IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2714 OF 2005

The Director General, Indian Council for Agricultural Research & Others   … Appellants

Versus

D. Sundara Raju                 … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order of the  

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore  

delivered in Writ Petition No. 19516 of 2004.

2. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal  

are recapitulated as under:

3. The controversy in this appeal pertains to the promotion  

to  the  post of Principal  Scientist  under  the  “Career  

Advancement Scheme” formulated by the Indian Council  for  

1

Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as ‘ICAR’).  There  

are two streams from which selections are made to the post of  

Principal Scientist:  (i) Direct recruitment; and (ii) Promotion  

from  the  post  of  Senior  Scientist  on  the  basis  of  personal  

merit.

4. The  ICAR  had  formulated  the  “Career  Advancement  

Scheme” in consultation with the Department of Personnel &  

Training and Ministry of Finance, Government of India laying  

down guidelines for promotion of a Scientist from one grade to  

another  in  the  Agricultural  Research  Services  (ARS)  cadre,  

which were made effective from 27.7.1998.  The promotion of  

scientist  to  the  next  higher  grade  (Principal  Scientist)  is  

independent of the occurrence of vacancies and is based only  

when the applicant secures the requisite merit.

5. The  procedure  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Principal  

Scientist is contained in Para 2.4 of the Career Advancement  

Scheme.  The relevant rule is set out as under:

2

“In  addition  to  the  sanctioned  posts  of  Principal  Scientists as per cadre strength already fixed, which  is to be filled through direct recruitment through All  India advertisement, promotions will be made from  posts  of  Senior  Scientist  to  the  posts  of  Principal  Scientists  after  8  years  of  service  as  Senior  Scientist.   This  promotion will  be  personal  to the  Scientist who is promoted.

A senior Scientist will be promoted to the post  of Principal Scientist if he/she:

i. has completed 8 years of service; and

ii. he/she  presents  himself/herself  before  the  Selection Committee constituted by ASRB with  some of the following:

a) Self appraisal reports (required).

b) Research  contribution/books/  articles/ research papers published.

c) Any  other  academic  contributions.  The best three written contributions  of  the  Sr.  Scientist  (as  defined  by  him/her) may be sent in advance to  the experts to review before coming  for  the  selection.   The  candidate  should be asked to submit these in  3 sets with the application.

d) Seminars / conferences attended.

e) Contribution  to  teaching/academic  environment/institutional  corporate  life.

3

f) Extensions  and  filed  outreach  activities.”

6. A Selection Committee was constituted under the Career  

Advancement Scheme for considering eligibility of applicants  

for  promotion from the post  of  Senior  Scientist  to  Principal  

Scientist.  The Selection Committee consisted of a Chairman,  

Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred  

to as “ASRB”), Director General, ICAR or his nominee, three  

experts and the Director of the Institute of the applicant.  For  

different  disciplines,  different  Selection  Committees  were  

constituted with three experts from the relevant discipline so  

that the merit of the applicant could be comprehensively and  

accurately assessed.  The said Selection Committee allocated  

marks for the assessment procedure for promotion as under:-

Research Publication/Achievement 30 marks Recommendation of Superiors 20 marks Personal Interview 50 marks

7. The minimum required marks to qualify for promotion to  

the post of Principal Scientist was 60 marks out of 100 marks.  

The  candidates  were  accordingly  assessed  and  the  

recommendation for promotion or otherwise was submitted to  

4

the Minister of Agriculture for his approval in his capacity as  

the President of ICAR.

8. The respondent is a Senior Scientist in the service of the  

ICAR at the National Research Centre for Cashew at Puttur,  

Karnataka.  Upon the respondent submitting information as  

per the prescribed assessment proforma, the ASRB addressed  

a letter to the Respondent calling upon him to present himself  

for  assessment  and  interview  for  the  Career  Advancement  

Scheme.   Accordingly,  the  respondent  appeared  for  an  

interview before Selection Committee on 3.5.2001.  However,  

the respondent secured only 49 marks out of 100 and was  

found unfit  for  promotion to the post of  Principal  Scientist.  

The recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved  

by  the  competent  authority,  i.e.,  the  Union  Minister  for  

Agriculture.  The respondent was accordingly intimated of his  

non-promotion as a Principal Scientist on 14.8.2001.

9. The  respondent  made  representations  to  the  appellant  

Institute for review of the decision of not promoting him, but,  

when the respondent did not get any relief from the appellant  

5

institute,  he  filed  a  case  (original  application)  before  the  

Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench.  The Tribunal  

clearly held that the ICAR had acted in an arbitrary manner to  

allocate  50%  marks  for  a  personal  interview  and  on  this  

ground alone the non-selection of the applicant ought to be set  

aside.   

10. The  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras  Bench  

quashed  the  order  of  the  ICAR  and  the  appellants  were  

directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion  

to the higher  grade of  a Principal  Scientist  with effect from  

27.07.1998.  The Tribunal also observed that the respondent  

would be entitled for notional fixation of pay but would not be  

entitled for arrears of back wages.  

11. The  appellants,  aggrieved  by  the  said  order  of  the  

Tribunal filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.  

The High Court  observed that  it  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  

respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion to the  

post  of  Principal  Scientist  under  the  Career  Advancement  

Scheme.  It  was also not in dispute that he was invited for  

6

such consideration  by  the  concerned authorities.   The only  

question  which,  according  to  the  High  Court,  fell  for  

consideration was whether the claim of  the respondent was  

considered  was  in  consonance  with  the  Scheme?   The  

Selection Committee constituted by the appellant had devised  

a method of evaluation of the candidates according to which it  

had allocated 30 marks for research publication/achievement,  

20 marks for recommendation of superiors and 50 marks for  

personal interview out of a total of 100 marks.    

12. The  High  Court  held  that  the  Career  Advancement  

Scheme  does  not  however  sanction  any  such  procedure.  It  

does not refer to or even remotely indicate that an interview of  

the  candidate  can  provide  a  basis  for  determining  his  

entitlement to promotion.  The High Court also observed that  

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras was justified in  

allowing  the  petition  of  the  respondent.    The  High  Court  

relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok alias  

Somanna  Gowda  and  Another  v.  State  of  Karnataka  

(1992) 1 SCC 28 in which it  has been laid down that 50%  

7

marks in the interview was excessive and rendered the process  

of selection arbitrary.   

13. The  High  Court  has  also  observed  that  the  Central  

Administrative  Tribunal,  Bangalore,  correctly  came  to  the  

conclusion that the Scheme did not envisage holding of any  

interview.   

14. The High Court also relied on para 2.4(ii) of the Scheme  

and observed that Senior Scientists are eligible to the post of  

Principal Scientist if they have completed eight years of service  

and  if  he/she  presents  himself/herself  before  the  Selection  

Committee constituted by ASRB with the documents indicated  

therein.  The fact that the eligible officer appears before the  

Selection  Committee  with  the  relevant  documents  does  not  

necessarily imply that the process of evaluation of his merit  

has to be on the basis of an interview nor does it indicate that  

the weightage to the interview can go to the extent of 50% of  

the total marks.  The High Court upheld the judgment of the  

Tribunal.   

8

15. The appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, as  

upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, has preferred  

this appeal on the following grounds before this Court.  

A)    Whether the Division Bench erred in holding  that  award  of  50% of  marks  for  interview  was  excessive  and  rendered  the  selection  process  arbitrary?

B)    Whether the inclusion of an interview process  is  a  material  irregularity  that  vitiated  the  selection process?

C)    Whether the Division Bench was justified in  holding  that  the  Career  Advancement  Scheme  precluded the Selection Committee from adopting  an appropriate method of evaluation?

D)    Whether  a  distinguished  body  of  experts  constituting  the  Selection  Committee  appointed  under the Career Advancement Scheme had no  power to assess and interview the applicants for  promotion?

E)     Whether the High Court was justified in not  appreciating  that  appointment  to  the  post  of  a  Principal  Scientist  was  not  on  the  basis  of  seniority but on the basis of merit alone through  a  process  of  assessment  by  a  high  powered  Selection Committee.

F)     Whether,  under  the  Career  Advancement  Scheme, the promotion to the post of a Principal  Senior Scientist is merely upon the completion of  8 years of service or is based exclusively on the  individual merit of the applicant?

9

G)     Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal,  Bangalore  was  bound  to  follow  an  erroneous  Order  rendered  by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal, Madras.

16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted  

that the Division Bench erred in directing the appellants to  

reconsider the case of the respondent as he had secured only  

49 out of 100 in the selection process and was not  found fit  

for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Principal  Scientist  under  the  

Career Advancement Scheme.  

17. The  impugned  judgment  was  also  challenged  on  the  

ground that the Division Bench ought to have appreciated that  

the  Career  Advancement  Scheme  provides  for  an  interview  

procedure in para 2.4 (ii), where it states that “the applicant  

shall present himself/herself before the Selection Committee”.

18. The appellants also submitted that the Division Bench  

has erred in holding that award of 50% of marks for interview  

was  excessive  and  rendered  the  entire  selection  process  

arbitrary. The appellant further submitted that Division Bench  

10

erred in holding that the inclusion of an interview process is a  

material irregularity that vitiated the selection process.  

19. The appellants further submitted that the Division Bench  

of the High Court ought to have appreciated that the post of  

Principal Scientist is a very senior post which requires many  

personal and intellectual qualities and attributes which can be  

evaluated only through a personal interview of the applicant.  

20. The  impugned  judgment  was  also  challenged  on  the  

ground that the Division Bench of  the High Court ought to  

have  appreciated  that  the  weightage  to  be  given  for  the  

interview procedure had been determined by a body of experts  

constituting  the  Selection  Committee  based  on  the  post  for  

which promotions were being considered.  

21. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the  

appellants submitted that the inclusion of an interview could  

not be treated as material irregularity that vitiated the entire  

selection process. Mr.  Chaturvedi  further  submitted  that  

the Division Bench seriously erred in holding that award of  

11

50% of marks for interview was excessive and rendered the  

selection process arbitrary.

22. Mr. Chaturvedi also submitted that the interview Board  

consisted  of  academicians  and  they  were  justified  in  

formulating the criteria which should not be disturbed by the  

court. He submitted that according to the Career Advancement  

Scheme, the promotion to the post of Principal Scientist is not  

dependant  merely  on completion  of  8  years  of  service.   He  

placed  reliance  on  the  judgment  of  this  court  in  K.A.  

Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Others (2009) 5 SCC 515  

to strengthen his submission.  According to him, for the post  

of  Upper  Managerial  cadre,  allocation  of  50%  marks  for  

interview cannot be termed as arbitrary. In  this  case,  25%  

marks were  kept  for  viva  voce  which were  not  found to  be  

excessive.   This case has no application to the facts  of  the  

instant  case  because  in  the  instant  case,  50% marks  have  

been kept for interview.  This case does not support the case of  

the appellants in any manner.

12

23. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance  

on the judgment of this court in Kiran Gupta and Others v.  

State of U.P. and Others (2000) 7 SCC 719.  In this case,  

this court has taken the view that it is difficult to accept the  

omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce  

only was arbitrary and illegal since allocation of 15% marks  

for the interview was not held to be arbitrary by this court,  

this case also provides no assistance to the appellants because  

in  the  instant  case  50%  marks  have  been  kept  for  the  

interview.

24. Mr. Manu Mridul, the learned counsel for the respondent  

submitted  that  the  Career  Advancement  Scheme  did  not  

envisage conducting of any interview for the eligible candidates  

and introduction of interview itself was arbitrary and against  

the Career Advancement Scheme.

25. He  also  submitted  that  the  candidates  were  never  

informed that  50% marks  would  be  allocated  for  interview.  

Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to have  

13

challenged the aspect of allocating marks for interview before  

his appearing for the interview.

26. He  also  contended  that  allocation  of  50%  marks  for  

interview out  of  a  total  of  100 marks was highly excessive,  

hence arbitrary.  He submitted the allocation of 50% marks for  

interview is clearly contrary to a large number  of judgments of  

this court.

27. Mr.  Mridul  further  contended that the  respondent  was  

considered for selection to the post of Principal  Scientist  on  

the basis  of  his  work and performance from 1985 to 1998.  

According to him, the nature, work, duties and responsibilities  

of  a  Senior  Scientist  and  Principal  Scientist  are  almost  

identical  in  nature,  but  in  order  to  remove  stagnation,  the  

promotion  is  envisaged  under  the  Career  Advancement  

Scheme.  He submitted that the stand of  the respondent is  

fortified,  reinforced  and  strengthened  by  the  Career  

Advancement  Scheme  2004  and  2005  of  the  appellants.  

According  to  the  ‘Information  Handbook  of  Agricultural  

14

Scientists’ Recruitment Board under Right to Information Act,  

2005, the criteria for promotion is that the Board evaluates  

the contribution made by the concerned Scientist in academic  

research.  The Board also evaluates the confidential reports for  

the last eight years while granting benefit of the scheme.   

28. According to the procedure of the Career Advancement  

Scheme of 2004, the allocation of marks for personal interview  

has been reduced from 50% to 10% because the appellants  

themselves realized that allocation of 50% marks was highly  

excessive and in clear contravention to the series of judgments  

of this court.   

29. He also submitted that in 2007, the Career Advancement  

Scheme  has  undergone  a  further  change  and  for  personal  

interview, 20% marks have been allocated.  According to him,  

in any event,  allocation of  50% marks was highly excessive  

and in contravention of the law declared by this court in a  

series of judgments.   

30. Mr. Mridul fairly submitted that in exceptional cases if  

the nature of job is such then even 50% allocation of marks for  

15

interview  could  be  justified.   But,  in  the  instant  case,  the  

promotion  to  the  post  of  Principal  Scientist  is  primarily  

dependant  on  the  length  of  service  as  Senior  Scientist,  

publication  and  evaluation  of  confidential  reports.   The  

promotion  to  this  post  is  granted  predominantly  to  remove  

stagnation. For the selection to the post of Principal Scientist,  

by no stretch of imagination, 50% marks can be justified. He  

placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Dr. S.M. Ilyas  

and  Others  v.  Indian  Council  of  Agricultural  Research  

and Others (1993) 1 SCC 182.  In the Career Advancement  

Scheme, the seniority is the important criteria apart from the  

publication  and  the  evaluation  of  the  confidential  reports.  

Therefore, there cannot be any justification in allocating 50%  

marks for interview.   

31. Mr.  Mrudil  also  argued  that  the  appellants  in  their  

wisdom reduced  the  allocation  of  marks  for  interview  from  

50% to 10% to eliminate or reduce the arbitrariness for the  

subsequent selections for the post of Principal Scientist.

16

32. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  Mr.  Mridul  

submitted that 50% marks allocated for interview were highly  

excessive  and  rendered  the  selection  of  the  candidates  

arbitrary.  He placed reliance on a judgment of this court in  

Ashok  Kumar  Yadav  & Others  v.  State  of  Haryana  &  

Others (1985)  4  SCC  417,  wherein  the  Court  observed  as  

under:

“..the object of any process of selection for entry into  public  service  is  to secure the best and the most  suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and  favouritism.  Selection  based  on  merit,  tested  impartially  and  objectively,  is  the  essential  foundation of any useful and efficient public service.  So  open  competitive  examination  has  come  to  be  accepted  almost  universally  as  the  gateway  to  public services. But the question is how should the  competitive  examination  be  devised?  The  competitive  examination may be based exclusively  on  written  examination  or  it  may  be  based  exclusively on oral interview or it may be a mixture  of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide  what  kind  of  competitive  examination  would  be  appropriate in a given case. To quote the words of  Chinnappa Reddy, J. “In the very nature of things it  would  not  be  within  the  province  or  even  the  competence of the Court and the Court would not  venture  into  such  exclusive  thickets  to  discover  ways out, when the matters are more appropriately  left” to the wisdom of the experts. It is not for the  Court to lay down whether interview test should be  held at all or how many marks should be allowed  for the interview test. Of course the marks must be  

17

minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but  not  necessarily  always.  There  may  be  posts  and  appointments  where  the  only  proper  method  of  selection may be by a viva voce test.  Even in the  case of admission to higher degree courses, it may  sometimes  be  necessary  to  allow  a  fairly  high  percentage of marks for the viva voce test. That is  why  rigid  rules  cannot  be  laid  down  in  these  matters by courts. The expert bodies are generally  the best judges. The Government aided by experts  in  the  field  may  appropriately  decide  to  have  a  written examination followed by a viva voce test.”  

33. This  Court  further  observed  that  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  Lila Dhar  v.  State  of  Rajasthan  

and Others  (1981) 4 SCC 159 observed that the exaggerated  

weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives.

34. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the respondent submitted  

that the controversy is no longer  res integra.    According to  

him, a 4-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav  

&  Others  (supra) has  observed  22.2%  marks  of  the  total  

marks allocated for the viva voice test as infecting the selection  

process with the vice of arbitrariness.

18

35. In  Ashok  Kumar  Yadav  (supra),  the  Court  relied  on  

earlier judgment of this Court in  Ajay Hasia and Others  v.  

Khalid  Mujib  Sehravardi  and Others  (1981)  1  SCC 722,  

wherein the Court took up the view that allocation of as high a  

percentage as 33.3% of the total marks for the viva voice test  

was beyond reasonable proportion and rendered the selection  

of the candidates arbitrary.   

36. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. Sobha Joseph (1971) 1  

SCC 38, the Court observed that earmarking 75 marks out of  

275  marks  for  interview  as  interview  marks  prima  facie  

appears  to  be  excessive.   The  Court  observed  that  various  

researches conducted in other countries particularly in USA  

show  that  there  is  possibility  of  serious  errors  creeping  in  

interviews  made  on  haphazard  basis.  C.W.  Valentine  on  

“Psychology and its Bearing on Education” refers to the marks  

given to the same set of persons interviewed by two competent  

Boards and that is what is stated in his book:

“The  members  of  each  board  awarded  a  mark  to  each candidate and then he was discussed and an  average mark agreed on.

19

When the orders of merit for the two boards were  compared it was found that the man placed first by  Board A was put 13th by Board B when the man  placed 1st by Board B was 11th with Board A.”

37. In this case, the Court also observed that even when the  

interviews  were  conducted  by  impartial  and  competent  

persons on scientific lines very many uncertain factors like the  

initial nervousness on the part of some candidates, the mood  

in which the interviewer happens to be and the odd questions  

that may be put to the persons interviewed may all go to affect  

the result of the interview.   

38. This Court in  R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and  

Others  AIR 1964 SC 1823 observed as under:-

“In the field of education there are divergent views  as  regards  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. If there  can  be  manipulation  or  dishonesty  in  allotting  marks  at  interviews,  there  can  equally  be  manipulation in the  matter  of  awarding marks in  

20

the  written examination.  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  more  a  reflection  on  the  examiners  than  on  the  system  itself.  The  scheme  of  selection,  however,  perfect  it  may  be  on  paper,  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.”

39. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan (supra), the Court referred  

to Ajay Hasia’s case (supra) where the Court found that the  

allocation of more than 15 per cent 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  

Court observed that the viva voce test conducted must be held  

to be fair, free from the charge of arbitrariness, reasonable and  

just.

40. In  Nishi Maghu & Others  v.  State of J&K & Others  

(1980) 4 SCC 95, the Court observed that 50% marks out of  

total 150 marks allotted for interview were excessive.

21

41. In Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan (1988)  

3 SCC 241, the question involved was regarding the validity of  

certain  provisions  of  the  Rajasthan  State  and  Subordinate  

Services  (Direct  Recruitment  by  Combined  Competitive  

Examination)  Rules,  1962,  the  Rajasthan  Administrative  

Service Rules, 1954, the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962  

which contained a provision special to the said three services  

and not  applicable  to  other  services,  that  candidates,  other  

than  those  belonging  to  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  

Tribes should secure a minimum of 33 per cent marks in the  

viva voce test. The rules further stipulated that the candidates  

for these services must also secure 50 per cent marks in the  

written  examination,  but  that  was  not  in  the  area  of  

controversy.  While  dealing  with  the  above  questions  a  

reference was made to cases  Ajay Hasia (supra),  Lila Dhar  

(supra) and A.K. Yadav (supra). It was observed as under:  

“The  much  desired  transformation  from  patronage  to  open  competition  is  a  later  development,  to  which,  now,  all  civilised  governments profess commitment. However, though  there is agreement in principle that there should be  a search for the best talent particularly in relation  to  higher  posts,  however,  as  to  the  methods  of  

22

assessment  of  efficiency,  promise  and  aptitude,  ideas and policies widely vary,  though it  has now  come to be accepted that selection is an informed  professional exercise which is best left to agencies  independent of the services to which recruitment is  made.  The  ‘interview’  is  now  an  accepted  aid  to  selection and is designed to give the selectors some  evidence  of  the  personality  and  character  of  the  candidates.  Macaulay  had  earlier  clearly  declared  that  a  young  man  who  in  competition  with  his  fellowmen of the same age had shown superiority in  studies  might  well  be  regarded  as  having  shown  character  also  since  he  could  not  have  prepared  himself  for  the  success  attained  without  showing  character in eschewing sensual pleasures. But the  interview came to be recognised as an essential part  of the process of selection on the belief that some  qualities  necessary  and  useful  to  public  servants  which cannot be found out in a written test would  be  revealed  in  a  viva  voce  examination.  In  justification of the value and utility of the viva voce,  the  committee  on Class  I  examinations in  Britain  said:

...It is sometimes urged that a candidate,  otherwise  well  qualified,  may  be  prevented  by  nervousness  from  doing  himself  justice in viva voce.  We are not  sure that such lack of nervous control is  not in itself a serious defect, nor that the  presence of mind and nervous equipoise  which enables a candidate to marshall all  of his resources in such conditions is not  a  valuable  quality.  Further,  there  are  undoubtedly  some  candidates  who  can  never  do  themselves  justice  in  written  examinations,  just  as  there  are  others  who  under  the  excitement  of  written  competition  do  better  than  on  ordinary  occasions....  We  consider  that  the  viva  voce  can  be  made  a  test  of  the  candidate’s  alertness,  intelligence  and  

23

intellectual outlook, and as such is better  than any other....  

42. As to the promise as well as the limitations of the  

viva voce, Herman Finer says:

If we really care about the efficiency  of  the  civil  service  as  an  instrument  of  government, rather than as a heaven sent  opportunity  to  find  careers  for  our  brilliant students, these principles should  be adopted. The interview should last at  least  half  an  hour  on  each  of  the  two  separate  occasions.  It  should  be  also  entirely devoted to a discussion ranging  over  the  academic  interests  of  the  candidate  as  shown  in  his  examination  syllabus, and a short verbal report could  be required on the subject, the scope of  which  would  be  announced  at  the  interview.  As  now,  the  interview  should  be  a  supplementary  test  and  not  a  decisive  selective  test.  The  interviewing  board  should  include  a  business  administrator  and  a  university  administrator. The interview should come  after  and  not  before  the  written  examination,  and  if  this  means  some  inconvenience  to  candidates  and  examiners,  then  they  must  remember  that  they  are  helping  to  select  the  government of a great State, and a little  inconvenience  is  not  to  be  weighed  against such a public duty....””

43. In  Mohinder Sain Garg  v.  State of Punjab & Others  

(1991) 1 SCC 662, allocation of 25 per cent of total marks for  

viva voce test in selection was held arbitrary and excessive.    

24

44. In  P.  Mohanan Pillai  v.  State  of  Kerala  & Others  

(2007) 9 SCC 497, 50% marks were fixed for the interview.  

The Court observed as under:

“16. In this case allocation of marks for interview  was  in  fact  misused.  It  not  only  contravened  the  ratio  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  Ashok  Kumar  Yadav and subsequent cases, but in the facts and  circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to draw  an inference of favouritism. The power in this case  has  been  used  by  the  appointing  authority  for  unauthorised purpose. When a power is exercised  for  an  unauthorised  purpose,  the  same  would  amount to malice in law. (See: Govt. Branch Press  v.  D.B. Belliappa (1979) 1 SCC 477,  Punjab SEB  Ltd. v.  Zora Singh  (2005)  6  SCC 776 and  K.K.  Bhalla v. State of M.P (2006) 3 SCC 581).”

45. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  at  

length and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and  

the orders of the Tribunal.

46. In our considered view, no interference is called for, on  

account of  following reasons:-

(A)    Promotion to the post of Principal Scientist  

pertains to the “Career Advancement Scheme”.  

Norms,  Rules  and  Guidelines  which  are  

25

employed while granting the benefit of Career  

Advancement Scheme ought to be applied in  

the instant case.

(B) It  is  amply  clear  that  the  quinquennial  

assessment scheme for the ICAR/ARS Policies  

and Rules were-

a) for  providing  opportunities  for  the  

career  advancement,  irrespective  of  

the occurrence of vacancies, through  

a system of  assessment should lead  

to each scientist  competing with his  

or  her  rather  than  with  colleagues  

and to the acceptance of the principle  

the “all the rights accrue from a duty  

well done”.

b) Enable  scientists  to  get  the  highest  

salary  possible,  within  the  system  

while  remaining  rooted  to  work  in  

their  respective  discipline/field,  

26

thereby  eliminating  both  the  undue  

importance  attached  in  the  past  to  

research management policy and the  

request for such positions purely for  

the advancement of salary.

c) Link  rights  and  responsibilities  and  

instill  through  the  five-year  

assessment  system  the  conviction  

that dedicated and efficient discharge  

of responsibilities alone would be the  

means  of  securing  professional  

advancement.

47. The respondent was not disclosed by the appellant either  

that  the  interview would be held for  evaluating personal  or  

intellectual qualities that attribute a Scientist and that it shall  

carry 50% of the total marks.  This is uncontroverted position.  

Had  the  appellants  disclosed  the  method  of  evaluation  the  

respondent may have challenged the same before participating  

in the selection process.   

27

48. No fault can be found in the impugned judgment in view  

of  the legal  position which emerges after  proper  scrutiny of  

following cases of this Court, namely,  Ashok Kumar Yadav  

(supra), Ajay Hasia (supra), Lila Dhar (supra) and Minor A.  

Peeriakaruppan  (supra).  50%  marks  allocated  for  the  

interview  were  highly  excessive  for  the  post  of  a  Principal  

Scientist and contrary to the settled legal position crystallized  

from a series of the judgments of this court.  

49.  The appellants were totally unjustified in allocating 50%  

marks for the interview particularly when the appellants did  

not even disclose to the respondent that the interview would  

also be held to evaluate suitability of the candidate for the said  

post.

50. The  procedure  evolved  by  the  Selection  Committee  for  

evaluating the respondent was totally arbitrary and contrary to  

the settled legal position.

51. The  appellants  themselves  have  found  50% marks  for  

interview  highly  excessive,  therefore,  now  the  criterion  has  

28

been changed from 50% to 10%.  This is indicative of the fact  

that good sense had ultimately dawned on the appellants.  

52. The  appeal  is  totally  devoid  of  any  merit  and  is  

accordingly  dismissed  with  costs  which  are  quantified  as  

50,000/-.  The costs to be paid to the respondent within four  

weeks.

…….……………........................J.  (DALVEER BHANDARI)

……..…………….......................J.         (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi; March 30, 2011

29