Holding

The rule fixing 40 marks each for interview and group discussion is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, but the appointments already made shall not be disturbed.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) conducted a recruitment for Assistant Engineer (Civil) allocating 120 marks to the written test and 40 marks each to interview and group discussion. Three unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions alleging that the 40‑mark allocation for interview and group discussion was excessive, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, leading the Allahabad High Court to quash the entire selection. The selected candidates appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the rule fixing 40 marks each for interview and group discussion was indeed arbitrary and unconstitutional, but it would be unjust to disturb the appointments already made. Consequently, the rule was struck down and the Court directed that, in future, interview marks should not exceed 10% and group discussion marks 5% of the total, while the existing selections were left undisturbed.

Issues considered

Whether the allocation of 40 marks each to interview and group discussion in the UPSEB recruitment is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the method of using group discussion in conjunction with interview for selection is illegal or unconstitutional.
What percentage of total marks may be reasonably allotted to interview and group discussion in public sector recruitment.
Whether the appointments already made under the impugned rule can be set aside.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

Article 14EqualityRecruitmentSelectionInterviewGroup discussionPublic sector employmentArbitrary ruleUttar Pradesh State Electricity BoardConstitutional law

Judgment

A MUNINDRA KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.
V.
RAJIV GOVIL AND ORS. ETC.

MAY 10, 1991
y
B [N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-Selection for the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. State Electricity Board-Allo-
cation of 40 marks for interview and 40 marks for group discussion-As
against 120 marks for Written Examination-Whether arbitrary-
Whether violative of.
c
Civil Services: U.P. State Electricity Board-Assistant Engineers
( Civil)-Selection-Allocation of marks-As against 120 marks for
Written Test, 40 marks for interview and 40 marks for group discus-
sion-Whether arbitrary-Selection made on such basis-Whether
D vitiated-Method of group discussion along with interview-Desirabi-
lity and legality of-Ideal marks to be allocated for interview and group
discussion-Stipulated.
)-

- E
For filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil), the U.P.
State Electricity Board issued an advertisement calling for applications.
As per the Scheme of Examination, 120 marks were allocated for Writ-
ten Test and 40 marks each were allocated for Interview and group
discussion. By following the said procedure the Board selected the
successful candidates and appointed them.

Three unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions before the High y
F Court. They contended that the marks allocated for Interview and
group discussion were on the higher side and as such the entire selection
stood vitiated and was liable to be quashed.

Accepting the contentions, the High Court quashed the entire
slection. Aggrieved by the High Court's order. the appellants who
G were seleeted and appointed as Assistant Engineers (Civil) preferred the
present appeals, by special leave.

Allowing the appeals in part this Court, \
'
HELD: I. The rule made by the U.P. State Electricity Board
H keeping 40 marks for Interview and 40 marks for group discussions is

812
MUNINDRA KUMAR v. RAJIV ·GOVIL 813

arbitrary and is quashed. In future the marks for interview and group
A
discussion shall not be kept exceeding 10% and 5% respectively of the
total marks. However, the election already made by the Board for the
posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) shall not be disturbed. 1820A-B)

2. It cannot be held that the method of group discussion along
with interview for selection of Assistant Engineers by the Board is in B
any manner wrong, illegal or unconstitutional. It is in vogue in the
Board since 1979 and it lies in the wisdom of the Board to keep the
method of group discussion as an aid to interview for selection of
Assistant Engineers fa future or not. l818A]

3. Group discussion is a mode of selection in aid. of interview in
order to assess the personality of the candidate and determine his/her
c
suitability to the job in hand. In the case of an interview or oral viva
voce it is restricted to a single candidate at a time while in the case of
group discussion it takes place among a group of candidatesthemselves.
Generally, candidates of same age level, similar educational qualifica-
tions, experience and environmental background are grouped together D
and asked to discuss a subject. The purpose of group discussion is to
assess the qualities, mental alertness, manner of asserting oneself,
shilwing regard for opinion of others, ability to discuss a subject with-
out losing temper and his initiative, tact and self confidence when con-
fronted with a problem facing a large number of people. In group
discussion the examiner observes the candidates from behind and E
makes his own assessment and as such the allotment of marks for group
discussion cannot be equated with the marks allotted for interview. In
the interview every candidate gets a chance and the members of the
interviewing board can in a better manner judge the intelligence, ability
and personality of the candidate to determine his suitability for the job.
The marks for group discussion cannot be kept at an equal pedestal F
with the interview. However, the group discussion as one of the
methods for assessing the suitability of a candidate for the post of
Assistant ·Engineer has not been kept by any other State Electricity
Board in India except the Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Electri-
city Boards. Taking into attOUDt all aspects' of the matter and the
procedure adopted at variou5 examinations, it is lit and proper that 15 G
per cent marks in all are to be kept for interview, and if the rule making
authorities want to keep group discussion also as one of the modes of
selection then marks for interview and group discussion should not
exceed 10 per cent and 5 per cent respectively of the total marks. l817B-Gj

Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., JT 1990 4 H
SC 704, relied on.
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A 4. It is no doubt correct that the Respondents cannot be estopped
from challenging the rule which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution bot in moulding the relief, their conduct in filing the
Writ Petition before the High Court after taking chance and fully know-
ing the percentage of marks kept for interview and group discussion,
and the equities of those who have been selected are the relevant consi-
13 derations; The appellants have joined the post on 28th December, 1989
and after completing the training they are discharging their duties at
different 1>laces. Some of them had left their earlier jobs and have also
become overaged. It is not proper in the interest of justice to set aside
the selection of the appellants. [818G-H; 819A-B]

C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2433
to 2435 of 1991 etc. etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.1990 of the Allahabad
High Court in W.P. Nos. 10643, 10342 and 10706 of 1989.

D
S.S. Ray, P.P. Rao, S.N. Bhat, Narendra Singh Malik, Sunil
Gupta, Harish N. Salve and Pradeep Misra for the Appellants.

U .R. Lalit, R.C. Verma, Virendra Mishra, Gopal Subrama-
niam and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIW AL, J. Special leave granted.

We are confronted in these appeals with the quest.on as to what
Jl percentage of marks awarded for group discussion and interview for
selection of Assistant Engineers by the U.P. State Electricity Board, is
reasonable.

The U.P. State Electricity Board invited applications for filling
up the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) by issuing an advertisement
0 in April, 1989. 120 marks were allocated for the written test, 40 marks
for interview and 40 marks for group discussion. Written test was
conducted by the Board on 9th July, 1989 and then interviews and
group discussion were held in October and November, 1989. The
result of the successful candidates in order of merit was published in
daily newspaper on 27th November, 1989. The very next day the
H Board also issued individual letters to the succussful candidates calling
MUNINDRA KUMAR v. RAJIV GOVIL [KASLIWAL, J.] 815

upon them to join on 26th December, 1989 at r:lectricity Training
A
Institute' Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, The appellants before us joined
the institute in December, 1989 and thereafter they were sent to vari-
ous places for training and they started drawing salaries in the pre-
scribed pay-scale and since then they are continuously working on the
respective posts.
B
The three unsuccessful candidates filed writ pet1t1ons in the
Lucknow bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad inter alia
on the ground that the marks for interview and group discussion had
been allocated on the higher side and against the decisions of this
Court and as such the entire selection stood vitiated and was liable to
be quashed. The High Court by Judgment dated 28th March, 1990
allowed the writ petitions by a common Judgment on the ground that c
the marks allocated for interview and group discussion were more than
20 per cent and hence the whole selection was liable to be quashed.
Aggrieved against the Judgment of the High Court, the appellants
have come in appeal to this Court by grant of special leave.
D
I -1'. As a result of the written examination held on 9th j uly, 1989 as
many as 386 candidates were called for group discussion/interview.
Later on 49 more candidates were called for group discussion and . •.
interview. A list of 46 candidates who were declared successful was
published by the Board. Out of these 46 candidates, 25 belong to the
general category. The Board in its counter affidavit filed before the E
High Court admitted that group discussion was part of interview. If
that position is accepted then it shows that 120 marks were allocated
for written test and 80 marks for interview (40 for interview and 40 for
group discussion) and thus it comes to 40 per cent of the total marks
for interview. This court had already dealt with the question ohU ..
percentage of marks to be allotted for interview for selection to the.c F
public posts in the latest decision Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State
of Punjab & Ors., JT 1990 4 SC 704 where the maximum percentage ·
has been laid down as 15 per cent of the total marks. All the earlier
cases were noted in this case and the question is no longer res integra. •
In view of these circumstances the High Court was right in holding that :..
the marks allocated for interview and group discussion were arbitrary.:· ,G
The High Court after holding the percentage of marks as arbitrary also.
quashed the entire selection. This Court while entertaining the special
leave petition on 23rd April, 1990 stayed the operation of th\> Judg-
ment of the High Court and allowed the appellants to continue in
employment and as such the appellants are continuing in service. We
l
had heard the arguments and at the time of reserving the judgment on H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 2 S.C.R.

8th February, 1991 had given the following direction.
A

"We direct Learned counsel for the Board to furnish the
service rules for the recruitment/selection of the Assistant
Engineers of all the Electricity Boards of the various States
in India. The Board shall also furnish the Rules, if any, of
B any other public sector undertaking where recruitments are
made of Assistant Engineers or of equivaleni technical
personnel, where group discussions is one of the conditions
of recruitment. In case group discussion is there, then all
the details with regard to the percentage of marks kept for 0 )..
group discussion and other details including subjects given
for group discussion should be furnished to this Court.
c
All the above material should be furnished within
three weeks with an affidavit of the Secretary of the U .P.
State Electricity Board."

P Pursuant to the above direction of this Court, the Secretary,
U.P. State Electricity Board submitted an affidavit stating that the
Board addressed communications to 16 Electricity Boards in the
country and also to other public seewr undertakings. In response to
the said communication, the information received by him has been
furnished before this Court. According to the said information 14
E Electricity Boards have sent their replies stating that there was no
provision of group discussion in their rules for recruitment to the post
of Assistant Engineers. Only one i.e. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity
Board has informed that there was a provision for interview/group
discussion in their rules but the marks provided were 100 for written
examination and 10 for interview/group discussion. As regards the
F public sector undertakings, there is no provision for group discussion
in Coal India Ltd., Oil & Natu•al Gas Commission, National Hydro
Electric Power Corporation, National Thermal Power Corporation
and Tehri Hydro Power Development Corporation. Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited has informed that their rules provide for group
discussion and the marks allotted are 50 for written examination, 35
G for interview and 15 for group discussion. HMT Ltd. has informed that f- -
in their rules 100 marks are allotted for written examination and 100
for interview/group discussion. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. has
informed that there is no provision for written examination in their
rules and they have made a provision for 60 per cent marks for
interview and 40 per cent for group discussion. The above information
H shows that so far as Electricity Boards are concerned, group discussion
MUNINDRA KUMAR v: RAJIV GOVIL (KASLIWAL, L] 817
-
as a method of recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineers is in
A
vogue in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and the U .P. State
• Electricity Board and not in any other State in India. So far as Andhra
Pradesh State Electricity Board is concerned, it has provided 100
marks for written examination and only 10 for interview/group discus-
sion cumulatively. Even in case of recruitment for Indian Administra-
tive Service and other administrative posts for various departments in B
the States group discussion is not kept as a method of selection.

.....( We would now deal with the group discussion as a mode of
selection in aid of interview. The group discussion test was first intro-
duced in the western countries for selection of personnel for their
armed forces and.finding it successful, they introduced it in the service C
selection boards in India. Gradually the utility and success of this
method of testing made it popular among other organisations in our
country in public sector and private undertakings and enterprises. It is
a mode of selection in aid of interview in order to assess the persona-
lity of the candidate and determine his/her suitability to the job in
hand. In the case of an interview or oral viva voce it is restricted to a D
single candidate at a time while in the case of group discussion it takes
place among a group of candidates themselves. Generally, candidates
of same age level, similar educational qualifications, experience and
environmental background are grouped together and asked to discu&S
a subject. A group usually consists of 5-10 candidates. The candidates
in a group are given fuU freedom to express their views on a subject E
given for discussion. In the group discussion the candidates are not
told as to who would speak first or last and how much time each
candidate will take in such discussion. The examiner gives two or three
topics and asks the group to choose any one of them and then proceed
to discuss them. The examiner acts only as a silent observer in the·
background. The examiner may stay behind a partition from where he F
can watch candidates and listen to them but cannot be seen or heard by
the group. As the members of the group are engaged in a free and
frank discussion of the topic the examiner notes down the important
personality characteristics-of the different speakers. It is observed by
the examiner as to how each candidate interacts and reacts when
behaving as a member of the team. G

The aim of group discussion is to encourage members of a group
to express their ideas on a given subject at a short notice with a view to
find a solution of the problem. The U.P. State Electricity Board has
submitted that interview test and group discussion are in vogue for
more than a decade as a method of selection for the post of Assistant H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

Engineers. In our view it cannot be held that the method of group
A
discussion alongwith interview for selection of Assistant Engineers by
the Board is in any manner wrong, illegal or unconstitutional. It is in ..t
vogue in the Board since 1979 and it lies in the wisdom of the Board to
keep the method of group discussion as an aid to interview for selec-
tion of Assistant Engineers in future or not.
B
The question now which calls for our consideration is as to what
percentage of marks may be considered as reasonable for group discus-
sion. The purpose of group discussion is to assess the qualities mental
alertness, manner of asserting oneself, showing regard for opinion of
others, ability to discuss a subject without losing temper and his initia-
tive, that and self confidence when confronted with a problem facing a
c large number of people. However, the group discussion as one of the
methods for assessing the suitability of a candidate for the post of
Assistant Engineer has not been kept by any other State Electricity
Boards in India except Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. In group
discussion the examiner observes the candidates from behind and
D makes his own assessment and as such the allotment of marks for
group discussion cannot be equated with the marks allotted for
interview. In the interview every candidate gets a chance and the
members of the interviewing board can in a better manner judge the
intelligence, ability and personality of the candidate to determine his
suitability for the job. The marks for group discussion cannot be kept
E at an equal pedestal with the interview. Thus in our view as already
held in Mohinder Sain Garg's case (supra) 15 per cent marks in all are
to be kept for interview, and if the rule making authorities want to
keep group discussion also as one of the modes of selection then marks y
for interview and group discussion should not exceed 10 per cent and 5
per cent respectively of the total marks.
F
The next question which arises for consideration is as to what
direction would be just and proper in the circumstances of this case.
We do not agree with the High Court to quash the entire selection
made by the Board for the posts of Assistant Engineers (civil). It may
be noted that Rajeev Govil, Vivek Aggarwal and Gyanendra Srivas- )- ,
G tava who remained unsuccessful had filed the writ petitions after tak-
ing chance and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept for
interview and group discussion. It is no doubt correct that they cannot
be e>topped from challengin.g the rule which is arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution, but in modulating the relief, their
conduct and the equities of those who have been selected are the
H relevant considerations. The appellants have joined the post on 28th
MUNINDRA KUMAR v. RAJIV GOVIL IKASLIWAL, J.l 819

December, 1989 and after completing the training are discharging
their duties at different places. It has been submitted on their behalf A
that some of them had left their earlier jobs and have also become
overage. Thus we do not consider it proper in the interest of justice to
set aside the selections of the appellants. We have seen the marksheet '
of 295 candidates of the general category who had actually attended
the interview and group discussion. So far as the respondents in B
general category are concerned, they have secured the marks in the
following manner:

- -.\
NAME WRITTEN GROUP INTERVIEW TOTAL
TEST DISCUSSION
c
Ra jeev Govil 85 5 29 J 19
Vivek Aggarwal 87.5 12 28 127.5
Gyanendra 81 17 18 116
Bahadur D
' -<. Srivastava

The last candidate out of the 25 selected candidates in general category
has secured 134.5 marks. Out of the 25 candidates selected in the
general category, 5 candidates have secured lesser marks than Rajeev
Govil in written test, 9 candidates below Vivek Aggarwal and 2 below E
Gyanendra Bahadur Srivastava. A perusal of the marksheet also
shows that 50 candidates are such who have not been selected instead
of having secured 87.5 marks or above in written test, 79 candidates
who have secured above 85 marks, and more than 100 candidates who
have secured more than 81 marks in the written test. Even if we were
inclined to give a further chance of interview and group discussion by F
keeping 10 per cent and 5 per cent marks respectively for interview and
group discussion, in all fairness it would be necessary to give chance to
all such candidates who have secured higher marks in the written test
in comparision to the respondents-writ petitioners. We have already
taken the view that we do not consider it just and proper to set aside
the selections already made. In these circumstances even if we were G
inclined to give direction to the Board to create three more posts and
give chance to all the candidates securing equal or higher marks in the
written examination than the writ petitioners, there was a remote
chance of the writ petitioners being selected. In our view such exercise
would be in futility, taking in view the chance of success of the writ
petitioners. H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) 2 S.C.R.

A In the result, we allow these appeals in part and quash the rule
made by the U .P. State Electricity Board keeping 40 marks for
interview and 40 marks for group discussion being arbitrary. We direct
that in future the marks for interview and group discussion shall not be
kept exceeding 10% and 5% of the total marks, respectively. The
selection already made by the Board for the post of Assistant
B Engineers (civil) shall not be disturbed. In the facts and circumstances
of the case parties shall bear their own costs.

G.N. Appeals partly allowed.