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

PETITIONER: KOSHAL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF J. & K. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/04/1984

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. SEN, A.P. (J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1056            1984 SCR  (3) 407  1984 SCC  (2) 652        1984 SCALE  (1)661  CITATOR INFO :  F          1986 SC1224  (16)  R          1989 SC1899  (31)

ACT:      Educational   Institutions-Admission   to   Engineering Colleges-Admission to-Viva-voce  test-Allotment of 15 marks- Whether arbitrary.  Dialogue between  members  of  Selection Committee and candidate recorded on tape-recorder-Procedure- Whether fair and reasonable.

HEADNOTE:      The Third  Respondent-Principal of  the  College  by  a public advertisement  invited applications  for admission to the Bachelor  Degree  Engineering  Course  in  the  Regional Engineering College  in the  State. The  candidates  seeking admission were  required  to  appear  at  a  joint  entrance examination, those  who qualified  had to  appear at a viva- voce test, and the selection was to be based on the combined performance in the written and viva-voce examination.      The petitioners  who applied  and were  admitted to the written test  and on  being qualified, were called for viva- voce test.  In their  writ  petitions  they  challenged  the manner, the  method and the number of marks assigned for the viva-voce test.  It was contended that the reservation of 15 marks for  the viva-voce  test conferred arbitrary, unguided and uncannalised  power on  those conducting  the  viva-voce test and  that the  reservation of  15 marks  would have the pernicious tendency  of affecting  merit  disclosed  by  the marks obtained at the written examination.      The  writ   petition  was   contested  on   behalf   of respondents 1,2  and 3  by submitting that in order to avoid any charge  of  arbitrariness  being  levelled  against  the Selection Committee,  15 marks  assigned for  viva-voce test were further  split-up under  four heads, viz. (i) Science-5 marks, (ii)  General  Knowledge-4  marks,  (iii)  Curricular Activities-3 marks  and (iv)  Personality test-3  marks, and that the Selection Committee prepared cards on each of which a  question  was  typed  referable  to  Physics,  Chemistry, Mathematics and  General Knowledge  and they  were kept in 4 different boxes.  When the  candidate entered  the room  for interview, he  was required  to pick-up  at random  one card

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

from each  of the  four boxes, each box containing 150 cards and answer  the question.  A tape-recorder  was kept  on the table in front of the members of the Selection Committee and the candidate  appearing  for  the  interview,  and  two-way dialogue was  recorded in  full. Marks  were assigned  under each head  of viva-voce test depending upon the merit of the answer. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared on the basis of the total marks obtained at 408 he written and viva-voce tests.      Dismissing the Writ Petitions & Transferred cases, ^      HELD: Merit has been ascertained by the most scientific method that can be applied for selecting candidates on merit leaving no room for any arbitrary choice. The viva-voce test that was  conducted  was  fair,  free  from  the  charge  of arbitrariness, reasonable and just. [410 F]      In the  instant case,  respondents Nos.  1  to  3  have practically  set   at  naught  some  of  the  drawbacks  and deficiencies pointed  out in Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardy &  others etc.  [1981] 2  SCR 79 in the manner of holding of  oral interview and the marks assigned at it. The respondents in  order to  avoid any  charge of arbitrariness reduced the  marks assigned  to the viva-voce test, prepared the questions  in advance  kept them  ready in the boxes and the candidate had to pick-up his own question and answer it. The record  of the  answer was maintained in the Candidate’s own voice. [410 G-411 E]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 8964 of 1982.       (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)                             WITH              Transfer Cases Nos. 13-15 of 1984.      Anil Dev  Singh, Subhash  Sharma and S.K. Sabharwal for the petitioners.      G.L. Sanghi and Altaf Ahmed for the respondents.      K.R.R. Pillai for the Petitioner in Transfer Cases Nos. 13-15 of 84.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J;  At the conclusion of the hearing of the writ petition and  the transferred  cases on  Jan 24,  1984,  the Court pronounced  the order dismissing the writ petition and the transferred  cases,  reserving  that  the  reasons  will follow later on. Here are the reasons.      To put into focus the controversy, the facts alleged in Writ  Petition   No.  8964   of  1982   may  be   taken   as representative of the allegations in all allied cases.      Nine  petitioners   in  this  petition  questioned  the legality and  correctness of  admissions to  Bachelor degree course for  1982-83 session in Regional Engineering Colleges at  Srinagar,   simultaneously  praying   for  quashing  the admissions of respondents Nos. 409 5 to  13 and  seeking a  direction that  the petitioners  be admitted to the same session.      A Regional  Engineering College  has  been  set  up  at Srinagar  in   the  State   of  Jammu   and  Kashmir.  Third respondent,  Principal   of  the   College   by   a   public advertisement dated  March 13, 1982 invited applications for admission to  the Bachelor  Degree  Engineering  Course  for 1982-83  session   not  only  in  the  Regional  Engineering College, Srinagar  but also  in eleven  Regional Engineering

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

Colleges set  up in  different  States.  Candidates  seeking admission had  to fulfill  the following  requirements. They were required  to appear at (i) a joint entrance examination in four  papers viz.  Physics,  Chemistry,  Mathematics  and English; (ii) candidates who qualify in the written test had to appear  at a viva-voce test; (iii) the selections were to be based  on the  combined performance  in the  written  and viva-voce examination  ; and  (iv) the  seats  reserved  for specified categories  were  also  shown.  Pursuant  to  this advertisement, the  petitioners applied and were admitted to the written  test and  on being  found qualified,  they were called for  viva-voce test.  The challenge is to the manner, the method  and the  number of  marks assigned for the viva- voce  test.   Broadly  stated,  the  allegations  were  that reservation  of   15  marks  for  viva-voce  test  conferred arbitrary,  unguided   and  uncannalised   power  on   those conducting the  viva-voce test  and that  reservation of  15 marks for  viva-voce test would have the pernicious tendency of affecting  the merit  disclosed by  the marks obtained at written examination.  There were  other allegations which do not merit examination.      On rule  nisi being  issued, respondents  Nos. 1  to  3 appeared and  one Dr.  O.N. Koul,  Head  of  the  Mechanical Engineering Department  (Coordinator Admissions  for session 1982-83), Regional  Engineering College,  Srinagar filed  an affidavit in  opposition on  behalf of  the Principal of the College. After  pointing out that 85 marks were assigned for written examination  and  15  for  viva-voce  test,  it  was further pointed  out that  in order  to avoid  any charge of arbitrariness being levelled against the Selection Committee 15 marks  assigned for  viva-voce test were further split-up under four  heads, namely,  (i) Science-5 marks (ii) General knowledge-4 marks  (iii) Curricular  Activities-3 marks  and (iv) personality  test-3 marks.  It  was  pointed  out  that ultimately out  of a  total of  100 marks, only 3 marks were assigned for  personality test and this is the area where if at all,  discretion  can  be  exercised  which  may  not  be reviewable on any 410 documentary evidence.  In respect  of the three other heads, it was  pointed out  that the  Selection Committee  prepared cards on each of which a question was typed referable to the 4 subjects,  namely,  Physics,  Chemistry,  Mathematics  and General Knowledge.  and they were kept in 4 different boxes. When the  candidate entered  the room  for interview, he was required to pick up at random one card from each of the four boxes, each  box containing atleast 150 cards and answer the question. A  tape recorder was kept on the table in front of the members  of the  Selection Committee  and the  candidate appearing for  the interview  and the  two-way dialogue  was recorded in  full. Marks  were assigned  under each  head of viva-voce test  depending upon  the  merit  of  the  answer. Thereafter, the  merit list was prepared on the basis of the total marks  obtained at written test and the viva-voce test and it  was strictly adhered to save and except for reserved seats where also persons seeking admission to reserved seats had to stand in queue as in the merit list.      At the hearing of these petitions, the respondents Nos. 1 to  3  produced  before  the  Court  the  cards  on  which questions were typed, the cassette and a tape recorder. They also produced  the entire  merit list with marks obtained by each candidate.  The court  at random directed them to point out which  card was  picked-up by one of the candidates from amongst the  petitioners and then play the cassette on which his interview was taped. Learned counsel for the petitioners

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

and  some  of  the  petitioners  were  present  during  this demonstration. We  are fully  satisfied that  in  this  case merit has  been ascertained  by the  most scientific  method that can  be applied  for  selecting  candidates  on  merits leaving no room for any arbitrary choice.      There was no challenge to the written test and 85 marks assigned for  the written  test. In Ajay Hassa etc. v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi  & Ors.  etc. (1) wherein admission to this very Regional  Engineering College  for the year 1979-80 was challenged, this  Court observed that ‘there can be no doubt that, having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview  test and  the conditions  prevailing in  the country, particularly  when there  is deterioration in moral values and  corruption and  nepotism are  very much  on  the increase, allocation  of a  high percentage of marks for the oral interview  as compared  to the  marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the court as 411 free from  the vice of arbitrariness. The Court concluded by observing that  in 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 respondents took one from these observations of the Court and  reduced the  marks assigned for viva-voce test to 15. Not only that but some of the drawbacks and deficiencies pointed out  by this  Court in the manner of holding of oral interview and  the marks  assigned at  it,  the  respondents split-up the  marks under  four heads and atleast in respect of three,  there is  direct evidence as recorded on the tape to show how the candidate has faired. And as for the dreaded personality test,  the marks  assigned are  3  only.  Not  a single case  was pointed  out to  us in  the course  of  the hearing in  which the candidate otherwise being eligible for admission on  merit, lost  the same  because of inability to get some marks under the personality test, the maximum being 3 only.  It is  to the credit of respondents Nos 1 to 3, how they in  order to  avoid any charge of arbitrariness reduced the marks  assigned to  viva-voce test,  split them up under different heads  and even  in respect of questions to be put at the  viva-voce test  prepared the  questions in  advance, kept them  ready in  boxes and  the candidate had to pick-up his own  question and answer it. The record of the answer is maintained in  candidates own  voice.  We  must  record  our appreciation that  respondents Nos.  1 to 3 have practically set at  naught drawbacks  and deficiencies in oral interview as pointed  out by  this Court. The viva-voce test conducted must  be   held  to   be  fair,  free  from  the  charge  of arbitrariness, reasonable and just.      Undoubtedly, the  expectation of the Court which frowns upon anything  arbitrary or  unreasonable has  added to  the workload of the Selection Committee. But today when there is rush for admission to Engineering Colleges like the Ceasar’s wife, the  selection must  be objective and beyond reproach. That has  been scientifically achieved in this case. We hope that bodies  charged with the difficult task of ascertaining merits for  admission will  take cue from what has been done by respondents  Nos. 1 to 3 and the lead provided by them in this field  would restore  faith of  young aspirants  in the system. Therefor,  the Court dismissed the writ petition and the transferred cases. N.V.K.                 Petitions & Transfer Cases dismissed. 412

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