AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.
1.""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 adopted 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 mere a reflection on the examiners than on
the system itself.
The above observation was made by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823. It was further
observed that :
The Scheme of selection, however perfect it may be abused in practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing it. So long as the
order lays down relevant objective criteria and entrusts the business of selection to qualified persons, this court cannot obviously have any say in
the matter. In this case the criteria laid down by the Government are certainly relevant in the matter of awarding marks at the interview.
In Chitralekha's case, the larger question that selection by interview is inherently repugnant to the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of
the Constitution was considered and the argument that the subjective satisfaction of the Selecting Authority requires to be checked was not
accepted. It was observed :
We cannot accept such a wide contention and condemn one of the well accepted mode of selection in educational institutions. James Hart in his
An Introduction to Administrative Law"" observes, at p. 180 thus:
A test or examination, to be competitive, must employ an objective standard of measure. Where the standard or measure is wholly subjective to
the examiners, it differs in effect in no respect from an uncontrolled opinion of the examiners and cannot be termed competitive.' 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 extracurricular 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.
In this regard reference may also be made to another decision reported as Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1981 SC 1777. The
merits of the written and the process of interview were considered, it was observed, that importance to be attached to the interview must be
minimal. The relevant observation are as under :
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 tests the man himself and ""the twin 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 early to identify
the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in
the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal.
It is in the light of above, the facts in these two petitions be examined. The appointment of private respondents against the post of Junior
Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 95001500/ is being challenged. It is submitted that the petitioners were fully qualified and they submit that the
selection of private respondents cannot be sustained because :
i) Official respondents did not conduct any vivavoce test; and
ii) That the appointments have been made on the basis of written test. It is stated that respondent No. 8 namely Arti Jasrotia is not capable of
typing 30 w.p.m. Similar assertion is made visavis respondents No. 9 and 10.
Thus it is stated that the selection of the private respondents only on the basis of written test is bad.
In view of the above factual and legal position, the grievance of the petitioners that there has necessarily to be an interview is an argument which
cannot be accepted. The selection made on the basis of written test cannot be said to be bad. These petitions are found to be without merit and
are dismissed.