Holding

The viva‑voce test as conducted was fair, free from arbitrariness, reasonable and just, and the merit list was ascertained by the most scientific method available.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the admission process to the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, alleging that the viva‑voce test, its method of questioning and the allocation of 15 marks were arbitrary and could affect merit. The selection procedure required candidates to appear for a written entrance exam (85 marks) and a viva‑voce test (15 marks) split into four heads, with questions prepared in advance and drawn at random, the interview being recorded on tape. The respondents demonstrated the actual cards, recordings, and merit list, showing that marks were awarded based on merit under each head. The Court examined whether the viva‑voce component violated constitutional principles of fairness and non‑arbitrariness. It held that the method employed was the most scientific available, leaving no room for arbitrary choice, and that the viva‑voce test was fair, reasonable and just. Consequently, the writ petition and the transferred cases were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the viva‑voce test and the allocation of 15 marks constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the method of conducting the viva‑voce (pre‑prepared questions, random selection, recording) ensures a fair and merit‑based admission process.

Subjects

admissionengineering collegesviva‑voce testarbitrarinessmeritselection processconstitutional lawArticle 32fairness

Judgment

•
- KOSHAL KUMAR GUPfA & ORS.
v.
A

STATE OF J. & K. AND ORS.

April 6, 1984 r
B
'
[D. A. DESAI, A. p; SEN AND V. BALA,KRIS!lNA BRAD!, JJ.]
Educational Institutions-Admission to Engineering Col!eges-A_dmission
to-Viva-Voce tes1-All.1trn~1Jt of 15 marks-Wheiher arbitrary. l;>lalogue
between members of_ Selecdon COmmittee and candidate recorded on-tape.
_recor~r-Procedu.re_.;.Wheth'er fair a/id reasonable. · • c
The Third Respoodant-Principal of the College by a public adver'
tiscment invited applications for admission to the _Bac_helor Degree
EngineeriOg Course in the Regional Eog-ioeeriog College in fhe State. The
•• candidates seeking admission were requi('ed to appear at a joint entrance
examination, thos_e who. qu;1.lified had to ·appear at a viva·-vOce test~ aa·d
D
the sele.ction was to be based on· the combined performance in the
written and vivaMvoce-examinatiOn.

The petitjoners who-applied and were admitted to the written test
and- on being qualified~ were cal led for viVa-Vbce test; In their writ ·
1

petitions they challenged the m1ni:ier, the. method and the number of
mar)s:s assigned for the vlva-voce test. It was conteQded that the rescr ..
E
vation of IS marks for the viva-vOce. test conferred_ arbitrary, unguided
and ·uocannalised power on those conducting the viva-voce tCst and tha.t
tbC reservation of JS ma_rks would have th~ pernicious_ tendency of
affecting merit disclosed by the marks obtai 1ed at the \vritten examination.

The writ puHtion was contested on behalf of ._respondents l ,2 and ·F
3 by sub:nitting that in order to avoid a1y ch1rge_o~ arbitrariness being
·levelled against the Selection Committee, 15 marks assi8aed for viva·'9'oce
test were· further split-Up urider four heads, viz. (i) Science-5 marks, (ii).
General Knowledge·4 marks, (iii) -Curricular Activilies--3 marks and· {i~)
Personality tCst-·3 marks, and that the Selection Committee prep1red
cards on each of which a quest.ion was typed referable fO Physics,
Chemistry, Mathematics and General K.nowledge and they were kept in G
4 different boXes. Wh_eri the Candidate entere<;l the room for interview,
·he wa~'· requited to pick-up at random one card from eaC:h ,of the four
boxes, eaCh.box containing 150 cards and answer the· question. A tape4
recorder was kept on the table in front·of the members of tho SolMion
Committee and the candidaie appearilig for the interview, aad the two 4

way dialogue was recorded in full. Mark• were aHigned undor each head H·
of 1iva-voce test dapendiog UPJJ th;, m'!:rit or ·th;, anJwer. fheral.fter, ..
tho merit list was prepared on the basis of tho total marks ·obtainod at

' •
•
40S. SUPRE$ COURT REPORTS tt984j 3 s.c.R. · -1"'

.A t be written and viva·Voce tests.

DismissiOg the Writ Petitions & Transferred cases,
•
HELD :Merit.ha& been 'asqerlairied ·by the.most scientific mCihod tha
can be applied for selecting candidates on merit leaving n6 room for_ any
· arbitrar§ choice. 'Ibe viva;voce test that was conducted was fair, free
B from the charS'e of arbitrariness, reasonable and just. [410 F]

In the instant case, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have· practically set at
naught some of the drawbacks and deficiencies- point.ed out in Ajay' Basia
etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehra,ard1 & others etc. [1981] 2 SCR · 79•· in the
manner . of holding of oral interview and the marks- assigned at it. The
respondents in order to avoid any charge of arbitiiirjness ·reduced tbe
marks assigned to ·the · Viva-voce test, prepared the questions 1o advance
kept them ready in the boxes and 'tbe candidatJ bad to .pick-up bis own
<i,ueslion . nod answer it. The record .'Of the answer was m~int'llined in
the candidate~ own voice. [41'Q Q-411 E] ·

ORiGINAJ, JURISDICTION : Writ Petiti~ri No. 8964 of 1982. ~
D . (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Irtdia) .•
WITH
Transfer Cases Nos. 13-15 of 1984.

Anil Dev Singh, Subhash Sharma and S.K. Sabharwa/ for the
E petitioners.
G.L. Sangh1 and Altaf Ahmed'for the respondents.
K.R.R. Pillai 'for the Petitioner· in Transfor Cases Nos.
13-15 of84.
F · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESA~ J. At' the conclu.sion of the hearing of the .writ. peti-
tion and the transferred cases on Jan.24, 1984, the Court pronoun-
ced the order dismissing· the writ p,etition. agd the transferred
cases, reserving that the reasons will follow later on. Here arc
G the reasons.
To put.into' focus the ·controversy, the fact$. alleged ·in Writ
Petition No. 8964 of 1982 may be taken as representative of the
allegations in all allied cases.· ' · · '

Nine petitioners in this petition questioned the legality and 'i..-Y
H correctness of admissions ·to Bachelor degree course for 1982-83
session in Regional Engineering Colleges at Srinagar, simtllta-.
neously praying for quashing the admissions of respondents Nos.

•
k. It GlJPTA v. i. AND.K. STATE (Desai, J.) 400
5 to 13 and S·eeking a direction that the petitioners be admitted to A
the same session.

A Regional Engineering College has been sd up at Srinagar
in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Third respondent, Principal
of the College by a public advertisement dated March 13, 1982
i.nvited appLcations for admiSsion to the Bachelor Degree Engi- B
neering Course for 1982-83 session not only in the Regional
Engineering College, Srinagar but ·also in eleven Regional
Engineering Colleges set up in different States.. Candidates
seeking admission had to fulfill the following requirements. They
were required to appear at (i) a joint ·entrance examination in
four papers viz. Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and English; c
(ii} candidates who qualify· in the written test had to appear at a
viva-voce test; '(iii) the selections were - to be based on the com-
bined performance in the written and viva-voce examination; and
(iv) the seats reserved for specified categories were also Bhown.
Pursuant to this ·advertisement, the petitioners applied and were ••
admitted. to the' written test and on being found qualified, they D
were ealled for viva-voile' test. The challenge is to the manner,
the mothod and the number of marks as~igned for the viva-voce
• test. Broadly stated, the allegations were that reservation of 15
marks for viva-voce test conferred arbitrary, unguided and• un·
canna!ised power on those c2nducting the viva-voce test and that
reservation of 15 marks for viva-voce'!est would have the perni- · E
cious tendency of affecting the merit disclosed by the marks
obtained at written examination. Tbere were other · allegations
which d9 not merit examination.

On rule nisi being issued, respondents Nos. ·I to 3 appeared
and one Dr. O.N. Kou!, Head of the Mechanical Engineering F
.. . Department (Co-ordinator Admissions for session 1982·83),
Regional Engineering College, Srinagar filed an affidavit in
opposition on behalf of tlie Principal of the College. After •
• pointing out that 85 marks were assigned for written examination
and 15 for viva-voce test, it was further pointed out that in order
to. avoid any charge of arbitrariness being levelled against the
Selection Committee 15 marks assigned for viva-voce test were
further split-up under four heads, namely, (i) Science-5 marks
(ii) General knowledge-4 marks (iii) Curricular Activities-3
• marks and (iv) personality iest-3 marks. It was pointed out
that vltimately out of a total of 100 marks, only 3,marks were
assigned for personality test and this is the area where if at all; H
discretion can be exercised which may not be reviewable on any
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
•
· tJ984J 3 s.c.I\.
...... ' .
A documentary evidence. In respect of the three other heads, it
was pointed .out that the Sele'!:tion Committee prepared cards on
each of which a question was typed referable to the 4 subjects,
llllmely, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and General Knowledge.
and they were kept in 4 difforent boxes .. When the candidate
entered the room for interview, he was required to pick up at
B random one card from each of the four· boxes, .each box •
·containing atleast 150 cards and answer the question. A tape
recorder was ·kept on the table in front of the members of the
SelectiQ!l Committee and the ..candidate appearing .for the inter-
view and the two-way dialogue was recorded in full. Marks were
assigned under·each head of viva-voce test depending upon the
.c merit of the answere. Thereafter, the merit list w11s prepared on
· the basis of the total marks obtai11ed at written test and the viva-
voce test and it was stricily adhered to save and· except for reser-
ved seats· whete alw persons seeking admission to reserved seats
'had t.o stand in queu~ as in the merit list. . ·

At the hearing of these pebtions, the respondents Nos. 1 to
3 produced before the Court the cards on which questions ll'.ere
typed, the cassette and a tape recorder. They also produced· the
entire merit list with marks obtained by each candidate. The
·court ·at' random directed \)lorn to point out which card was picked-
E up by om of the candi'1atl's from amongst; the petitioners and then
play the cassette on whi1;h . his intetview was taped. Learned
counsel for the petitioners and some ·of the ,petitione·rs were
. pre~ent during this demonstration. We a;e fully satisfied that
in this case merit has b~en ascertainod by the most scientific
method .that can be. applied for selecting candidates on merits
F ..
leaving no.room for any arbitrary. choice.

·There was no· challenge to the written test and 85 marks
assigiled for the written test. In A;ay· Ha1ia etc. v Kha/id Mujib
Sehravardi &; Ors. etc. (') whorein "admission to this very Regio··
•
nal Engineering College for the year 1979-80 was challenged,
G this Court observed tha.t 'there can be no doubt that, having
· regard to the drawbacks and deficifncies in the oral interview test
and the conditions prevailing. in the country, particularly .when·
there is deterioratiou in n!oral values and corruption and nepo-

_____
tism are· very much on the focrease, allocation of a high per- •
centage of marks for the oral inte1vie.w as compared to the marks
H allocated llr the written
, test, cannot be accepted by thti court as ..
, OJ [19s1j 2 s.c.R. 79.
k. 1::. GtiPTA V J. AND K. STATE (Desai, J.) 4H
free from the vice of ar~trariness. The Court concluded by A
observing· that in the· existing circumstances, allocation of more
than 15% of the total marks for the oral intervie.w would be
arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down
'as constitutionally invalid.
... •
The respondents· took one from these observations of the· B
Court and reduced the marks assigned for viva-voce. test to 15.
J Not only that but some of the drawbacks and deficiencies pointed
out by this Court in the manner of holding ·of oral interview and
the'marks assigned at it, the respondents split-up the marks under
four heads and a;least in respect of three, there is direct evidence
as recorded mi the tape to show how the :andidate has faired.
And as for the dreaded persona.lily test, the marks assigned are 3
·only. Not a single case was pointed out to us in the course of the
hearing in which the candidate othetwise being eligible for ad-
mis&ion on merit, lost the ··same .because of inability to get som~
" l' marks under the personality test, the maximum being -3 only.
It is to the credit of rescondents Nos. I to 3, how they in order D
to avoid any charge of arbitrariness reduced the marks assigned
to viva-voce test, split them up under different heads and even in
· respect of questions· to be put at the viva-voe\' test prepared the

.
questions in adva:ic!', kept them ready. in boxes and the candidate
had to pick-up his own q~estion and answer it. The record of
the answer is maintaintlli in candidates own voice. We must E
} record our appreciation that respondents Nos. I to 3 have practi-
cally set .at naught drawbacks and deficiencie; in oral interview
as pointed out by thi.s Court. The viva-voce test conducted mu;t
be held to be fair, free from the charge of arbitrariness, reason-
able' and just.
F
.. . Undoubtedly, the expectation of the Court which frowns
upon anything arbitrary or unreasonable has added to the work-
load of the 'Selection Committee. But today when there is ru;h
for admission. to Engineering Colleges like the Ceasar's wife, the
selection must be objective and beyond reproach. That has been
G •
scientifically achievecUn this case: We hope that bodies charged
with the difficult task of ascertaining merits for admission will
take cue from.what has been done by respondents Nos. r to 3
and the lead provided by them in this fUd would restore faith
of young aspirants in 'the system. Therefor, the Court dismissed
the writ petition and the transferred cases. ·
H
N.V.K. Petitions &: Transfer Cases dismissed,