http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: MUNINDRA KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJIV GOVIL AND ORS ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1991

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1607            1991 SCR  (2) 812  1991 SCC  (3) 368        JT 1991 (2)   537  1991 SCALE  (1)935

ACT:      Constitution  of India, 1950: ARticle 14-Selection  for the  post  of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the  U.P.  State Electricity  Board-Allocation of 40 marks for interview  and 40  marks  for  group discussion-As against  120  marks  for Written Examination-Whether arbitrary-Whether violative of.      Civil  Service: U.P. State Electricity  Board-Assistant Engineers (Civil)-Section-Allocation of marks-As against 120 marks for Written Test, 40 marks for interview and 40  marks for  group  discussion-Whether arbitrary-Selection  made  on such basis-Whether vitiated-Method of Group discussion along with  interview-Desirability and legality of-Ideal marks  to be allocated for interview and group discussion-Stipulated.

HEADNOTE:      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  Written  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  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 selection.  Aggrieved by the High Court’s order,  the appellants  who  were selected and  appointed  as  Assistant Engineers (Civil) preferred the present appeals, by  special leave.      Allowing the appeals in part his Court,      HELD:  1. The rule made by the U.P.  State  Electricity Board keeping 40 marks for Interview and 40 marks for  group discussions is                                                        813 arbitrary and is quashed.  In future the marks for interview and group discussion shall not be kept exceeding 10% and 5/5 respectively  of  the total marks.   However,  the  election already  made  by  the  Board for  the  posts  of  Assistant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

Engineers (Civil) shall not be disturbed. [820A-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 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 in future or not. [818A]      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 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 candidates  themselves.  Generally, candidates of  same  age level,  similar educational qualifications,  experience  and environmental  background are grouped together and asked  to discuss  a subject.  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  initiative, tact  and  self confidence when confronted  with  a  problem facing  a large number of people.  In group  discussion  the examiner  observes the candidates from behind and 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 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  Electricity  Boards. Taking  into  account  all  aspect of  the  matter  and  the procedure  adopted  at various examination, it  is  fit  and proper  that  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  for interview and group discussion should not  exceed 10 per cent and 5 per cent respectively of the total  marks. [817B-G]      Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., JT 1990 4 SC 704, relied on.                                                        814      4.  It is no doubt correct that the Respondents  cannot be  stopped from challenging the rule which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but in  moulding the relief, their conduct in filing the Writ Petition before the  High  Court after taking chance and fully  knowing  the percentage of marks kept for interview and group discussion, and  the  equities of those who have been selected  are  the relevant  considerations.   The appellants have  joined  the post  on  28th  December,  1989  and  after  completing  the training  they  are discharging their  duties  at  different places.   Some of them had left their earlier jobs and  have also  become averaged.  It is not proper in the interest  of justice  to  set  aside the  selection  of  the  appellants. [818G-H; 819A-B]

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION: 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.      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 Subramaniam and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondnets.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.      We are confronted in these appeals with the question as to what 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 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 Board also issued individual  letters  to the successful candidates calling                                                        815 upon  them  to join on 26th December,  1989  at  Electricity Training Institute’ Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, The  appellants before  us  joined  the  institute  in  December,  1989  and thereafter they were sent to various places for training and they  started drawing salaries in the  prescribed  pay-scale and  since  then  they  are  continuously  working  on   the respective posts.      The three unsuccessful candidates filed writ  petitions in  the  Lucknow bench of the High Court  of  Judicature  at Allahabd  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  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.      As  a  result of the written examination  held  on  9th July,  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  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 940 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 of  percentage  of marks to be allotted  for  interview  for selection  to  the  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

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.  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 the Judgment of the High Court and allowed  the appellants  to  continue  in  employment  and  as  such  the appellants  are  continuing in service.  We  had  heard  the arguments and at the time of reserving the judgment on                                                        816 8th February, 1991 had given the following direction.          "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 any  other          public  sector  undertaking where  recruitment  are          made  of  Assistant  Engineers  or  of   equivalent          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          group   discussion  and  other  details   including          subjects  given  for  group  discussion  should  be          furnished to this Court.              All  the  above material  should  be  furnished          within  three  weeks  with  an  affidavit  of   the          Secretary of the U.P. State Electricity Board."      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  sector  undertakings.   In  response  to  the   said communication,  the  information received by  him  has  been furnished   before  this  Court.   According  to  the   said information  14 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  public  sector undertakings, there is no provision for group discussion  in Coal  India  Ltd., Oil & Natural  Gas  Commission,  National Hydro  Electric  Power Corporation, National  Thermal  Power Corporation  and Tehri Hydro Power Development  Corporation. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has informed thaqt their rules provide for group  discussion and the marks allotted are  50 for  the  written examination, 35 for interview and  15  for group discussion. HMT Ltd. has informed that 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  and  10  for  interview/grew   discussion.   As regards   the  public  sector  undertakings,  there  is   no provision  for  group discussion in Coal India  Ltd.  Oil  & Natural  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

examination,  35 for interview and 15 for group  discussion. HMT  Ltd.  has informed that 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 shows that so far as Electricity are  concerned. group discussion                                                        817 as  a  method  of  recruitment for  the  post  of  Assistant Engineers  is in 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 discussion  cumulatively.  Even in case of  recruitment  for Indian Administration Service and other administrative posts for  various departments in the States Group  discussion  is not kept as a method of selection.     W4e  would now deal with the group discussion as a  mode of selection in aid of interview. The group discussion  test was first introduced in the western countries for  selection of   personnel for  their  armed  forces  and   finding   it successful,  they  introduced it in  the  service  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 personality o 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 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 discuss  a  subject.  A  group  usually  consists  of   5-10 candidates. The candidates in a group are given full  freedom to express their views on a subjct given for discussion.  In the  group discussion the candidate are not told as  to  who 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 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 th team.     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                                                        818 Engineers. In our view it cannot be held that the method  of group  discussion  alongwith  interview  for  selection   of Assistant  Engineers  by the Board is in any  manner  wrong, illegal  or  unconstitutional. It is in vogue in  the  Board

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

since 1979 and it lies in the wisdom of the Board to keep te method  of  group  discussion as an  aid  to  interview  for selection of Assitant Engineers in future or not.     The question now which calls for our consideration is as to what percentage of marks may be considered as  reasonable for group discussion. 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  initiative, that  and  self confidence when confronted  with  a  problem facing  a  large  number  of  people.  However,  the   group discussion   as  one  of  the  methods  for  assessing   the suitability of a candidate for the post of Assitant 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  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 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 them marks for  interview and  group  discussion should not exceed 10 per cent  5  per cent respectively of the total marks.     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  Srivastava who remained unsuccessful had filed the writ petitions after taking chance and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept for  interview and group discussion. It is no doubt  correct that they cannot be stopped from challenging 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 relevant  considerations.  The appellants have  jointed  the post on 28th                                                        819 December,  1989  and  after  completing  the  training   are discharging  their duties at different places. It  has  been submitted  on their behalf 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  general category are concerned,  they  have secured the marks in the following manner: ------------------------------------------------------------ NAME            WRITTEN TEST   GROUP         INTERVIEW TOTAL                                DISCUSSION ------------------------------------------------------------ Rajeev Govil       85             5          29         119 Vivek Aggarwal     87.5           12         28        127.5 Gyanendra Bah- adur Srivastava    81             17         18        116 The  last  candidate out of the 25  selected  candidates  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

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  Gyanendra Bahadur  Srivastava. A persual 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 more than 81 marks  in the written test. Even if we were inclined to give a further chance  of interview and group discussion by 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 comparison 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 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.                                                        820     In the result, we allow these appeals in part and  quash the  rule  made by 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  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.                                                        821