Holding

A 33.3% weight for interview marks in recruitment is unconstitutional and violates Supreme Court precedent, but past selections made under that rule cannot be quashed; the appellants must be appointed instead.

Summary

The appellants, Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and Rajendra, applied for Assistant Engineer positions in Karnataka's Public Works Department but were not selected because the interview component, weighted at 33.3% of total marks under the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973, gave an advantage to other candidates. They challenged the validity of the 33.3% interview weight before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their petitions. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the interview weight violated its earlier decisions that deemed a 33.3% viva voce weight excessive. The Court held that allocating 50 marks for interview out of 150 total marks contravened its precedent, as a lower weight (e.g., 15%) would have resulted in the appellants' selection. However, because the original selections were made in 1987, the selected candidates had already taken up the posts and the rule had been superseded, the Court deemed it inappropriate to quash those appointments. Consequently, the Court directed the State to appoint the two appellants to the respective posts within two months, subject to suitability, and limited relief to them alone.

Issues considered

Whether the Karnataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973, which allocate 33.3% of total marks to the interview, violate the Supreme Court's earlier judgments on the permissible weight of viva voce in recruitment.
Whether the selections made under the impugned rules in 1987 can be set aside despite the rule's invalidity.
Whether relief can be granted to the appellants without disturbing the appointments of candidates already selected.

Subjects

recruitmentinterview marksselection criteriacivil servicesadministrative lawviva voceKarnatakapublic works departmentspecial leavemerit list

Judgment

ASHOK ALIAS SOMANNA GOWDA AND ANR. A
v.
-~ STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECY. AND ORS.

OCTOBER 11, 1991

[N.M. KASLIWAL AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] B

Civil Services:
Kamataka State Civil Services (Direct Recmitment by Selection) Rules,
__.....( 1973:

Selection of Assistant Engineers-- Keeping 33.3% of the total marks
c
for interview--Wliether valid.
The Respondent-State invited. api>lications for recruitment of
Assistant Engineers (Civil) and (Mech.) for the Public Works Department.
According to the rules governing the recruitment, viz. Karnataka State
Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1973 the marks
D
obtained In the qualif'ying examination and the marks secured in the
--'I inte..Vlew would be the basis for selection. The total marks for qualifying
examination was kept at 100 and 50 marks were kept for interview. Thus
the marks allotted for interview was 33.3% of the total marks.
E
Appellant No. 1 who applied for ~he post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) secured .29.SO marks out of SO marks in the Interview, his mar!<s in
the qualifying examination were 69.96, totalling in all 99.46 marks out ot'
150. The second appellant, a candidate for the post of Assistant Engineer
~
(Mech.) secured 24.83 marks In ·the interview and his marks in the
qualifying examination being 66.40, he got 91.23 marks out of the total of F
ISO marks. Both th«! appellants were not· selected as they got less marks
than the last candidate selected, and they flied a petition before the State
Administrative Tribunal challenging the rules on the ground that the
pel'Centage of marks for viva voce fixed at 33.3 was excessive. The Tribunal
having dismissed the petitions, the appellants have preferred the present G
appeal, by special leave.

""' Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1. 50 marks for interview out of 150 are clearly in violation of H
the settled law on this point. Some candidates have been selected though
493
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991} SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A they had secured much lesser marks than the appellants in the qualifying. r .. ·
examination but had secured very high marks in the viva voce out of 50
marks kept for this purpose. If the marks for interview were kept even at
15% of the total marks and merit list was prepared accordingly then both
the appellants would have been selected and a large number of selected
B candidates would have gone much lower in the merit list than the
appellants. [495 G, 496 A-B]

As/wk Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1988) Supp. ~
S.C.R. 657; Moltinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Ors., J.T.1990 (4) S.C.
704, relied on.
c 2. Though the Kamataka State Civil Services (Direct Recruitment
by Selection) Rules are clearly in ".iolation of the dictum laid down by this
Court, since the result of the selections was declared in 1987 and t~e
selected candidates have already joined the posts, it would not be just and
proper to quash the selections on the above ground. Further the selections
D were made according to the Rules of 1973 and this practice is being
consistently followed for the last 17 years and there is no allegation of any ~ ......
malafides in the matter of selections. [ 496-C-D]

3. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the two
appellants on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civin and Assistant
E
Engineer (Mech.), respectively in Public Works Department within a
period of two months in case the appellants are found suita~le in all other
respects according to the Rules. [ 496-E]
Y-
4•. Since the appointments under the Rules were made way back in
F 1987, the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never
approached for redress wifhln reasonable time. The relief is thus
restricted only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making
grievance and approaching the Tribunal in time. [496-F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil' Appeal No. 4088 of
G
1991. r- ~

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.1990 of the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 887 of 1989 C/W.
A. No. 2101/1989.
H
ASH OK v. SfATE [ KASLIWAL, J. ] 495

Naresh Kaushik, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik and Shankar Divate for the A
Appellants.

M. Veerappa, S.R. Bhatt and Naveen R. Nath for the Respondents;

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted. B
Sri Ashok alias Somanna Gowda appellant No. 1 is a Bachelor of
Engineering (Civil) having secured. first class . with distinction getting
69.96% marks from Karnataka University. Shri Rajendra appellant No. 2
is a Bachelor of Engineering (Mech.) from Karnataka University and
secured 66.40 marks in the qualifying examination. The Govt. of Karnataka
by notification dated 4th April, 1985 invited applications for recruitment C
of Asstt. Engineers (Civil) and (Mech.) for the Public Works Deptt. The
selections were to be made on the basis of marks obtained iri the qualifying
examination and marks secured in the interview, in accordance with the
K.S.C.S. (Direct Recruitment By Selection) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules'). According to these Rules total marks for
qualifying examination were kept at 100 and 50 for interview. Thus the D
marks allotted for interview amounted to 33.3% of the total marks. Ap-
plications were invited for 300 posts of Civil Engineers and 100 Mechanical
Engineers initially and subsequently added additional posts of 150 Civil
Engineers and 10 Mechanical Engineers thus in all 450 Civil Engineers
and 110 Mechanical Engineers. Both the appellants applied for the posts E
of their choices in the Public Works Department, Governll'lent of Kar-
nataka. Appellant No. 1 secured 29.50 marks out of 50 marks in the in-
terview and 69.96 marks in the qualifying examination thus in all 99.46
marks out of 150. The 2nd appellant obtained 24.83 marks in the interview
and 66.40 marks in the qualifying examination thus in. all 91.23 marks out
of 150. Both the appellants were not selected in merit as the last candidate
selected for the above posts secured higher marks than the appellants. .f
The appellants filed a petition before the Karnataka Administrative.
Tribunal challenging the Rules on the ground that the percentage of marks
for viva voce as 33.3 were excessive and in violation of the decisions of
this Court. The Tribunal by its order dated 24{h May, 1990 dismissed the
petitions and the appellants aggrieved against the aforesaid decision have G
approached this Court by grant of special leave. It is not necessary to
examine the matter in detail inasmuch as 50 marks for interview out of
150 are dearly in violation of the judgment of this Court in Aslzok Kumar
Yadm• & .Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1988] Sup. S.C.R., 657 and
Mo/tinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Ors., J.T. 1990 (4) S.C., 704. On
a direction given by this Court on 4th September, 1991 the rec:prd of the H

I
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A Selection Committee was produced before this Court at the time of hear- ·
ing. From a perusal of the marks awarded to the selected candidates it is
clear that a large number of candidates have been selected though they
had secured much lesser marks than the appellants in the qualifying ex-
amination but had secured very high marks in the viva voce out of 50
marks kept for this purpose. Thus it is an admitted position that if the
B marks for interview were kept even at 15% of the total marks and merit
list is prepared accordingly then both the appellants were bound to be
selected and a large number of selected candidates would have gone much
lower in the merit list than the appellants. In view of the fact that the
result of the impugned selections was declared in 1987 and the selected
candidates have already joined the posts, we do not consider it just and
C proper to quash the selections on the above ground. Further the selections
were made according to the Rules of 1973 and this practice is being con-·
sistently followed· for the last 17 years and there is no allegation of any
malafides in the matter of the impugned selections. However,· the Rules
arc clearly in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above
referred cases and in case the marks for viva voce would have been kept
D say at 15% of the total marks, the appellants before us were bound to be
selected on the basis of marks secured by them in interview, calculated
on the basis of converting the same to 15% of the total marks.

We, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the respondents to give
appointment to the appellant Ashok alias Somanna Gowda on the post of
E Asstt. Engineer (Civil) and appellant Rajendra on the post of Asstt. En-
gineer (Mech.) in Public Works Department within a period of two months
of the communication of this order in case the appellants are found
suitable in all other respects according to the Rules. Learned counsel ap-
pearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka pointed out that there are
many other candidates who had secured much higher marks than the ap-
pellants in case the above criteria is applied for selection. In view of the
F fact that appointments under the impugned Rules were made as back as
in 1987 and only the present appellants had approached the Tribunal for
relief, the case of other candidates cannot be considered as they never
approached for redress within reasonable time. We are thus inclined to
grant relief only to the present appellants who were vigilant in making
grievance and .approaching the Tribunal in time. Learned counsel for the
G State also submitted that the State Government has already framed new
rules, and as such we do not find it necessary to quash the Rules under
which the present selections were made as they are no longer in existence.
No order as to costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.