi Judicial Service’s case also (AIR 1985 SC 1351, the rules did not empower the committee to exclude candidates securing less than 600 marks in the aggregate. Therefore, in all these cases, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that prescription of separate minimum marks for viva voce test is bad in law because under the rules, no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed.”
LawUmbrella 