http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4793-4802 of 1999

PETITIONER: JASVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.ETC.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF J AND K AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/12/2002

BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

       D. RAJU, J.

               The  above appeals have been filed against the common         Judgment  dated  29th May, 1998 in a batch of appeals  -  LPA         (SW)  85  of 1997 etc.  and those in which  subsequently  the         same  was  followed of a Division Bench of the High Court  of         Jammu  and  Kashmir at Jammu whereunder, while  allowing  the         appeals,  the  Division Bench set aside the judgment  of  the         learned  Single  Judge and ordered the dismissal of the  writ         petitions.

               The  subject matter in issue pertains to a  challenge         to  the selections made for the appointment of Sub-Inspectors         of   Police   -   Executive/Armed   Police  in   the   State.         Applications  were  invited  by  Public  notices  dated  20th                                                            ....2/-

                                   - 2 -         August,  1991,  fixing  the last date for  receipt  from  all         eligible  persons,  indicating the  required  qualifications,         therefor.  Candidates, it was proclaimed will have to undergo         (a)  physical  measurement  test;   (b)  outdoor  test;   (c)         written  test  and (d) viva voce test.  After conducting  all         such  tests  the list of candidates approved for  appointment         was  said to have been published on 26-11-1992, consisting of         about  110 names and the same was subject to verification  of         character  and antecedents, medical fitness and fulfilment of         other  formalities.  Subsequently, it appears that out of  18         selected   candidates   summoned   for  verification   twelve         candidates  presented themselves and out them nine were found         to  be in shortage of chest measurements and one found to  be         of  under  height  and therefore excluded from  the  list  of         candidates to be appointed.

               The  appellants who filed writ petitions participated         in  the  selections but could not be selected for one or  the         other  reason and aggrieved they filed writ petitions in  the         High  Court  challenging the selections.  The learned  Single         Judge who heard the writ petitions found and in the course of         the  order specifically recorded that the controversy in  the         cases  stood narrowed down to two grounds viz.  (i) the marks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       allocated  for  viva-voce  at 25 in comparison to  the  marks         earmarked for written test at 100, worked out to 20 % and the                                                               ...3/-

                                   - 3 -         same being in excess of 12 1/2 % stood vitiated on account of         the  law declared by this Court in the decision reported in :         Ashok  Kumar  Yadav  and  others vs.  State  of  Haryana  and         others;  AIR 1987 SC 454 = 1985 (4) SCC 417 and therefore the

       selections  stood vitiated and are liable to be set aside and         (ii) that the marks in viva-voce was not properly awarded and         that  not  only  there was a farce of an interview  of  every         candidate  within  few  minutes but questions put  were  also         irrelevant  and not related to the selection for the posts in         question.  Over ruling the objections of the respondent State         and  authorities of the Department, the learned Single  Judge         held (a) that the marks allocated at 25 for the viva-voce was         against the law declared by this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s         case  (supra)  and therefore stood vitiated and (b) on  going         through  the  records  it  was found that the  marks  in  the         interview  seem to have been awarded with a conscious  effort         to  bring  up  candidates who figured with low marks  in  the         written  test by awarding more marks in the viva-voce and low         marks  awarded  to  those who secured  higher  percentage  in         written  test.  Therefore the learned Single Judge held  that         there  is no option but to believe that the marks were  given         in the viva-voce for extraneous consideration.  Thereupon the         learned  Single  Judge  expressed the view that  he  was  not         inclined  to  quash  the appointment of  selected  candidates         which may upset the whole department and operate harshly upon                                                             ...4/-

                                   - 4 -         the  selected candidates, and instead directed that all those         writ petitioners falling in general category who had obtained         56  marks  or  above  in the  written  examination  shall  be         entitled  for appointment as Sub-Inspectors of Police,  since         the  last candidate already selected and appointed in general         category had obtained 56 marks in the Written Examination.

               On  further  appeal  before the Division  Bench,  the         learned Judges on an analysis of the case law on the subject,         came  to the conclusion that the Prescription of 25 marks for         viva-voce  test in the present case cannot held to be not  in         consonance  with  the  judicial   precedents.   It  was  also         observed  that  the  decision  in Ashok  Kumar  Yadav’s  case

       (supra)  has  been  noticed in subsequent judgments  of  this         Court wherein even higher percentage viz., upto 50 % was also         upheld  and  it  would not be apt for the Court to  deny  the         right/power of the Government, in this regard.  Consequently,         it  was  held that prescription of 25 marks for viva-voce  in         the  case  did  not suffer from the  vice  of  arbitrariness.         Therefore,  the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been         set  aside  and the writ petitions challenging the  selection         were dismissed.                 Heard  the learned counsel appearing on either  side,         and  the counsel for some of the respondents sailing with the         appellants.                                                            ...5/-

                                   - 5 -                 This  Court  in  Ashok  Kumar  Yadav’s  case  (supra)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       observed that both written examination and viva voce test are         accepted  as essential features of proper selection and  that         there  cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise         weight  to be given to the viva-voce test as against  written         examination, which may vary from service to service according         to  the  requirement of that particular service, the  minimum         qualifications prescribed, the age group from which selection         is  to  be  made, the body to which the task of  holding  the         viva-  voce is entrusted and a host of other factors.  It was         also  observed  that  all such are  essentially  matters  for         determination  by  experts and it would not be right for  the         Court  to  pronounce upon it unless "exaggerated  weight  has         been given with proven or obvious oblique motives." Thereupon         while  adjudging the issue as to whether the allocation of as         high  a  percentage of marks as 33.3 % in case of  ex-service         officers  and 22.2 % in case of other candidates, this  Court         adverted  to the pattern of marks and found that the  highest         marks  obtained  in  the written examination  by  ex-officers         worked  out  only  to a ratio of 22.2% as against  the  marks         obtained  in the viva-voce worked out to an inordinately high         percentage  of  76.  What was considered to be the  vitiating         factor  was  the spread of marks in the viva voce test  being         enormously  large  compared  to the spread of  marks  in  the         written examination leaving room with greater laxity at their                                                             ...6/-

                                   - 6 -         command and for arbitrary exercise of the same with so higher         percentage  of  33.3 % for viva voce.  So far  as  candidates         other than ex-service members, viz., the general category are         concerned, the percentage of 22.2 % was considered to be very         high  tested by the same standards.  Proceeding further as to         the question what should be the proper percentage of marks to         be  allocated  for  the viva voce test in such cases  it  was         observed  that  marks allocated for the viva voce test  shall         not  exceed 12.2 % of the total marks taken into account  for         the  purpose of selection.  This Court finally observed there         in  as  follows:   "We would therefore direct  that  in  case         ex-service  officers,  having  regard to the fact  that  they         would  ordinarily  be middle aged persons with  personalities         fully  developed,  the percentage of marks allocated for  the         viva  voce  test may be 25.  Whatever selections are made  by         the  Haryana Public Service Commission in the future shall be         on  the basis that the marks allocated for the viva voce test         shall  not exceed 12.2 % in the case of candidates  belonging         to  the  general category and 25 % in the case of  ex-service         officers."

               In  Mahmood  Alam  Tariq  and others  vs.   State  of         Rajasthan and others ( AIR 1988 SC 1451) prescription of 33 %

       as  minimum qualifying marks of 60 out of total 180 marks set         apart  for viva voce examination does not by itself incur any                                                             ...7/-

                                   - 7 -         constitutional  infirmity.   In Manjit Singh, UDC and  others

       vs.   Employees State Insurance Corporation and another (1990

       (2)  SCC  367)  this Court held that in the  absence  of  any         prescription  of qualifying marks for the interview test  the         same  40  %  as  applicable   for  written  examination   was         reasonable.   In  Anzar Ahmed vs.  State of Bihar and  others         (1994  (1)  SCC  150) this Court  exhaustively  reviewed  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

       entire  case  law on the subject including the one  in  Ashok         Kumar  Yadav’s  case  (supra) and upheld a  selection  method         which  involved  allocation  of  50   %  marks  for  academic         performance  and  50  marks  for  the  interview.   The  very         observations  in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case (supra) would go to

       show that there cannot be any hard and fast rule of universal         application  for allocating the marks for viva voce viz-a-viz         the  marks  for  written  examination  and  consequently  the         percentage  indicated therein alone cannot be the  touchstone         in  all cases.  What ultimately required to be ensured is  as         to  whether  the  allocation,  as such  is  with  an  oblique         intention  and whether it is so arbitrary as capable of being         abused  and  misused in its exercise.  Judged from the  above         the  Division  Bench could not be held to have committed  any         error  in  sustaining the allocation of 25 marks (20  %)  for         viva  voce  as against 100 marks for written examination  for         selection  of  candidates in the present case.   The  learned         Single Judge, in our view, has adopted a superficial exercise                                                            ...8/-

                                   - 8 -         and  proceeded on a misunderstanding of the real ratio of the         decision  in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case (supra).  Further,  the

       learned  Single  Judge appears to have applied  the  ultimate         decision  in  the  said  case, to the case  on  hand  drawing         certain  inferences on mere assumptions and surmises or  some         remote possibilities, without any proper or actual foundation         or basis, therefor.

               The  learned Single Judge also seem to have been very         much  carried away by few instances noticed by him as to  the         award of higher percentage of marks in viva voce to those who         got  lower  marks  in written test as compared  to  some  who         scored  higher marks in written examination but could not get         as  much higher marks in viva voce.  Picking up a  negligible         few  instances  cannot provide the basis for either  striking         down  the  method of selection or the  selections  ultimately         made.   There is no guarantee that a person who fared well in         written test will or should be presumed to have fared well in         viva  voce test also and the Expert opinion about as well  as         experience  in  viva voce does not lend credence to any  such         general  assumptions,  in  all   circumstances  and  for  all         eventualities.   That  apart  the variation of  written  test         marks  of  those who were found to have been  awarded  higher         marks  in viva voce viz-a-viz those who secured higher  marks         in  the  written test but not so in the viva voce  cannot  be                                                              ...9/-

                                   - 9 -         said  to be so much (varying from five marks and at any  rate         below  even  10) as to warrant any proof of inherent vice  in         the  very system of selection or the actual selection in  the         case.   There was no specific allegation of any mala fides or         bias  against the Board constituted for selection or any  one         in  the  Board nor any such plea could be said to  have  been         substantiated  in this case.  The observation by the  learned         Single  Judge  that  there was a conscious  effort  made  for         bringing  some candidates within the selection zone cannot be         said  to be justified from the mere fact of certain instances         noticed by him on any general principle or even on the merits         of  those  factual  instances  alone.   Further,  the  course         adopted  by  the learned Single Judge in directing  selection         from  general candidates all those who have obtained 56 marks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       in  written examination cannot be justified at all and it  is         not  given to the Court to alter the very method of selection         and  totally dispense with viva voce in respect of a  section         alone  of  the candidates, for purposes of selection.   On  a         careful  and  overall consideration of the judgments  of  the         learned  Single Judge and that of the Division Bench, we  are         of  the  view that the decision of the learned  Single  Judge         cannot  be sustained for the reasons assigned by him and  the         decision  of  the  Division  Bench  cannot  be  considered to         suffer  any  such  serious  infirmity in law to call for  our         interference.                                                            ...10/-

                                  - 10 -

               For  all  the reasons stated above, the appeals  fail         and shall stand dismissed but with no costs.