Holding

The selection process, including the 25% weightage to the viva voce and the single‑lot marking method, is not arbitrary and cannot be struck down absent proof of an oblique motive.

Summary

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission conducted a competitive examination for recruitment of Munsifs, comprising written papers and a viva voce worth 25% of the total marks. The petitioner, who scored 189 overall (159 written, 30 viva), was not selected, while the last selected candidate scored 190 (135 written, 55 viva). He challenged the scheme under Articles 14, 16 and 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the 25% weightage to the interview was arbitrary and that marks should have been allocated under separate heads. The Supreme Court held that the weightage of the viva voce is a matter of policy to be decided by the Governor, the High Court and the Public Service Commission, and there was no proof of an oblique motive or arbitrariness. It further observed that the rules allowing marks to be awarded in a single lot are permissible and that courts should not rewrite selection rules absent clear excess. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether allocating 25% of total marks to the viva voce examination in the Rajasthan Judicial Service recruitment is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the method of awarding interview marks in a single lot, without sub‑division, is invalid under the recruitment rules.
Whether the courts may interfere with the weightage given to written and oral tests prescribed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 309, s. Article 32

Subjects

public service recruitmentwritten examinationviva voceselection criteriaarbitrarinessArticles 14 and 16Article 309constitutional lawmeritinterview weightage

Judgment

A 320
)

LILA DHAR
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
B
August 19, 1981
;

[0. Cf!INNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.)

Seiection to a Public Service-Idea/ mode-By written examination or by
c oral test (viva voce), or by a comb;nation of both explained-Rajasthan Judicial
Service Rules, Schedule III prescribing the criteria to be considered and the
matters to be tested in the viva voce examination~Allocation of 25% of the total
marks for the viva voce exarnination, whether arbitrary so as to offend Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution.
j
Pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules made by the Governor of
Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and
D the High Court of Rajasthan. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission held a
competitive examination for recruitn1ent of Munsifs. The competitive e:icamina-
tion consisted of a written examination with two papers in law carrying 100
marks each and two papers, one in Hindi and the other iri English, each carrying
SO marks and a viva voce examination carrying 10() marks. The viva voce
examination was conducted by a Board consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. D.
Kudal, Judge, Rajasthan High Court, Shri Hari Dutt Gupta, C'.hairman, Rajas·
E than Public Service Commission, Adaviappa, Member, Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and an expert. The expert Member was either Dr. I.C. Saxena, or
Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by rotation. Out of the 39 candidates (respond-
ents 3 to 41) who were selected for appointment, one belonged to the scheduled
caste and the rest bi!longed to the general category. The last of the candidates
belonging to the general category who was selected for appointment obtained a
total of 190 marks in the examination, 135 in the written examination and 55 in
F the viva voce. The petitioner who obtained a total of 189 mar ks, 159 in the
written test and 30 in the viva voce was not selected for appointment. Hence
the writ petition, by the petitioner contending: (a) the allocation of so high
percentage of marks for the interview test introduced an irredeemabJe e1ement
of arbitrariness so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (b) award-
ing of marks in the interview test in a single lot instead of sub-dividing and
awarding marks seperately under various heads for the various matters tested in
G the interview was bad in law.

Djsmissing the writ petition, the Court

HELD : 1. The object of any process of selection for entry into a public
service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding
H patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and
objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service.
[324 C-D]
LILADHAR v. RAJASTHAN 321

1:2. While a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and .\
intellectual ability, an interview test ic; 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 test: which
can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness resourcefulness, dependableness,
co-operativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in
discussion, effectivenec;s in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judge-
ment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. 8
Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error,
by an interview test, much depending on the con<1titution of the interview Board.
Thus the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview
test the man himself and "the twain sh.:ill meet" for a prc per selection.
1

' [325 C-E, Ji6 F]

2. As regards the weight to be attached re,.pectively to the written test and C
the oral test, there cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to
be given. ft must vary from service to service according to rhe requirements of
the service, the minimum qualifications, pre;;cribed, the age group fron1 which
the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview
test is proposed to be entru<ited and a host of other factors. It is a 1natter for
determination by experts and for research. It is not for courts to pronounce
upon it unless exagg!!rated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique D
motives. [326 F, 327 C·D]

Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R. and Ajay Hasia etc.
v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487, explained.

3. Ordinarily recruitment to public services is regulated by rules made
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and courts would he usurping E
a function which is not theirs, if they try to redetermine the appropriate method
of selection and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests. If the
courts do that, they will bo rewriting the rules but, however, courts would
interfere certainly in cases of proven or obvious o'Jlique motives. [330 C-D]

In the in'itant case, the selection c:t.nnot be struck down on the ground that
more than due weightage was given to the interview test: (a) The Rajasthan F
Judicial Service Rules have been made by the Governor of Rajasthan in con-
sultation with the High Court of Rajastllan and the Rajasthan Public S<trvice
Commission. Both are \veil-acquainted with the particular needs of their State
and the people. If the Governor, in con<iultation with the High Court and the
Public Service Commission of the State makes rule~ stipulating seventy five per
cent of the ·marks for the written examination and twenty five per cent for the
interview test, Courts have no basis on which to s.:iy that twenty five per cent G
for the interview test is on the high side; (b) the interview test is generally con-
ducted and was, in the present case, conducted by u body consisting of a Judge
of the High Court, the Chairman and a member of the Public Service Commission
and a special invitee.expert, and as such no legitimate grievance or hint of arbi-
trarjness could be made against this body; (c) the candidates expected to offer
themselves for selection are not raw graduates freshly out of college but are H
persons who have already received a certain amount of professional training. The
source material is such that some weightage must be given to the interview test
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R.

and (d) the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were
not made available to the members of the interviewing Board eithter before or at
the time of the interview. (327 E-H, 328 A-C]

4. Courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed
by interviewing bodies unless, it is proven or obvious that the method of marki11g
was chosen with oblique motive. In the instant case, the Rajasthan Judicial
B Rules generally indicate the criteria to be considered in the interview test without
dividing the interview test into distinct subMtests. It is for the interviewing body
to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or to
award marks in a single lot. The awJrd of marks under ditf~rent heads may
lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand,
. the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body
m3.y give a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality. [328 D·G]
c Periakaruppan v. State ofTanril Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 430 and Ajay Hasia
etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sheravardi and Ors., A.LR. 1981 S.C. 487, discussed and
distinguished.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 2701 of 1981.
(Urder Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.)
D
S. K. Mehta, P. N. Puri, E. M. Sardul Anam, M. K. Dua and
K. M. Jain for the Petitioner.

V. M. Tarkunde and S. K. Jain for Respondents Nos. 7, 8, 15,
25-28, 29, 31, 33, 38, 41.
E
K. Parasaran Sol. Gen. and Badri Das Sharma for Respondent
No. I.

N.L. Jain and Badri Das Sharma for Respondent No. 2.

Badri Das Sharma for Respondent No. 3.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPFA REDDY, J. What is the ideal mode of selection to
a Public Service, by written examination, by oral test (viva voce),
or by a combination of both? If the last, what is the proper,
..
G relative weight that should be attached to the written examination
and the oral test? Is the oral test so pernicious in practice, as
suggested by some, that it should be abandoned without regrets or
the weight to be attached to it be made minimal ? Has any such
consensus emerged among the informed. and the cognoscenti as to,
H require the Court to scrap a selection as arbitrary .on the sole
ground that the weight accorded to the oral 1 test ··appeared to be.
high? .,,,,
'LILADHAR v. RAJASTHAN (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 323

Pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service rules made by the
Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission and the High Court of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan
Public Service Commission held a competitive examination for
recruitment of Munsifs. The competitive examination consiste,i of
a written examination with two papers in law carrying 100 marks
each and two papers, one in Hindi and the other in English, each 8
carrying 50 marks and a viva voce examination carrying 100 marks.
The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board consisting
of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. D. Kudal, Judge, Rajasthan High Court,
Sbri Hari Datt Gupta, Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Com-
mission, Adaviappa, Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission
and an expert. The expert Member was either Dr. I. C. Saxena, c
or Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by rotation. Schedule III of
the Rajasthan Judicial Service rules prescribes the criteria to be
considered and the matters to be tested in the viva voce examination.
The relevant paragraph is as follows :

D
"In interviewing the candidates, the suitability for
employment to the judicial service shall be decided with
reference to his record at the school, College and University
and his character, personality, address and physique. The
questions which may be put up to him may be of a general
nature and will not necessarily be academic or legal. The E
' candidates will also be put questions to test the general
knowledge including knowledge of current affairs and
present day problems. The marks so awarded shall be

- added to the marks obtained in the written test by each
candidate".
F
The result of the competitive examination was announced by the
Rajastban Public Service Commission on March 12, 1981 and res-
pondent Nos. 3 to 41 were declared selected for appointment. Out
of the 39 candidates who were selected for appointment, one
belonged to the scheduled castes and the rest belonged to the general
category. The last of the candidates belonging to the general
G
category who was selected for appointment obtained a total of 190
marks in the examination, 135 in written examination and 55 in the
viva voce. The petitioner who obtained a total of 189 marks, 159
in the written test and 30 in the viva voce was not selected for
appointment. He has filed the present writ petition under Art. 32
H
of the Constitution questioning the selection.
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] I S.C.R.

A Shri Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner raised two princi- ) .
pal contentions before us. The first was that the entire selection
was vitiated by the allocation of 25 percent of the total marks for the
• viva voce examination. The submission was that the allocation of
so high a percentage of marks for the interview-test introduced an
irredeemable element of arbitrariness so as to offend Articles 14 and
B 16 of the Constitution. In support of this submission reliance was
placed on the decisions of this Court in Ajay HaJia etc. Khalid
Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. etc.(') Shri Mehta's second contention A
was that marks were awarded in the interview-test in a single lot
instead of sub dividing and awarding marks separately under various
beads for the various matters tested in the interview. Reliance was
C placed on Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (').

The object of any process of selection for entry into a 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
D useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination
has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public
services". "The ideal in recruitment is to do away with unfairness(')".
"Competitive examinations were the ai:swer t~ the twin problems
represented by democracy and the requirements of good adminis-
tration. They were the means by which equality of opportunity
E
was to be united with efficiency ...... By this means favouritism was
to be excluded and the goal of securing the best man for every job
was to be achieved(')". "Open competitive examinations are a
peculiarly democratic institution. Any qualified person may come

F
forward. His relative competence for appointment is determined
by a neutral, disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence
supplied by the candidate himself. No one has "pull"; everyone
-
stands on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic
it is fair and equitable to every competitor. The same rules govern,
the same procedures apply, the same yardstick is used to test
competence(').
G
How should the competitive examination be devised ? The

(1) AIR 1981 S.C. 487.
(2) [1971] 2 S.C.R. 430.
H (3) United Nations Handbook on Civil Service Laws and Practice.
(4) Public Personnel Administration by 0. Glenn Stahl.
(5) Introduction to the study of Public Administration by Leonard White.
LILADHAR v. RAJASTHA~ {Chinnappn Reddy, J.) 325

Kothari Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection methods A
in their report said:

"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 pro-
blems of economic and social development, with people, B
and with novel situations cannot serve the needs of today,
much less of tomorrow ...... We venture to suggest that our
recruitment procedures should be such that we can select
candidates who can not only assimilate knowledge and sift
material to understand the ramifications of a situation or a
problem but have tbe potential to develop an original or c
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 bas certain distinct advan- D
tage over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can
evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, depend-
ableness, 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 E
evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview test,
much depending on the constitution of the interview Board.
0. Glenn Srahl in his Public Personnel Administration points out:

.. "Any form of written test possesses certain administra-
tive advantages over the oral and performance types. The
F
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 G
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 : (l) the difficulty of deve-
loping valid and reliable oral tests; (2) the difficulty of H
securing a review able record of an oral test; and (3) public
suspicion of the oral as a channel for the exertion of politi-
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] I S.C.R.

A cal influence through the destruction of anonymity. Despite ;
these 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 mea·
B suring 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 deserves a place in the battery used by the tech·
nical examiner ...... The general principle is that resort
should never be had to an oral if the relevant factor to be
c tested can be measured at some other point in the examin·
ing process. The reason is that the reliability of the oral,
even under the best of 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 )
D cannot be measured in any other way" (p. 92)

Jn the United Nations Hand Book on Civil Service Laws and
Practice it is said :

" ...... the written papers permit an assessment of culture
E and intellectual competence. The interview permits an
assessment of qualities of character which written papers
ignore; it attempts to assess the man himself and not his
intellectual abilities".

Thus, the written examination assesses the man's intellect and
F
the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a
proper selection. If 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
G 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 Tami/nadu,
H Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. etc., (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
LILADHAR v. RAJASTH<N (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 327

\ personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic A
and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied.
To subject such persons to a written examination may yield un-
fruitfull and negative results, apart from its being an act of cruelty
to those persons. There are, of course, many services to which
recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities
are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great B
promise, and the discerning may in an interview test, catch a
glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services,
where sound selection must combine academic ability with person-
ality promise, some weight has to be given, though not much too
great weight, to the interview test. There cannot be any rule of
thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from c
service to service according to the requirements of the service, the
minimum qualifications prescribed, the age group from which the
selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the
interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other
factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is a matter
for research. It is not for Courts to pronounce upon it unless D
exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique
motives. The Kothari Committee also suggested that in view of
the obvious importance of the subject, it may be examined in detail
by the Research Unit of the Union of Public Service Commission.

In this background, let us now examine the situation presented E
'
by the Rajasthan rules. The Rajasthan Judicial Service rules have
been m.1de by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the
High Court of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Com-

- mission. The High Court may be expected to know the precise
requirements of the judicial service of the State and the calibre of
the available source-material, while the Public Service Commission
F
is an expert body thoroughly conversant with recruitment policies
and selection methods. Both the High Court and the Public Service
Commission are independent bodies, outside executive control,
occupying special positions and enjoying special status under the
c0nstitution. Neither is aa outside agency. Both are well-acquainted
with the particular needs of their State and the people. If the
G
Governor, in consultation with the High Court and the Public
Service Commission of the State makes rules stipulating seventy
five percent of the marks for the written examination and twenty five
percent for the interview test, on what basis can a Court say that
H
twentyfive percent for the interview test is on the high side ? It must
not also be forgotten that the interview test is generally conducted
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982) I S.C.R.

.A and was, in the present case, conducted by a body consisting of a j

Judge of the High Court, the Chairman and a member of the
Public Service Commission and a special invitee-expert. There
can surely be no legitime grievance or hint of arbitrariness against
this body. Yet another factor worthy of consideration is that the
candidates expected to offer themselves for selection are not raw
B graduates freshly out of college but are persons who have already
received a certain amount of professional training. The source-
material is such that some weightage must be given to the interview
test and can it possibly be said that twenty five per cent of the total
marks is an exaggerated weightage. We may add here that it has
been made clear by the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Com-
c mission on whose behalf a counter affidavit has been filed before
us that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written exami-
nation were not made available to the members of the interview
Board either before or at the time of the interview. We are un-
hesitatingly of the view that the selection cannot be struck down on )

the ground that more than due weightage was given to the inter-
D view test.

The second ground of attack must fail for the same reason as
the first ground of attack. The rules themselves do not provide for •
the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test.
The criteria for the interview test has been laid down by the rules.
E It is for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to /
allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single
lot. The award of marks under different heads may lead to a
distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand
the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the
interviewing body may give a more accurate picture of the candi-
F date's personality. It is for the interviewing body to choose the
appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service.
There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts
cannot sit it judgment over the methods of marking employed by
interviewing bodies unJess, as we said, it is proven or obvious that
the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive.
G
Both the cases cited before us Periakaruppan' s case and Ajay
Basia's case were cases of admission to colleges. We have already
pointed out that the provision for marks for interview test need not
and cannot be the same for admission to colleges and entry into
H public services. In fact in Periakaruppan' s case, even in the case
of college admissions the Court observed :
LILADHAR v. RAJASTHAN (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 329

\ "While we do feel that the marks allotted for inter- A
view are on the high side and it may be appropriate for
the Government to re-examine the question, we are unable
to uphold the contention that it was not within the power
of the Government to provide such high marks for inter-
view or that there was any arbitrary exercise of power".
B
It is true that in Periakaruppan's case the Court held that the non
\
allocation of marks under various heads in the interview test was
illegal but that was because the instructions to the Selection Com-
mittee provided that marks were to be awarded at the interview on
the basis of five distinct tests. It was thought that the failure to
allocate marks under each head or distinct test was an illegality. c
But, in the case before us, the rule merely and generally indicates
the criteria to be considered in the interview test without dividing
the interview test into distinct, if we may so call them, sub-tests.
We do not think that Periakaruppan' s case, which, as we said, deals
with admission to a college, affords any true guidance to us. Ajay
Basia's case was also a case of admission to a college. The Court D
while upholding the interview test as not irrational or irrelevant
though unsatisfactory and capable of abuse, made the following
observation :

"We would, however, like to point out that in the
matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of E
'
public employment, t11e 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". F

... The Court then proceeded to consider the next question raised
" before them, whether the allocation of 33 1/3 percent of the wtal
marks for the interview test vitiated the selection procedure as
arbitrary and unreasonable. It was held that it did and reference
G
was made to the fact that even for selection of candidates for the
Indian Administrative Service the marks allocated for the interview
test were only 12.2 percent of the total. It was then observed,
"under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of
the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and un- H
reasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitution-
ally invalid". The observations of the Court were made, primarily
330 SUPREME COURT NEFORTS [1982] I s.c.R.

A in connection with the problem of admission to colleges, where
,
naturally, academic performance must be given prime importance.
The words "or even in the matter of public employment" occurring
in the first extracted passage and the reference to the marks allocat-
ed for the interview test in the Indian Administrative Service exami-
nation were not intended to lay down any wide, general rule that
B the same principle that applied i.n the matter of admission to
colleges also applied in the matter of recruitment to public
services. The observation relating to public employment was j

per incuriam since the matter did not fall for the consideration of
the Court in that c'se. Nor do we think that the Court intended
any wide construction of their observation. As already observed by
c us the weight to be given to the interview test should depend on
the requirement of the service to which recruitment is made, the
source material available for recruitment, the composition of the
interview Board and several like factors. Ordinarily recruitment to
j ...
public services is regulated by rules made under the proviso to Art.
309 of the Constitution and we would be usurping a function which
D is not ours, if we try to redetermine the appropriate method of
selection and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests.
If we do that we would be rewriting the rules but we guard our-
selves against being understood as saying that we would not interfere
even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. There is none
in the present case. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed but
E in the circumstances there will be no order regarding costs.

V.D.K. Petition dismissed.