http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SIYA RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/12/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 15 DAY OD DECEMBER, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mrs.Justice Sujata V.Manohar                Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa Raj  Kumar   Gupta,  H.V.D.Sharma,  Rajesh,  Advs.  for  the appellant V.C.Mahajan, Sr.Adv., Rajiv Nanda, Ms.Sushma Suri, C.V.Subba Rao, A.K.Sanghi, Advs. with him for the Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment  of the Court was delivered: D.P. Wadhwa. J.      On his failure to succeed in the Central Administrative Tribunal (’Tribunal’  for short),  (Allahabad Bench)  in  OA No.244 of  1986 decided  on June  29. 1987 the appellant has come to  this Court  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 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  Inspectors. At  the relevant time only four persons were  eligible for  filling up  the  post  of  Chief Personnel Inspector. They were :           (1) Rajkumar (S.C)           (2) P.N.Tripathi (respondent No.5)           (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. 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, Lucknow. The Selection  Board interviewed all the eligible candidates

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

and respondents  4 and 5 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       (b) Personality, Leadership,           technical and educational           qualifications              -20 marks       (c) Record of service           -15 marks       (d) Seniority                   -15 marks"      Though 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 challenged his  non selection  in the  Tribunal  by  filling 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 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.      As far  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 to  the appellant  than given by him to 4th respondent. We  do 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. 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  Board assembles to  make the  selection all  papers connected with the proposed selection, the confidential reports, if any, on each of  the candidates  and other  relevant data concerning them is  to be  circulated for information of the members of the Board  as also  the qualifications  prescribed  for  the particular post  under consideration.  The  Selection  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 :           Max. Marks    Qualifying                         marks            -----------   -----------      i) Professional ability      50  30      ii) Personality, address,          leadership and academic/          technical qualification  25  --      iii) Record of service       25  --

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    Note:(1)  The   item   "Record   of           Service" should also take into           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           professional ability  and  60%           marks  on  the  aggregate  for           being 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  be      laced on  the panel  even if on the      total marks  secured  he  qualifies      for a places. 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      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      eligible staff  to  the  extent  of      four times  the number to be placed      on the  panel,  the  number  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 order of      their seniority."      Mr. Gupta,  learned counsel for the appellant, strongly relied on  a decision of this Court in Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi  and others  [AIR 1981  SC 487]  and to the following observations  of the  Tribunal: "On the other hand the  practice   followed  in   the  Railway   Department  is altogether 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  for viva-voce  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

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 changes of arbitrariness, bias and the like minimal as observed by  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  in Ajay  Hasia  vs. Khalid Mujib  [AIR 1984  SC 873]. In the matter of promotion for other services in the Railway  Department,          more importance  has  to  be  given  to  record  of  service  and seniority than  the professional ability to be judged at the time of interview. 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’s  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 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  interview  this  Court  observed  that allocation of  as high  a percentage  as 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview should be regarded as infecting the admission  procedure with  the vice of arbitrariness and selection of  candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure could not be sustained. This Court said that under the existing  circumstances 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 principal  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 vs. State  of Rajasthan  and others  [AIR 1081 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 oral examination of the candidates seeking employment or promotion. In  this case  the High Court had struck down the selection for  the post  of 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 to colleges also applied in the matter of recruitment in the public employment  was per incuriam since the matter did not fall for  the consideration  of the  Court in that case. The Court then went on to observe as under:      "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 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 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

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

be attached  to the various tests. If we do that we would be rewriting the  Rules but  we guard  ourselves against  being understood as  saying that  we would  bot interfere  even in cases of  proven or obvious oblique motive. There is none in the present case."      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 that in the case of service to which recruitment had necessarily to be made from persons of mature  personality, interview  test may be the only  way and subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements  being   satisfied  and  that  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   very  from 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.  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.      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 or recruitment to any particular public service.      In the present case, the appointment was to the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in the Railways. It is a selection post. The   Selection  Board  consisted  of    high  ranking officials, well  versed with the requirements 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 suggest  as to what marks should be 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 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 .pa the appellant and would uphold the judgment of  the Tribunal.  The  appeal  is  dismissed  with costs.