Holding

The Court held that the appellant failed to substantiate any bias and that the selection based solely on viva voce was within the prescribed rules, so the Tribunal's decision stands.

Summary

The appellant, Siya Ram, challenged his non‑selection for the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in the Indian Railways, alleging bias by a member of the Selection Board and contending that the selection based solely on a viva voce, with a high weightage, was arbitrary. The Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed his petition, and the appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. The Court examined the marks awarded by each board member and found that the member accused of favoritism had actually given the appellant higher marks than the selected candidate. The Court held that no material evidence supported the bias claim and that the selection procedure, as per railway rules, permitted an interview‑centric assessment. Consequently, the Court found no illegality or irregularity in the selection process and upheld the Tribunal’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant proved bias or favouritism by a member of the Selection Board.
Whether a selection process based solely on viva voce, with substantial marks, is arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
Whether the selection complied with the applicable railway rules and regulations.

Subjects

promotionselection boardbiasnatural justiceviva voceadministrative lawarbitrarinessrailwayChief Personnel Inspector

Judgment

SIYA RAM A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND. ORS.

DECEMBER 16, 1997

[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, J.T.) B

SeJVice Law :

Promotion-Through Depwtmental Promotion Co111mittee-Plea of
bias against one of the Members of DPC-Allegations of patronage or C
f avowitism for a particular candidate. leveled against one of the Me111bers of
the DPC by the Appellant-No evidence on record to co1roborate the allega-
tions-Tribunal on exa111ination of Mark sheets, however, found, that Me111ber
of DPC awarding 111ore marks to Appellant tha11 the marks awarded to so
called patronised candidate-Making of unsubstantiated allegatio11s agai11st
Member of the DPC deprecated-Admi11istrative law-Natural justice-Bias._ D

Promotion-Selection criteria-Promotion for the post of Chief Person-
nel Inspect01~Selectio11 made solely on the basis of viva voce---Validity
of-{]nder the Guidelines issued by the Railways, separate marks presc1ibed
for different atflibutes of the candidates---Qualifying marks also presC1ined for
E
professional ability for the aggregate-Me111bers of Selection Board well versed
with the requirements of the post-Nonns laid down for the Selection Board
to f ollow-ln these circumstances appellalll's plea that selection based solely
011 viva voce could not be fair, rejected-Recrnit111ent process-Se/ection-ln-

- teJView-Viva voce as the sole test-Propriety of

For two posts of Chief Personnel Inspectors in Railways, four per-
F

sons including the appellant, were eligible. After selection procedure,
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were selected/empenelled. The criteria adopted
by the Selection Board was allocation of separate marks for (i) profes-
sional ability, (ii) personality, leadership, technical and educational G
qualifications, (iii) record of service and (iv) seniority.

Though Respondent No. 4 was lower in the seniority to the appellant
but it was admitted that both of them were promoted to the post of
Divisional Personnel Inspector on the same day. ~e appellant challenged
his non-selection before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by it. H
513
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Hence this appeal.

Tuo principal contentions were raised by the appellant, viz. (1) one
of the Members of the Selection Board was favourably inclined towards
Respondent No. 4, and (2) the Rules regarding selection permitted only
oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held and
B hence, result of the selection test only on the basis of viva voce could not
be reasonably fair and was liable to lead to arbitrariness.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

C HELD : 1. As far as the contention of bias against one of the
Members of the Selection Board in favour of Respondent No. 4 is con-
cerned, the appellant could not substantiate the same. Apart from his bald
assertion that the Member had patronised Respondent No. 4, there is
nothing .on record to corroborate the same. As a matter of fact the
Tribunal examined the marks-sheets given by the three members of the
D Selection Board and found that in fact that Member (against whom
allegations were leveled) had given more marks to the appellant than given
by him to the 4th Respondent. This Court does not appreciate such types
of allegations against the members of the Selection Board. It is not proper
to do so in the absence of any material and so the allegations of patronage
E or favouritism alleged against that Member of the Selection Board are
rejected. [517-G-H; 518-A:I

2. Chief Personnel Inspector in Railways is a selection post. The
Selection Board consisted of high ranking officials, well versed with the
req11irements of the post to which promotion was to be made. Norms have
F been laid for the Selection Board to follow. No fault can be found with the
same. Apart from the objection that excessive marks have been allocated
-
for viva voce, the appellaillt has been unable to point out any illegality or
irregularity in the selection process. Functions and duties attached to the
post of Chief Personnel Inspector have nowhere been set out. It is not for
G the Court to suggest as to what marks should be allocated for interview in
a case like the present 1me. Sometimes, only interview is considered to be
the best method for certain posts. The selection made for two posts of Chief
Personnel Inspector in the present case was according to the rules. There
is no infirmity in the selection process. [520-H; 521-A-B]

H Lila Dhar v. State• of Rajastha11 & Ors., AIR (1981) SC 1777, relied on.
SIYARAMv. U.0.1.[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 515

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., AIR (1961) SC 487 and A
!avid Rasool Bhat v. State of J. & K, AIR (1984) SC 873, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3409 of
1988.

From the .Judgment and Order dated 29.6.87 of the Central Ad- B
ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 244 of 1986.

Raj Kumar Gupta, H.V.D. Sharma and Rajesh for the Appellant.

V.C. Mahajan, Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Sushma Suri, C.V. Subba Rao and
A.K. Sanghi for the Respondents. C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

. ) D.P. WADHWA, J. On his failure to succeed .in the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short), (Allahabad Bench) in OA No.
244 of 1986 decided on June 29, 1987 the appelhmt has come to this Court D
in appeal. The appellant had prayed in his petition before the Tribunal for
quashing the panel dated April 28, 1986 for promotion to the post of Chief
Personnel Inspector in the Northern Railway. While D.K. Srivastava and
P.N. Tripathi respectively respondents 4 and 5 were empanelled, the
appellant could not make it. He also sought direction that he was entitled
E
to appointment to this post of Chief Personnel Inspector.

Divisional Manager, Northern Railway, issued a letter on March 17,
1986 for holding interviews for two posts of Chief Personnel Inspector
from Divisional Personnel Inspectors. At the relevant time only four
persons were eligible for filling up the post of Chief Personnel Inspector. F
They were:

(1) Rajkumar (S.C.)

(2) P.N. Tripathi (respondent No. 5)
G
(3) Siya Ram (the appellant)

(4) D.K. Srivastava (respondent 4)

At that time Rajkumar and P.N. Tripathi were working as Chief
Personnel Inspector on ad hoc basis. H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Post of Chief Personnel Inspector is a selection post. Selection Board
was comprising of three officials namely : Aslam Mehmood, Senior
Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Lucknow; Raghuram,
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Allahabad; and R.B. Srivastava, Senior
Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Locknow. The Selec-
tion Board interviewed all the eligible candidates and respondents 4 and 5
B·, were selected to the posts of Chief Personnel Inspector. The criteria which
the Selection Board adopted for selection was as follows :

"(a) Professional ability - 50 marks

c (b) Personality, Leadership,
technical and educational
qualifications - 20 marks

(c) Record of service - 15 marks

D (d) Seniority - 15 marks"

Though D .K. Srivastava was lower in the seniority list to the appellant
but it is admitted that both of them were promoted to the post of Divisional
Personnel Inspector on the same day. Interviews were held on April 12,
1986 and selection list was prepared on April 28, 1986. The appellant
E challenged his non selection in the Tribunal by filing petition on May 14,
1986 which, as noted above, was dismissed by the Tribunal by judgment
dated June 29, 1987.

Two principal contentions were raised by the appellant : (1) one of
the members of the Selection Board namely, Raghuram was favourably ....
F inclined towards D.K. Srivastava and (2) the Rules regarding selection
permitted only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination
was held and result merely on the basis of viva voce could not be reasonably
fair and was liable to lead to arbitrariness and that out of 100 marks 50
were allotted for professional ability without prescribing any norms.
G As for as the first contention is concerned, the appellant could not
substantiate the same. Apart from his bald assertion that Raghuram was
patronising D .K. Srivastava, there is nothing on the record to corroborate
the same. As a matter of fact the Tribunal examined the marks sheets given
by the three members and found that in fact Raghuram gave more marks
H to the appellant than given by him to 4th respondent. We do not appreciate
SIYARAMv. U.O.l.[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 517

such types of allegations against the members of the Selection Board. It is A
not proper to do so in the absence of any material. We, therefore, reject
the allegation of patronage or favouritism alleged against Raghuram .
• Railway administration has laid down procedure which would apply
to selection to the posts in the services. Selection to the post is to be made
on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Board. Before the B
Board assembles to make the selection all papers connected with the
proposed selection, the confidential reports, if any, on each of the can-
didates and other relevant data concerning them is to be circulated for
information of the members of the Bo~rd as also the qualifications
prescribed for the particular post undet~ponsideration. The Selection C
Board then examines the service record and confidential reports of the
eligible candidates. Other relevant guidelines are as under :

"(1) Selection should be made primarily on the basis of over all
merit, but for the guidance of selection boards the factors to be
taken into account and their relative weight are laid down below: D
Max. Marks Qualifying marks

(i) Professional ability 50 30

(ii) Personality, address, E
leadership and academic/
technical qualifications 25

(iii) Record of service 25

Note: (1) The item "Record of Service" should also take into F
consideration "Seniority" of the employees but no
separate allotment of marks need be made on this
account.

(2) Candidates must obtain a minimum of 30 marks in G
professional ability and 60% marks on the aggregate
for beirig placed on the panel.

(2) The importance of an adequate standard of professional ability
and capacity to do the job must be kept in mind and a candidate
who does not secure 60% marks in professional ability shall not H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A be placed on the panel even if on the total marks secured he
qualifies for a place. Good work and a sense of public duty among
the conscientious staff should be recognised by awarding more
marks both for record of service and for professional ability. ...
(3) For general posts, i.e. those outside the normal channel of
B promotion, for which candidates are called from different
categories, the selection test is an open competitive test. The
number of candidates to be called for written and or viva voce tests
will ordinarily be limited to the senior clib,j_ble staff to the extent
of four times the number to he placed on the panel, the number
c to be called from each category being regulated by a quota to be
prescribed by the railway.

(4) The names of selected should be arranged in order of seniority
but the securing a .total of more than 75% marks will be classed ·
as 'outstanding' and will be placed at the top of the list, in the
D order of their seniority."

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, strongly relied on a
decision of this Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others,
AIR (1981) SC 487 and to the following observations of the Tribunal : "On
E the other hand the practice followed in the Railway Department is al-
together different and for promotion from lower grade/post to higher post
or post in variably trade tests and selection tests consisting of written
examination and viva-voce and sometimes viva-voce tests alone have been
prescribed. The ability of a person who is already in service can be better
judged by his past performance in the Department and as such, insistence
F for viva-vote test for each promotion can hardly be appreciated. In any
case, the allocation of as high as 50% marks for viva-voce test to judge the
Professional ability of a candidate may sometimes lead to arbitrariness and
may not achieve the object behind it. Having different pattern or set of
rules for service requiring technical skill may be justified but even for such
G services, for the sake of expediency interview test should not be relied upon
as an exclusive test and the marks assigned for interview/personality test
should be minimal to avoid charges of arbitrariness, bias and the Iike
minimal as observed by the Hon'blc Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid
Mujib, AIR (1981) SC 487 and !avid Rasool Bhat v. State of J & K, AIR
(1984) SC 873. In the matter of promotion for other services in the Railway
H Department, more importance has to be given to record of service and
SIYA RAMv. U.O.I. [D.P. WADHWA,J.] 519

seniority than the professional ability to be judged at the time of interview. A
This will bring uniformity with the other department of Government of
India and minimise the chances of complaint as made in the present case.
The Rule under which the selection for the post of CPI has been made in
the instant case, therefore, requires a change." In Ajay Hasia'.1 case there
was challenge to the validity of admission to the Regional Engineering
College, Srinagar. On merit of the case various contentions were raised and
B
it was submitted that marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying
examination were ignored and as many as 50 marks were fixed for viva-voce
examination as against 100 marks allocated for the written test and relying
on viva- voce examination as a test for determining comparative merit of
the candidate was arbitrary. On the question of allocation of marks for oral c
interview this Court observed that allocation of as high a percentage as
331/1 of the total marks for the oral interview should be regarded as
infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selec-
tion of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure could
not be sustained. This Court said that under the existing circumstances
D
allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would
be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as
constitutionally invalid. The principle laid by this Court in Ajay Hasia's case
is not of universal application in all circumstances and in all cases though
the court also touched upon the excessive marks allocated for .viva voce in
recruitment and promotion in public employment. In Lila Dhar v. State of E
Rajasthan and others, AIR 1981 SC 1777 this Court considered the decision
in Ajay Hasia's case and explained the use of the expression "or even in
the matter of public employment" in the context of allocation of marks for
ma! examination of the candidates seeking employment or promotion. In
this case the High Court had struck down the selection for the post of F

- Munsifs on that ground that more than due weightage was given to the
interview test in that 25% marks were allocated to viva-voce under the
Rules. and thus holding that the selection was arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court said that the words "or even
in the matter of public employment" were not intended to lay down any wide,
general rule that the same principle that applied in the matter of admission G
to colleges also applied in the matter of recruitment in the public service and
that the observation relating to public employment was per incudam since
the matter did not fall for the consideration of the Court in that case. The
Court then went on to observe as under :
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6S.C.R.

A "Nor do we think that the Court intended any wide construction
of their observation. As already observed by us the weight to be
given to the interview test should depend on the requirement of
the service to which requirement is made, the source-material
available for recruitment, the composition of the interview Board
and several like factors. Ordinarily recruitment to public services
B
is regulated by rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the
'
Constitution and we would be· usurping a function which is not
ours, if we try to redetermine the appropriate method of selection
and the relative weight to be attai:hed to the various tests. If we
do that we would be rewriting the Rules but we guard ourselves
c 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."

D
This Court held that the selection for the post of Munsifs was valid
and could not be struck down. It said that the provision for marks for
interview test need not and cannot be the same for admission to colleges
and entry into public service. It said that in the case of service to which
recruitment had necessarily to be made from persons of mature per-
-
sdnality, interview test may be the only way and subject to basic and
essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied and that
E subjecting such persons to written test might yield unfruitful and negative
results. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to
be given and that it must vary from service to service according lo 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
F of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other
factors. The Court said that it was a matter for determination by experts
and also a matter for research and that it was not for the Court to
pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight had been given with proven
-
or obvious oblique motives.

G It is not necessary for us to multiply various decisions rendered by
this Court on the question as to. how many marks should be allocated for
viva-voce test in respect of recruitment to any particular public service.

In the present case, the appointment was to the post of Chief
H Personnel Inspector in the Railways. It is a selection post. The Selection
SIYARAMv. U.O.I. [D.P. WADHWA,J.] 521
Board consisted of high ranking officials, well versed with the requirements A
of the post to which promotion was to be made. Norms had been laid for
the Selection Board to follow. No fault can be found with the same. Apart
from the objection that excessive marks had been allocated for viva- voce,
the appellant has been unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in
the selection process. Functions and duties attached to the post of Chief
Personnel Inspector have nowhere been set out. It is not for this Court to
B
suggest as to what marks should he allocated for interview in a case like
the present one. As noted above, at times for certain posts only interview
is considered to be the best method for selection. We are thus of the
opinion that selection made for the two posts of Chief Personnel Inspector
in the present case was according to the Rules. There is no infirmity in the c
selection process for us to interfere in the appeal. The impugned judgment
of the Tribunal is well considered one. It was, however, not necessary for
the Tribunal to make observations from which the appellant sought to draw
strength. We do not find any merit in the case of the appellant and would
uphold the judgment of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with co~ts.
D
R.K.S. Appeal dismissed.