http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N. CHANDRASEKHARAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/01/1998

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami               Hon’ble mr. Justice A. P. Misra V. C.  Mahajan, Sr. Adv. (Rajiv Nanda) Adv. for V. K. Verma, Adv. with him for the appellants. Roy  Abraham,   Adv.  for   M.M.  Kashyap,   Adv.  for   the Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: K. Venkataswami, J.      The appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Eranakulam  Bench  dated 28.2.1993 in  O.A. No.  21/91  have  filed  this  appeal  by special  leave.   After  going  through  the  pleadings  and judgment, we  find that the issue raised before the Tribunal was no  longer res  integra but  by wrong  appreciation  and application of law laid down by this Court, the Tribunal has handed  down  the  judgment  under  challenge  obliging  the appellants to approach this Court.      Respondents 1 and 2 were the contestants along with the respondents 3-  11 and  several others  for the  promotional post of  Assistant purchase officer for the post of Purchase Assistant -  B. The  promotion was  based on  a written test followed by  an interview and assessment of the confidential reports  as   prescribed  in  the  office  Memorandum  dated 9.7.1987. The  marks prescribed  for written test, interview and confidential  report were 50, 30 and 20 respectively. It was also  prescribed that  to  qualify  for  promotion,  one should get  minimum of 50% prescribed for each head and also 60% in  the aggregate . The selection was made on that basis was not in dispute.      The grievance  of the  respondents   1 & 2, who did not find their  names in the select list, was that on account of unduly disproportionate  marks  allotted  to  interview  and confidential report, that enabled the Departmental promotion committee  to   manipulate  the  results  which  denied  the reasonable expectation  of candidates  who  secured  maximum marks in  the written test. In other words, according to the respondents 1  and 2,  who were  the applicants  before  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Tribunal though  they  had  secured  maximum  marks  in  the written test,  by reason  of lesser marks awarded to them by the Departmental  Promotion Committee in the interview, they were  not   selected  ultimately.   In  addition   to   that respondents 1  and 2  also contended  before the Tribunal to challenge the  promotion list  for the  year 1990  that  the minimum marks  prescribed to qualify for promotion at 50% of the marks allotted for interview and confidential report was also arbitrary and unsustainable.      The  appellants,   who  were   respondents  before  the Tribunal, submitted  before it  that Indian  Space  Research Organization  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ISRO)  has  to perform a  number of  tasks and  hence it  was necessary  to choose proper personnel and provide for a proper recruitment system with  adequate career  growth  opportunities  in  the light of the instructions given in the office Memorandum. It was also  submitted by  the appellants   that  the procedure which was  adopted for  the promotion  in the  year 1990 was broadly the same which was in vogue from 1976 onwards except for small modifications brought in by O.Ms.  dated 5.6.1982, 31.3.1987 and 9.6.1987. The requirement of 50% minimum marks that was  to be  secured by  any candidate  to  qualify  for promotion bot  in the interview and the confidential reports was brought  into  existence  subsequently.  The  appellants brought to  the notice of the Tribunal the importance of the interview in selecting Assistant Purchase Officer by stating as follows:-      "  Written   tests  may  bring  out      normally the  relative  theoretical      skills of  the  candidates  in  the      group. Interviews  through personal      interactions of the candidates with      the committee  are meant   to  find      out the  strength and weaknesses of      the total personality and potential      of  the   candidates  to   hold   a      particular post  which may  involve      considerable     inter     personal      interactions, too.  it provides  an      opportunity  to  observe  the  non-      verbal cues like facial expression,      mannerism,   emotional   stability,      maturity, attitudes  approach  etc.      It gives a first hand impression on      what a  candidate is saying of what      he  feels   to  say.   Due  to  its      spontaneity  it   demonstrates  the      candidate’s perceptiveness, clarity      of  thought   analytical   ability,      aspirations, motivations,  interest      etc. The  behavior of individual in      the  personal   interviews  has   a      definite bearing on his personality      and behavioral  attributes at work.      But the  immediate inferences drawn      from  the   above  would   be  more      objective and reflect on reality if      it is  appropriately  supported  by      the  ratings   in  the  theoretical      knowledge  tested  through  written      test  and   as  well   as  the   CR      ratings".      The Tribunal  also directed  the production of relevant records relating  to the  preparation of  panel for the year 1988 and 1990.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    The Tribunal  on a  consideration of  the pleadings and arguments addressed before it found that the argument of the applicants (respondents  1 and 2 herein) that the allocation of 20%  of marks  for evaluation  of ACRs  is arbitrary  and unreasonable, cannot be accepted.      So far  as the  marks allotted to interview, namely, 30 marks, the  Tribunal held by wrong application of the ration laid down  by this  Court in  Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case (1985 (4) SCC  417) that the  "spread" of marks allotted under the head of interview was totally unreasonable and arbitrary and has resulted  in using  this as a lever to select candidates who otherwise might not have stood any chance for selection. The Tribunal also held that on the basis of the test used in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case, it can be concluded that the marks given for interview by the selection committee has been done arbitrarily. After  having come to the above conclusion, the Tribunal gave the following directions:-      " In  the  circumstances  we  allow      this application with the following      directions:-      (i) The  panel at  Annexure -  I is      quashed and  all promotions made on      the  basis   of   this   panel   as      Assistant purchase  Officers  shall      stand quashed.      (ii) The fixation of a minimum mark      of  50%   to  the   scored  in  the      interview is quashed.      (iii) The  respondents are directed      to  reduce   the  total  marks  for      interview from  30 to  10 and  work      out  the   marks   given   to   the      candidates and  work out  the marks      given to the candidates by applying      a  factor   of  1/3  to  the  marks      already given  and then compile the      marks scored  by the candidates out      of 80  i.e. 50 per written test, 20      for ACR and 10 for interview.      (iv) The  marks so secured shall be      converted into  marks out of 100 by      applying a  factor of  5/4  to  the      total marks scored.      (v) This  shall  be  taken  as  the      final   result    of    the    1990      examination and a fresh panel shall      be prepared  and promotions granted      on this basis.      (vi) These  directions be  complied      within one  month from  the date of      receipt of this order."      Aggrieved by  the  above  directions  and  quashing  of selection list  and the fixation of minimum marks of 50 % to be secured  in the  interview, the  appellants have  come to this Court in the above appeal.      Mr. Mahajan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submitted that  the Tribunal has wrongly applied to law laid down in  Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case which related to interview held for competitive examination for recruitment to posts in the Haryana  Civil Service  and was  not a case of selection for higher  posts. Therefore,  the Tribunal was not right in applying the ratio laid down in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case. He also submitted  that this  Court had  made clear distinction between  interview   held  for  competitive  examination  or admission in  educational  institutions  and  selection  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

higher posts. In this connection, he relied on two judgments of this  court in Mehmood Alam Tariq and others vs. State of Rajasthan & others ( 1988 (3) SCC 241 )  and C. P. Kalra vs. Air India  through its  Managing Director, Bombay and Others (1994 Supp.  (1) SCC  454). He  also emphasized the need for giving  importance  to  interview  marks  in  this  case  by bringing to  our notice the averments in the reply statement which reads as follows : -      " Usually,  a written  test may aim      at  ascertaining   the  theoretical      knowledge. There  is no  scope in a      written  test   to  raise   further      questions on  answers written  down      nor   to    ascertain    additional      information as  to  how  one  would      react   in    different   practical      situations  such   as  the   Vendor      rating       scenario,        space      qualification    requirement     of      components,   sub-systems   to   be      procured;  skill  required  or  the      strategies  to  be  adopted  during      contract  negotiations  and  during      different tendering  stages; up-to-      date knowledge  on the national and      international   market   situations      which are  much relevant  to Indian      Space  Research   organization/DOS;      capability       for       personal      presentation of  the cases  to  the      satisfaction   of    the    customs      authorities to  obtain  waiver  for      physical  examination   or   cases;      intricacies relating  to  the  Laws      such  as  Insurance  Act  etc.  and      above all  the understanding of the      requirements    of     the    space      programmes      which      involve,      technological        uncertainties,      repetitive   ground    testing   of      systems,    sub-systems,    failure      analysis procedures,  and reworking      on components/sub-systems/  systems      which have already been procured or      which have already been procured or      which have already been procured or      fabricated.   The   capability   to      handle  these   and  many   similar      practical   aspects   required   to      effectively  discharge  the  duties      and    responsibilities    of    an      Assistant   purchase   Officer   in      Indian Space  Research Organisation      / DOS can normally be assessed only      through a personal interview."      The learned  senior counsel  also  submitted  that  the Tribunal went  wrong in holding that the fixation of minimum marks of 50% to be secured in the interview was bad, as this Court in  State of U.P. vs. Rafiquddin ( 1987 Supl. SCC 401) has categorically  held that  such fixation of minimum marks is well within the powers of the authority.      In the  light of the submissions made by him, according to the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants,  the judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.      Mr. Roy  Abraham, learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

contesting respondents  1 and 2, on the other hand submitted that the  reasons given  by the  Tribunal are  based  on  an analysis of marks obtained by the respondents 1 and 2 in the written test  qua the  selected candidates  as well as marks allotted in  the interview  and, therefore, it does not call for any  interference by  this court.  He lain stress on the fact that  the rank-holders  in the  written test  were  not selected because  of the fact that either they could not get more marks  or they  could not  get the minimum marks in the interview. According  to the learned counsel for respondents 1 and  2, on facts the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the  selection list and giving directions for preparing fresh selection list in accordance with that.      We have  considered the  rival submissions in the light of the  effects presented  before us.  It is  not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before  they sat  for the  written test and before they appeared  before the  Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they  cannot turn  around and  contend later when they found  they  were  not  selected  by  challenging  that procedure and  contending  that  the  marks  prescribed  for interview and  confidential reports  are  disproportionately high and  the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at  interview or  in the  assessment on  confidential report. Even  on merits,  we agree  with the  learned senior counsel for  the appellants  that due  regard must be had to the posts to which the candidates are to be promoted as well as to  the nature  of duties  they have to discharge/perform and so  viewing the  marks given  to the interview cannot be considered as disproportionately high or the spread of marks was done  arbitrarily. The  Departmental promotion Committee consisted of the following Personalities:- ------------------------------------------------------------ Designation     Location ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Jt. Secretary to GOI             Chairman   DOS,Bangalore 2. Scientific Secretary ISRO        Alt. Chairman/ ISRO HQ.                                     Member         Bangalore 3. Head, Programme Planning         Member       ISAC B’lore    & Evaluation Division 4. Addl. Chief Engineer             Member      CED, B’ Lore 5. Head Purchases & Stores          Member. VSSC, Trivandrum 6. Head  Purchase and  Stores                Member    SHAR, Sriharikota 7. Head Purchase and Stores         Member    ISAC B’ lore 8. Head Purchase and Stores        Member     SAC, Ahmedabad ------------------------------------------------------------      A look  at the  above composition will place beyond any reasonable doubt  that there  was no  scope for arbitrary of exercise of selection or favouritism. It is also relevant it to point  out through in the pleading vaguely mala fides was raised, nothing  was established  not the Tribunal discussed about it.  In the  absence of  any mala  fides  pleaded  and established and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the importance given to the interview cannot by any means be termed as arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.      The reliance  placed by  the Tribunal on the Ratio laid down by  this Court  in Ashok  Kumar Yadav’s case is totally misconceived as that was not a case of promotion to a higher post. this  Court in  Kalra Case  (supra)) had  occasion  to consider similar situation and observed as follows:-      "7. it  was next submitted that the      promotion        policy         was      unconstitutional   as   the   marks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    assigned  for  the  interview  test      were  far   in  excess   of     the      permissible norm  or limit. The 40%      prescription for interview is based      on  Rule   2.6  of   the  promotion      policy. This 40 per cent is divided      under different heads or factors as      stated hereinabove.  The submission      of  the  learned  counsel  for  the      petitioner   was   based   on   the      observations of this Court in Ashok      Kumar  Yadav   wherein  this  Court      observed that  33.3 per  cent marks      reserved   for   oral   test   were      excessive and would suffer from the      vice  of  arbitrariness.  The  High      Court   has    dealt   with    this      submission and has pointed out that      no  hard   and  fast  rule  can  be      evolved in this behalf because much      would depend on the job requirement      for each  post and the level of the      post. A  whole  line  of  decisions      were   brought    to   our   notice      beginning from  Ajay Hasia case but      it would  be sufficient  for us  to      refer to the latest decision in the      case   Indian Airlines  Corpn.  vs.      Capt. K.C.  Shukla.  in  that  case      this Court  after referring  to the      decisions in Ajay Hasia, Lila Dhar,      Ashok Kumar  Yadav  and  Rafiquddin      observed that a distinction appears      to have  been drawn  in  interviews      held for  competitive  examinations      or   admission    in    educational      institutions  and   selection   for      higher  posts.  Efforts  have  been      made  to   limit   the   scope   of      arbitrariness  in   the  former  by      narrowing down  the  proportion  as      various factors are likely to creep      in, but the same standard cannot be      applied for  higher selections  and      this is clearly brought out in Lila      Dhar Case.  it is, therefore, clear      that this  court was  also  of  the      view that  no hared  and fast  rule      can be  laid down  in these matters      because much  would depend  on  the      level of the post and the mature of      the performance  expected from  the      incumbent. In that case, the method      of evaluation was based 50 per cent      on the  ACRs and  50  per  cent  on      interviews and  this  Court  upheld      the said method notwithstanding the      fact   that   the   weightage   for      interview performance  was as  high      as 50  per cent. We are, therefore,      of the  view  that  the  contention      that because  in the  instant  case      the weightage  for  the  viva  voce      test is  40 percent,  it is  per se      excessive  and   hence   arbitrary,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    cannot be accepted.      In Mehmood Alam’s case. (supra) this Court had occasion to deal  with more  or less  an identical situation, held as follows:-      "20. On  a careful consideration of      the matter, we are persuaded to the      view  that   the  prescription   of      minimum qualifying marks of 60 (*33      per cent ) out of the maximum marks      of 180  set apart for the viva voce      examination does  not ,  by itself,      incur any constitutional infirmity.      The principles  laid  down  in  the      cases of  Ajay  Hasia,  Lila  Dhar,      Ashok Kumar  Yadav, do not militate      against  or   render  impermissible      such  a   proscription.  There   is      nothing unreasonable  or  arbitrary      in the stipulation that officers to      be selected for higher services and      who are,  with the passage of time,      expected   to    man   increasingly      responsible positions  in the  core      services such as the Administrative      Services and  the  police  Services      should   be    men   endowed   with      personality traits conducive to the      levels of  performance expected  in      such services.  There are  features      that  distinguish,   for  instance,      Accounts Service  from  the  Police      Service -  a distinction that draws      upon  and  is  accentuated  by  the      personal qualities  of the officer.      Academic excellence  is one  thing,      Ability to  deal  with  the  public      with tact and imagination deal with      the   public    with    tact    and      imagination is  another.  Both  are      necessary for  an officer. The dose      that is demanded may vary according      to  the   nature  of  the  service.      Administrative and  police services      constitute the  cutting edge of the      administrative  machinery  and  the      requirement  of  higher  traits  of      personality is  not an unreasonable      expectation.      21. Indeed  in Lila  Dhar vs. State      of Rajasthan, this Court observed :      (SCC pp.  164- 65: SCC ( L & S) pp.      592-93, para 6)      "  Thus,  the  written  examination      assesses the  man’s  intellect  and      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      personalty is yet to develop and it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

    is  too   early  to   identify  the      personal   qualities    for   which      greater importance  may have  to be      attached  in  later  life,  greater      weight has  perforce 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 vs.  State  of  Tamil      Nadu, Ajay  Hasia vs. Khalid  Mujib      Sehravardi and  other cases. On the      other hand, in the case of services      to    which     recruitment     has      necessarily to be made from persons      of  mature  personality,  interview      test may  be the  only way, subject      to basic and essential academic and      profession    requirements    being      satisfied.....   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  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  personality  promise,      some  weight   has  to   be  given,      thought  not   much  too   great  a      weight,  to   the  interview  test.      There cannot  be any  rule of thumb      regarding the  precise weight to be      given. It must vary from service to      service    according     to     the      requirements of  the  service,  the      minimum  qualification  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      court s to pronounce upon it unless      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 Public      Service Commission."      This  Court   indicated   that   in      matters  such   as   these,   which      reflect matters of policy, judicial      wisdom   is   judicial   restraint.      Generally matters  of  policy  have      little adjudicative disposition.      22. Indeed, the point raised in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

    appeals admits  of the answer found      in the  pronouncement of this Court      in State  of  U.P.  vs.  Rafiquddin      where  this  Court  considered  the      permissibility of  the prescription      of minimum  qualifying or  cut  off      marks  in  viva  voce  examination,      while dealing  with clause  (ii) of      the proviso  to rule  19  (  as  it      stood prior  to the 1972 amendment)      of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial      Branch) Rules,  1951. The provision      required the  selection  committee,      inter alia,  to ensure that persons      who  did  not  secure  sufficiently      high marks  in that  interview were      not  recommended   for  the  posts.      Pursuant to the power thus reserved      to  it,  the  selection  committee,      prescribed certain  minimum cut off      marks for the interview. This Court      upholding  the   validity  of   the      prescription observed  at pp.  413,      415:      " ..... aggregate marks obtained by      a candidate determined his position      in the list, but the proviso of the      rule  required  the  Commission  to      satisfy itself  that the  candidate      had obtained  such aggregate  marks      in the  written test  as to qualify      him for  appointment to service and      further  he   had   obtained   such      sufficiently  high  marks  in  viva      voce   which    would   show    his      suitability for  the  service.  The      scheme underlying  Rule 19  and the      proviso  made   it  apparent   that      obtaining of  the minimum aggregate      marks in  the written test and also      the minimum  in the  viva voce  was      the  sine   qua  non   before   the      commission could  proceed  to  make      its recommendation  in favour  of a      candidate for  appointment  to  the      service. The  Commission in view of      clause  (ii)  of  the  proviso  had      power to  fix the minimum marks for      viva   voce    for   judging    the      suitability  of   a  candidate  for      service. Thus  a candidate  who had      merely secured  the minimum  of the      aggregate marks  or above  was  not      entitled to  be  included  tin  the      list   of   successful   candidates      unless  he  had  also  secured  the      minimum  marks   which   had   been      prescribed  for   the   viva   voce      test.....      .....    The     Commission    had,      therefore, power  to fix  the  norm      and in  he  instance  case  it  had      fixed 35 per cent minimum marks for      viva voce  test. The viva voce test      is  a  well  recognised  method  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

    judging  the   suitability   of   a      candidate for appointment to public      services and this method had almost      universally been followed in making      selection for appointment to public      services. Where  selection is  made      on the  basis of written as well as      viva voce test, the final result is      determined  on  the  basis  of  the      aggregate  marks.  If  any  minimum      marks either in the written test or      in viva  voce  test  are  fixed  to      determine  the   suitability  of  a      candidate,  the   same  has  to  be      respected.  Clause   (ii)  of   the      proviso to  rule 19 clearly confers      power  on  the  Commission  to  fix      minimum marks  for viva  voce  test      for  judging   the  suitability  of      candidate for  the service.  We  do      not find  any constitutional  legal      infirmity in the provision.      This  should,   in   our   opinion,      conclude the present controversy in      favour of the appellants."           (Emphasis Supplied)      In the light of the well settled position, as discussed have, we  have no  hesitation to hold that the Tribunal went wrong in applying the ratio laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s  case, while upsetting the 1990 Selection list and giving  directions to  prepare a  new selection  list in accordance with that direction.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed. However, their will be no order as to costs.