State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Jasvinder Singh

T.S. Doabia, J.

Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. The aim of any

process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job. The object is to avoid patronage

and favouritism. Competitive examination has come to be accepted as a universal method to a successful passage to public services. This is the

answer to the twin problems represented by a democratic system and the requirements of good administration. This provides means by which

equality of opportunity coupled with efficiency is made available. This is a peculiarly democratic institution. Every qualified person gets equal

chance to come forward. His relative competence for appointment is determined by a natural, disinterested body on the basis of objective

evidence supplied by the candidate himself.

The circumstances under which this Letters Patent Appeal has arisen be noticed:

Selection of Sub Inspectors in the Executive Police in pursuance of an advertisement notice issued on 28.8.1991 was found to be vitiated by a

learned single Judge of this Court on account of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Ashok Yadav v.

State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454. While giving the relief the selection however was not upset, but direction was given that all petitioners falling

in general category who had obtained 56 marks or above in the written examination, shall be entitled to appointment as Sub Inspectors in the

Police Department. It is above direction given by a learned Single Judge of this Court which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

An advertisement notice bearing No. AIG(P) 33159219 came to be issued on 20th of August, 1991. This was for making selection to the post of

Sub Inspectors in the executive police force and J&K Armed Police. Clause 4 of the advertisement provided the parameters for physical suitability

and for written test and viva voce. This is relevant and is being noticed as under:

Candidate will be put to the following tests :

(i) Physical measurement test.

(ii) Outdoor test in

(a). 100 metre face 12.5 sec.

(b). 800 metre race 2.20 sec.

(c). High Jump 1.5 Mts

(d). Long Jump 5.20 Mts

(e). Shot put (7.26 Kg) 8.50 Mts

iv) (g). Viva voce test.

It be seen that 100 marks were provided for physical fitness. 100 marks were provided for written test. Twentyfive marks were provided for viva

voce. Basically it is the above criteria which was assailed before the learned Single Judge. He came to the conclusion that so far as physical

requirements are concerned, these were to be fulfilled by all candidates. It was said that every entrant must obtain 100 marks. The reasoning given

was that every candidate had to be 100% fit. If he was not fit, he would be weeded out and if he was fit then he would be asked to take part in

further process of selection. It was accordingly held that so far as allocation of 100 marks is concerned, this shall have to be possessed by every

body. The observations made were:

All those candidates who passed the physical test were given 100 marks out of 100 marks. This appears to be reasonable also because in a

service like the police service either one is physically fit or he is unfit for service in police Department. A person cannot be either 50% fit or 70%

fit. Therefore, there was no question of allotting any marks under this head because a person who would not be hundred per cent fit would not be

called for the written examination.

After making above observations, it was observed that allocation of 25 marks for viva voce, when considered against remaining 100 marks i.e.

marks provided for written test was on the higher side. This figure of 25%, it was held, should be taken against 100 marks and not 200 marks. It

was accordingly observed that this prescription of 25 marks was on the higher side. This was held to be not in consonance with the law laid down

in Ashok Yadav's case (supra). It was accordingly held that process of selection was arbitrary. It is this view which is subjectmatter of challenge in

this Appeal.

The argument raised by the learned Counsel for the State is that in the decision reported as Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1995

SC page 141 : 1994(1) SCT 483, allocation of 50 marks for written and 50 marks for viva voce was upheld. As per the State counsel, if above

be the situation and if above be the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India, then it cannot be said that the process and markings adopted

by the appellantState was not in any way faulty.

In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 1777, O Gleu Staul is quoted. This is being quoted again :

A system of recruitment almost totally dependent on assessment of a person's academic knowledge and skills, as distinct from ability to deal with

pressing problems of economic and social development, with people and with novel sitations can not serve the need of today much less of

tomorrow....... We venture to suggest that our recruitment procedures should be such that we can select candidates who cannot only assimilate

knowledge and sift material to understand the ramifications of a situation or a problem but have the potential to develop an original or innovative

approach to the solution of problems.

It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to

assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test

there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's 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 integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error by an

interview test much depending on the constitution of the interview Board.

With regard to advantages of written test it was said:

Any form of written test possesses certain administrative advantages over the oral and performance types. The written form is much easier and

cheaper to administer. It can be given to a large number of individuals at the same time thus conserving the time of the examiners. As a general rule

it is easier to evaluate objectively, and the technical proficiency demanded in rating is usually, although not always, less. The oral test has long

served as a basic selection tool in private employment but has been more slowly accepted in the public field. This conservatism arises out of three

considerations : (1) the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral tests; (2) the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test; and (3)

public suspicion of the oral as a channel for the exertion of political influence through the destruction of anonymity. Despite three acknowledged

disadvantages, however, orals have been used increasingly in public personnel testing and have become important instruments wherever tests of

personal attributes are considered essential. As we have noted no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised for measuring such personal

characteristics as initiative, ingenuity and ability to elicit cooperation many of which are of prime importance. When properly employed the oral test

today deserve a place in the battery used by the technical examiner.......The general principle is that resort should never be had to an oral if the

relevant factors to be tested and be measured at some other point in the examining process. The reason is that the reliability of the oral even under

the best conditions, tends to be lower than that of the well designed written test. The oral test should be confined then to the evaluation of relevant

traits which cannot be measured in any other way.

The decision given in Lila Dhar's case (supra) and several other decisions dealing with the subject were considered in the case reported as Anzar

Ahmad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 141 : 1994(1) SCT 483 . Selection to educational institution and selection for employment in service were

placed in two different categories. Decision dealing with the first category i.e. R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823, A

Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 SC 2303, Nishi Maqhu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1975, Ajay Hasia v.

Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487 and Koshal Kumar Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1984 SC 1056 were noticed and

opinion expressed in Ajay Hasia's case was quoted. This is being quoted again.

We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission to college or even in the matter of public employment, the oral interview test

as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and,

moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity, calibre and

qualification.

Dealing with selection for appointment to public service, the Supreme Court of India in Anzar Ahmad's case referred to same observations made in

Lila Dhar's case (supra). In Lila Dhar's case (supra) there 25% were allocated for viva voce examination. This allocation was upheld. Some

observations which are relevant are being quoted:

It 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 too

early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance 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 minimal. That was what was decided by this

Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1971 SC 2303, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (supra) and other cases. On the other

hand, 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. To subject such persons to a written examination may

yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons.

Some other decisions which were noticed in Anzar Ahmad may again be noticed.

In Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, 1991 3 SCC 368 : 1991(2) SCT 304, it was held that allocation of marks for interview and group discussion

should not exceed 10% and 5% respectively.

In State of U.P. v. Rafiqudin, AIR 1988 SC 162 allocation of 35% of marks as minimum marks for qualifying in the viva vove test was upheld.

In Mehmmod Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 1451, the Supreme Court of India again upheld 35% marks minimum qualification

for viva voce.

After noticing the above judicial precedents the Supreme Court of India in Anzar Ahmad's case (supra) upheld that allocation of 50% marks for

written test and 50% marks for interview. It was observed that method adopted by the respondentCommission did not suffer from the vice of

arbitrariness.

If above be the position then it cannot be said that prescription of 25% marks for interview in the present case was not in consonance for judicial

precedents. As a matter of fact. Ashok Kumar Yadav case (supra) on which reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge was also noticed by

the Supreme Court of India in the case of Anzar Ahmed. If twomember bench of the Supreme Court of India after taking note of decision in

Ashok Kumar Yadav's case has upheld allocation of 50% marks for interview and when the Supreme Court itself has commented upon the view

expressed in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case, it would not be apt for this court to express a view to the contrary. It is accordingly held that

prescription of 25% of marks for the viva voce did not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. This appeal is allowed. Writ petitions are dismissed.

Copy of this order be placed on each of the files. There would be no order as to the costs.