Holding

The viva voce interview result cannot be challenged on merits; Rule 10(1)(b) does not mandate separate faculty‑wise marks; lack of tape‑recording does not vitiate the test; no bias was proven; certificates of practice satisfy eligibility; appointments are limited to the requisitioned vacancies and the list remains valid for one year under Rule 41.

Summary

The Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission advertised for Munsiff posts, conducted a written exam and a viva voce interview. Unsuccessful candidates (petitioners) challenged the interview, alleging manipulation, lack of faculty‑wise marking, absence of tape‑recording, bias favouring certain candidates, ineligibility of some respondents under Rule 9, and that the merit list of 20 candidates exceeded the 11 vacancies authorized. The Supreme Court held that the result of a viva voce interview cannot be challenged on merits, that Rule 10(1)(b) does not require separate marks for each faculty, that the lack of tape‑recording does not vitiate the test, and that no specific bias was proved. Certificates of two‑year practice issued by the District Judge were deemed sufficient, and the merit list may contain more names than vacancies but appointments are limited to the 11 posts as per the requisition, with the list valid for one year under Rule 41. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

The result of the viva voce interview can be challenged on merits.
Whether Rule 10(1)(b) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 requires faculty‑wise marking in the viva voce.
Whether the absence of tape‑recording of the interview invalidates the selection process.
Whether alleged bias or nepotism without specific evidence can invalidate the interview results.
Whether respondents satisfied the eligibility requirement of two years actual practice under Rule 9.
Whether a merit list exceeding the number of vacancies violates Rule 41.
Whether a candidate related to commission members is disqualified.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967s. Rule 10(1)(b), s. Rule 41, s. Rule 9

Subjects

service lawselection processviva voce interviewrecruitment rulesmerit listreservationeligibilityactual practicetape recordingbiasjudicial appointment

Judgment

A MADAN LAL AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 6, 1995

B [J.S. VERMA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Service Law-Selection process-Interview test-Validity of-Unsuc-
cessful candidate--Whether can challenge result of interview test on
merits-Held, Ncr--Scope of interference--Extent of.
c Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules of
1967-Rule lO(l)(b}-Selection process-Viva voce examination-Split up of
marks on various sub-heads noi necessa~Tape recording of questions and
answers given at oral interview-Not provided-Effect of.

D Rule 9-Appointment-Post of Munsi!f-Words 'actual practice!-Cer-
tificate issued by the concerned District Judg~J & K Public Service Com-
mission not empowered in going behind the certificate.

Rule 41-Appointments-Merit list and waiting list-Held, such list will
E have a !ife of one year from date of publication or till it is exhausted,
whichever is earlier.

An advertisement notice issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Public
Service Commission in 1993, invited applications for filling up posts of
Munsiff in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Commission conducted
p the written examination and thereafter 79 candidates mentioned in the
notification were declared to have qualified for viva voce test. That in-
cluded the petitioners and the respondents. A viva voce test was conducted
by four Members of the Commission and an Expert. The petitioners
challenged the process of selection, while challenging the selection of the
successful respondents. Petitioners alleged that viva voce test was so
G manipulated that only preferred candidates were permitted to get into the
select list, and therefore the selections should be made on the basis of the
written test alone or to conduct fresh viva voce test after removing defects
in it for assessing the merits of the candidates objective_ly, that when a
candidate is orally interviewed, the members of the. Committee should
H assign separate marks for the different faculties of the concerned can-
908
(
MADANLALv. STATEOFJ.ANDK. 909

didate namely, intelligence, general knowledge, etc. as laid down in rule A
lO(l)(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment
Rules of 1967; that the Expert, namely, the sitting Judge of the High Court
was entitled to award only 60 marks for viva voce test while the remaining
80 marks were permitted to be given by other members of the Commission
and that affected the overall assessment of the candidates in the viva voce
B
test which as a whole comprised of 140 marks; that there was nothing to
show that any tape recording was done regarding the question put to
candidates and the answers given by them at the viva voce test and that
had vitiated the said test; that the petitioners fared very well in the written
test as compared to the selected candidates and still at the viva voce test
they were pushed down by assigning very low marks as compared to c
contesting respondents and th11s they were treated unfairly at the said viva
voce test; that the viva voce test was co11ducted in an unfair manner only
with a view to select candidates belonging to a particular community; that
respondent Nos. 10 and 13 whose names were included in the impugned
list of recommended candidates were not eligible to be appointed as D
MunsitT as they failed to satisfy the eligibility requirement of rule 9 of the
rules in as much as they had not put in 2 years of actual practice at the
)
bar by the date he or she submitted application for such recruitment; that
· the daughter of the Chairman of the Commission and daughter-in-law of
another Member thereof was given a special favourable treatment by
unduly inflating her marks in the viva voce test; that preparation of the E
merit list of 16 candidates from general category and 4 candidates from
reserved category was in any case bad and violative of rule 41 of the rules
as the vacancies for which the advertisement was issued by the Commis-
sion were only 11 and requisition was sent by the Government for selection

- '
of suitable candidates through the Commission for those vacancies.

After petitioners moved this petition, stay of appointments of con-
cerned selected candidates was granted.
F

The respondents comprising of selected candidates as well as the
State submitted that there was nothing wrong with the selection process G
so far as viva voce test was concerned.

Dismissing the writ petition, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The result of the interview test on merits cannot be
successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful.
In this petition, this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to
re-assess the relative merits of the concerned candidates who had been
assessed at the oral interview nor could the petitioners urge that they were
given less marks though their performance was better. It was for the
Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High
B Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally
interviewed considering the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules
governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made ..
by such an expert committee could not be brought in challenge only on the
ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be
C the function of an appellate body. (917-G-H, 918-A-B]
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Ku.mar Shukla and Ors., AIR (1986)
SC 1043, relied on. . ..

1.2. Rule 10(1) (b) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial)
D Recruitment Rules of 1967, does not provide for any separate assessment
of marks for candidates at viva voce examination faculty wise; i.e. on
intelligence, general knowledge, etc. As per the said rule, while conducting
viva voce examination the Committee has to keep in view the overall
performance of the candidate at the oral interview and while doing so their
E intelligence, general knowledge, personality, aptitude and suitability have
to be kept in the center. The rule merely lays down the object of assessing
such candidates in the viva voce examination. It is a general guideline given
to the interviewing committee members. For candidates aspiring to be
appointed to such a judicial office, apart from the written test, his overall
F performance at oral interview is more important and consequently split f., -
up of the marks on various sub-heads at oral interview of such a candidate
may not be strictly necessary unless the concerned rule regulating such a
viva voce test expressly provides to that effect. (918-H, 91.9-A-B, 920-C]

Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (1971) 1 SCC 28,
G distingushed.

Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159; Ashok Ku.mar
Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985] 4 SCC 417 and Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. ...
U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, All and Ors., AIR (1986) SC
H 597, relied on.
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. 911

13. Rule lO(l)(b) nowhere provides that tape recording should be A
kept of question put by the members of the committee and the answers
given by the concerned candidates at the oral interview and that in the
absence of such.tape recording the interview process would fail. [922-C]

Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujeb Sehravardi and Ors., [1981] 1
SCC 722 (Constitution Bench), relied on. B

1.4. It remains in the exclusive domain of the expert committee to
decide relative merits of the concerned candidates before whom these
... candidates appeared for the viva voce test. It could not be subject of an
attack before this Court as this Court was not sitting as a court of appeal C
over the assessment made by the committee so far as the candidates
interviewed by them were concerned. Merely on the basis of petitioners'
apprehension or suspicion that they were deliberately given less marks at
the oral interview as compared to the rival candidates, it could not be said
that the process of assessment was vitiated when there was no allegation
of any personal bias. (923-G, H, E] D
1.5. The validity of viva voce test cannot be judged simply on the basis
of the result thereof unless there is anything to show that the entire
selection process was vitiated on account of mala fides or bias or that the
interview committee members had acted with an ulterior motive from the
E
very beginning and the whole selection process was a camouflage. (924-E]

1.6. Rule 9 requires production of certificate by District Judge within
whose local limits of jurisdiction the concerned Advocate would have
practiced at the bar. The Commission would be justified in not going
~ .. behind the certificate issued by the concerned District Judge and in not F
holding any further enquiry into the extent of actual. practice put in by
such candidate at the bar for being permitted to appear at the written and
viva voce test. A member of the bar can be said to be in actual practice for
2 years and more if he is enrolled as an Advocate by the ·concerned Bar
Council since 2 years and more and has attended law courts during that G
period. The words 'actual practice' as employed in rule 9 indicate that the
concerned Advocate must be whole time available as a professional at-
tached to the concerned court and must not be pursuing any other full
time avocation. [925-D, G, H, 926-A]

1.7. Only because respondent no. 13 was the daughter of the Chair· H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.
\
A man and daughter-in-law of another Member of the Commission, both of
whom disassociated themselves from the selection process as she was
competing, could not be said to be disqualified from being considered for
selection only on the ground of her relationship with the concerned Mem-
bers of the Commission. [926-C-D]

B 1.8. The actuat appointments to the posts have to be confined to the
post for recruitment to which requisition is sent by the Government. The
requisition in the instant case by the Government was for holding selection
tests by the Commission for filling up 11 clear vacancies. The Public Service
Commission may send merit list of suitable candidates which may exceed
C 11. But according to rule 41 such a merit list will have a maximum life of one
year from the date of publication or till all the required appointments are
made whichever event happened earlier. [929-F, C, 930-C]

1.9. There were 2 Scheduled Castes and 2 Scheduled Tribes can-
didates and the open category candidates were shown in the order of merits
D upto SI. No. 16. The extent of selected Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes candidates on reservation quota worked out to be 1/5 of the total
20 selected candidates. If this list had to operate only till 11 vacancies were
filled up, then on the ratio of 1/5 of the total vacancies to be filled up, the
posts to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes out of
E total 11 posts could be one each for SC and ST candidates. The remaining
9 posts will be available to general category candidates. For computing one
year's currency of impugned select list as per rule 41, the period during
which appointments were stayed during pendency of these proceedings
would get excluded. [934-B-F]

F Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1993] Supp. 4 SCC 377
and State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors., AIR (1994) SC 765,
referred to.

Asha Kaul and Anr. v. State of J and Kand Ors., [1993] 2 SCC 573,
distinguished.
G
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 546 of
1994.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

H M.L. Bhat and Ms. Purnima Bhat for the Petitioners.
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 913

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Meera Mathur for A
JBD & Co. for the Respondent Nos. 2-4. .

DD. Thakur, N.N. Bhat and Y.P. Rao for the Respondent Nos.
19-22, 28-29.

Ashok Mathur for the Respondent No. 1. B

Mrs. Pallavi Shroff for Shroff and Co. for the Respondent No. 5.

~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.... S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. This petition by petitioners has brought in c
challenge the process of selection of Munsiffs in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir undertaken by Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as Commission), pursuant to an advertisement
notice, inviting applications in the months of July and August, 1993. The
said selection of the concerned successful respondents has been challenged D
on diverse grounds to which we will make a reference a little later.

Now a glance at a few introductory facts. An advertisement notice
issued by the Commission in the closing months of 1993, invited applicac
tions from eligible candidates for filling up posts of Munsiffs in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners being eligible for competing for E
the said advertised posts submitted their applications to the Secretary of
the Commission. Similarly, the concerned respondents who are selected for
the said posts also submitted their applications. The Commission con-
ducted the written examination in July and August, 1993 and thereafter
vide notification dated 27th April, 1994 candidates mentioned in the F
notification were declared to have qualified for viva voce test. In all 79
candidates were found qualified for viva voce test. That included the
petitioners and the contesting respondents. Under the Jammu and Kashmir
Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules of 1967 (hereinafter referred to
as 'rules') examination for selection of Munsiffs consists of written ex-
amination and viva voce test. The Commission, respondent no. 2 accord- G
ingly conducted the said viva voce test under rule 10 of the aforesaid rules.
,.I On the request of the Commission the Chief Justice of the High Court is

... to nominate a Judge to act as an expert on the Commission for the purpose
of conducting the viva voce test. In pursuance of this rule a viva voce test
was conducted by four Members of the Commission and an expert (sitting H
914 SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A Judge of the High Court) Mr. Justice B.A. Khan. The Chairman of the
Commission. respondent no. 3 and one member, namely, respondent no. 4
did not participate in the viva voce test on the ground that one of the
candidates selected as per the result of written test, namely, respondent
no. 13 - Zaneb Shams is a daughter of respondent no. 3 and daughter-in-
B law of respondent no. 4. -

According to the petitioners in the written test they fared well and
therefore they were called for oral interview. According to them they also
fared well in the viva voce test but they were kept guessing as to the result
of this test. They came to know that concerned respondent nos. 6-18 and
C some others who had appeared at the test were given confidential infor-
mation to appear before Medical Board for medical test while no such
intimation was sent to the petitioners. That gave them a cause for ap-
prehension that they may have been illegally left out of selection for the
said posts and that is why the present petition is filed. The main prayers
_in the petition read as under :-
D
(a) Call for the records of the examination conducted by Respondent
No. 2 for scrutiny by this Hon'ble Court;

(b) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the viva voce test of the said examinatio11: as
E being invalid, arbitrary and against the principles of natural
justice and quashing the candidature of the respondents 10 &
13.

(c) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of
F Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to declare the
result of the -written test of the candidates and may give selections
on the basis of the written test alone and in the alternative to
conduct fresh viva voce test after removing defects in it and for
assessing the merits of the candidates objectively.
G (d) To issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction in the nature
of prohibition restraining the Respondents No. 1 & 2 and 5 from
issuing the appointment letters to the Selected Candidates whose
list has not been published as yet till the filing· of this Writ

H
Petition, but are required to undergo medical test vide Annexure-
11. -
f MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 915

A mere look at the prayers makes it clear that the attack of the A
petitioner is on the manner and method of conducting viva voce test and
result thereof. So far as the result of written test is concerned not only the
petitioners have no grievance against the same but they rely on the same.
Their main contention is that viva voce test was so manipulated that only
preferred candidates, by inflating their marks in the viva voce test, were
permitted to get in the select list. It may be mentioned at this stage, as
B
revealed from the record of this case, that the second respondent prepared
a select list of twenty successful candidates in the order of merit on the
basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by them in written as well as viva
voce test. The said merit list of candidates recommended by respondent
no. 2 for appointment as Munsiffs consists of two parts. The first part at c
annexure-C collectively deals with the general category candidates. Sixteen
such candidates have been included in the general category merit list while
there is also a waiting list of five such candidates. At annexure-C collec-
tively is also found merit list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
candidates who have been recommended for appointment as Munsiffs D
pursuant to aforesaid selection. Two candidates belonging to Scheduled
Caste and two candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe are found to have
been listed in reserved categorY. as seen from the said annexure. It thus
becomes clear that sixteen candidates from general category and two
candidates each from reserved categories of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe, in all twenty candidates are so recommended. E
After petitioners moved this petition, it was admitted to final hearing
and the stay of the appointments of concerned selected candidates was also
granted.

At the final hearing of this petition the learned senior counsel for the F
petitioners raised the following cvntentions in support of the petition.

(1) The impugned viva voce test conducted by the respondent no. 2,
Commission is patently illegal as there is nothing to show that the Members
who conducted the test had assig~ed separate marks faculty-wise for G
assessing the performance of the concerned candidates as per rule 10 of
the rules.

..l (2) The expert, namely, the sitting Judge of the High Court was
entitled to award only 60 marks for viva voce test while the remaining 80
marks were permitted to be given by other members of the Commission H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A and that affected the overall assessment of the candiates in the viva voce
test which as a whole comprised of 140 marks. )

(3) There is nothing to show that any tape-recording was done
regarding the questions put to candidates and the answers given by them
at the viva voce test and that has vitiated the said test.
B
(4) The petitioners fared very well in the written test as compared to
the selected candidates, respondents herein and still at the viva voce test
they were pushed down by assigning very low marks as compared to
contesting respondents and thus they were treated unfairly at the said viva
C voce test.
(5) The viva voce test was conducted in an unfair manner only with
a view to select candidates belonging to a particular community as the list
of candidates recommended shows. Therefore, the entire test is vitiated
"- being totally arbitrary and lopsided.
D (6) Respondent No. 10 and respondent no. 13 whose names were
included in the impugned list of recommended candidates were not eligible
to, be appointed as Munsiffs as they failed to satisfy the eligibility require-
ment of rule 9 of the rules in as much as they had not put in 2 years of
actual practice at the bar by the date on which be or she submitted his or
E her application for such recruitment and hence their names should be
eliminated from the merit list of open category candidates.

(7) In any case respondent no. 13 being daughter of the Chairman
of the Commission and daughter-in-law of another Member thereof was
given a special favourable treatment by unduly inflating her marks in the
F viva voce test so that any how she would get selected for the advertised
post and hence her selection is had in law.

(8) That preparation of the merit list of 16 candidates from general
category and 4 candidates from reserved category, in all 20 is in any case
G bad and violative of rule 41 of the rules as the vacancie's for which the
advertisement was issued by the Commisstion were only 11 and requisition
was sent by the Govt. for selection of suitable candidates through the
Commission for those vacancies.

The learned counsel for the contesting respondents comprising of
H selected candidates as well as the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] 917

Commission have resisted these contentions and have submitted that there A
was nothing wrong with the selection process so far as viva voce test was
i concerned and that the petition is devoid of merits and is required to be
dismissed.

It is now time for us to deal with the contentions canvassed by the
learned senior counsel in support of the petition. We shall deal with these B
contentions seriatim.

Contention No. 1
.. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient
fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candiates being C
concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks
obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview.
Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners
also appeared at the oral interview canducted by the concerned Members
of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the con- D
cerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get
themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not
find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined
performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed
this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated E
chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the
interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently
contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee
was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v.Akhilesh
Kumar Shukla and Ors., AIR (1986) SC 1043, it has been clearly laid down
by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner F
appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he
would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said
examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a
petitioner.

Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be sue- G
cessfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at
the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessul. It is
also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of
appeal and try to re-assess the relative merit of the concerned candidates
who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their
performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst
others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits ..
of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines
laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the
assessment on merits as made by such an expert· committee cannot be /
B brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper
or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are
certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such
an expert committee.

c there isInany
the light of the aforesaid settled legal position let us see whether "'
substance in the contentions canvassed before us by the learned
senior .counsel for unsuccessful candidates at .the oral interview.

So for as the first contention is concerned learned senior counsel for
petitioners submitted that rule 10 of the rules lays down that the examina- t-
D tion for selection of candidates shall consist of written examination as well
as viva voce test. So far as weitten examination is concerned it is not
challenged before us as noted earlier. So far as viva voce test is concerned ....
rule lO(l)(b) lays down as under :-

"The object of viva voce exaniination is to assess the candidates'
E
intelligence,. general knowledge, personality, aptitude and
suitability."

Lte learned senior counsel for petitioners submitted that when a candidate
is orally interviewed, the members of the committee should assign separate
F marks for the different faculties of the concerned candidate namely, intel-
ligence, general knowledge, etc. as laid down in the rule and that does not
appear to have been done by the interviewing committee and hence the
entire viva voce test is vitiated. In this connection, reliance was placed on
the decision of this Court in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan & Sobha Joseph v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., [1971) 1 SCC 38.
G
It is not possible to agree with this contention. So far as rule lO(l)(b)
is concerned it does not provide for any separate assessment of marks for f--
candidates at viva . voce examination faculty-wise, that is on intelligence,
general knowledge, etc. listed in the said rule. On the contrary; it appears
H that as per the said rule, while conducting viva voce examination the
-
• MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 919

Committee has to keep in view the main object of assessing such candidates A
in the light of the guidelines given therein. In other words, the Interviewing
committee has to keep in view the overall performance of the candidates
at the oral interview and while doing so their intelligence, general
knowledge, personality, aptitude and suitability have be to kept in the
centre. The rule merely lays down the object of assessing such candidates
in the viva voce examination. It is a general guideline given to the inter-
B
viewing committee members. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the
submission of the senior counsel for petitioners that the members of the
.. interview committee must separately assess and give marks on different
listed topics faculty-wise as per the said rule. So far as the decision of this
Court in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. is c
concerned it has to be kept in view that this Court was dealing with
admissions to M.B.B.S. course in the State of Tamil Nadu. The selection
committee was constituted for assessing the merits of the concerned ap-
plicants for such admissions at oral interview after written test. 75 marks
were assigned for oral interview. The selection committee was asked to
D
award these marks on the basis of following five tests :
~
1. Sports of National Cadet Corps activities;

2. Extra curricular special services;

3. General physical condition and endurance; E

4. General ability; and

5. Aptitude.
,.. Now it becomes at once clear that when 75 marks were to be assigned F
to a candidate called for oral interview on the basis of the aforesaid five
~ types of performances by the candidate, the assessment on first three tests
would depend upon documentary evidence regarding his career record
q which the candidates can furnish to the interview committee while the last
two tests will depend upon· his performance at the interview. In view of this
hybrid type of tests for which assessment was to be made ·at the oral
G
interview, 75 marks assigned for all these five tests necessarily had to be
""l split up and from the career record of the candidate, separate marks had
to be assigned for first three tests and that necessarily required separate
assessment of marks on the remaining tWo heads of tests. It is in the light
of this requirement of peculiar type of marking at the oral interview that H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A it has been observed in para 16 & 17 of the report that it was clearly illegal
to give marks in a lumpsum and that the committee had not divided the
·marks under various heads nor on the basis of item-wise. It is also to be
kept in view that while selecting a student for admission in M.B.B.S. course,
what is more important is his performance in the written test and even at
the oral interview his past record of performance has its own weight. A
B student while undertaking study is not required to perform any duty of a
public office. But in the case of recruitment to the posts of Munsiffs he is
required to work at the grass-root level of State Judiciary. For candidates
aspirkg to be appointed in such a judicial office, apart from the written
test, his overall performance at oral interview is more important and
C consequently split up of the marks on various sub-heads at oral interview
of such a candidate may not be strictly necessary unless the concerned rule
regulating such a viva voce test expressly provides to that effect. As we have
seen earlier rule lO(l)(b) does not so prescribe and hence it was open to
the members of the committee to make an overall assessment of the
interviewed candidates keeping in view the various factors for such assess-
D ment as laid down by the said rule. That is precisely what has been done
in the present case as sated by Dr. Girija Dhar a member of the interview .,
committee in para 3 of her affidavit in reply. It is stated by her that the r.,,
l
only considerations which the Members of the Interview Board had during
the viva voice test were to judge the candidates on the basis of their
intelligence, general knowledge, personality, aptitude and suitability as
E required by rule lO(l)(b) of the recruitment rules, that all the question
directed at the viva voce test to the candidates were with this object in view
and the assessment had been made of the candidates at the viva voce test
accordingly. As a matter of fact, the particulars furnished by the candidates
in their applications in pursuance of the advertisement only had been I
r
~
F placed before the Members of the ·Interview Board. The results of the
candidates atthe written examination -were not placed before the Members
of the Interview Board. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned senior
counsel for petitioners to disbelieve this version. No bias is also alleged
against her or any other member who made the selection. It cannot
r
therefore be said that rule lO(l)(b) was violated by the interview committee
G while conducting viva voce test. It may also be mentioned at the stage that )
decision of this Court in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu
and Ors., (supra) (1971) 1 SCC 38 was later considered by this Court in the
case of Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159. In Lila Dhar's
case this CCll.lrt distinguising the ratio in Peeriakaruppan's case (supra)
observed as under :-
H
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) 921

"It is true that in Periakaruppan case ((AIR) 1971 SC 2303) the A
Court held that the non-allocation of marks under various heads
in the interview test was iliegal but that was because the instruc-
tions to the Selection Committee provided that marks were to be
awarded at the interview on the basis of five distinct tests. It was
thought that the failure to allocate marks under each head or
B
distinct test was an illegality. But in the case before us, the rule
merely and generally indicates the criteria to be considered in the
interview test without dividing the interview test into distinct, if we
may so call them, sub-tests ................."

The aforesaid decision in Lila Dhar's case was approved by a Constitution C
Bench of this Court speaking through Bhagwati, J. as he then was in Ashok
Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1985] 4 SCC 417. This aspect was also
considered later by a Division Bench of this Court speaking through
Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. U.P. Higher Education
Services Commission, A/lhabad & Ors., AIR (1986) SC 597. An ide1;tical D
contention concerning viva voce test conducted by the interview board
which had not sub-divided the total marks into sub-heads was rejected in
that case. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Division Bench observed
that interview board was not under any obligation to sub-divide the marks
under various heads. The Court noted that the basis of selection in that
case was to assess the candidates academic attainnients, technical ex- E
perience, administrative experience and suitability for the post of Principal.
In the light of that rule it was held by this Court in the aforesaid decision
that the interview board was not under any obligation to sub-divide the
marks under various heads. Almost an identical position obtains in the
·- present case. Consequently, it must be held that there was no obligation
for the members of the Commission to give separate marks under various
p

heads faculty-wise as mentioned in rule lO(l)(b). The first contention
therefore fails and is rejected.

Contention No. 2.
G
So far as contenction no. 2 is concerned it is difficult to appreciate
how it can be urged that expert was allotted only 60 marks for assessment
while the remaining assessment was done by the other members. There is
no factual basis on the record of this case for supporting this contention.
On the other hand, the averments made by Dr. Girija Dhar in the reply H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A affidavit clearly shows that all the members of the interview committee
participated in the process of selection.of candidates at the oral interview t-
keeping in view the requirement of rule lO(l)(b). The second contentio~
therefore also, being devoid of any factual basis, stands rejected.

Contention No. 3
B
It is difficult to appreciate this contention. Rule lO(l)(b) to which
we made reference earlier nowhere provides that tape-recording should be
kept of questions put by the members of the committee and the answers .....
given by the concerned candidates at the oral interview and that in the
c absence of such tape-recording the interview process would fail. The
learned senior counsel for the petitioners in this connection invited our
attention to a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ajay
Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., [1981) 1 SCC 722. That
~
was a case in which the Constitution Bench dealt with the claim of
D petitioners for admission in B.E. course. The candidates had appeared in i
written test and then they were called for oral interview. Rejecting the
'r
contention of the petitoners that the oral test was defective, it was observed _.,,
that oral interview is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing
and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence
of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral·
E interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or
!£relevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is
influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. However,
in the matter of admission .to college or even in the matter of public
employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied
F upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to .only as an additional
or supplementary test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that
--
persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of
high integrity, calibre and qualification. It is to be kept in view that
Bhagwati, J. as he then was, speaking for the Court in that case ultimately
dismissed the petitions subject to certain general observations and direc~
G tions. So far as tape-recording is concerned, as one of the contentions of
the peritioners was that the oral interview was held in an arbitrary and slip
sort manner, an observation was made in para 20 of the report to the affect ·..i..:.
that it would also be desirable if the interview of the candidates is tape-
recorded, for in that event there will be contemporaneous evidence to show
H what were the questions asked to the candidates by the interviewing
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 923

committee and what were the answers given and that will eliminate a lot A
of unnecessary controversy ·besides acting as a check on the possible
arbitrariness of the interviewing committee. These observations cannot be
read to mean that in the absence of tape-recording of questions and
answeres the interview process would fail or the result of the interview
would get vitiated. In the very writ petitions decided by the Constitution
Bench, even though there was no tape-recording of questions and answers,
B
interview test was upheld. It appears that the aforesaid observation only
suggests a better method for insulating oral interviews against possible
future attacks of arbitrariness and nothing more. Consequently, it cannot
be said that merely because there is nothing on the record to show that
any tape-recording of questions and answers at the interview was done, the c
viva voce test should on that score fail. Therefore, this contention also
stands rejected.

Contentuion No. 4
D
In the light of what is stated above, while dealing with contention no.
1, this contention also must fail. The petitioners subjectively feel that as
they had fared better in the written test and had got more marks therein
as compared to concerned selected respondents, they should have been
given more marks also at the oral interview, But that is in the realm of
assessment of relative merits of concerned candidates by the expert com- E
mittee before whom these candidates appeared for the viva voce test.
Merely on the basis of petitioners' apprehension or suspicion that they
were deliberately given kss mark~ at the oral interview as compared to the
rival candidates, it cannot be said that the process of assessment was
vitiated. This contention is in the realm of mere suspicion having no factual F
basis. It has to be kept in view that there is not even a whisper in the
petition about any personal bias of the members of the interview committee
against the petitioners. They· have also not alleged any ma/a [ides on the
part of the interview committee in this connection. Consequently, the
attack on assessment of the merits of the petitioners cannot be coun-
tenanced. It remains in the exclusive domain of the expert committee to G
decide whether more marks should be assigned to the petitioners or to the
concerned respondents. It cannot be the subject matter of an attack before
us as we are not sitting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by
the committee so far as the candidates interviewed by them are concerned.
In the light of the affidavit in reply filed by Dr. Girija Dhar to which we H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A have made reference earlier, it cannot be said that the expert eommittee
had given a deliberate unfavourable treatment to the petitioners .. Conse-
quently, this contendion also is found to be devoid of any merit and is
rejected.

Contention No. 5
B
This contention is equally devoid of any merit. The submission of the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that a mare look at annexure-C.
will show that the merit list of open category candidates recommended for
appointment comprises of majoirity of candidates belonging to one com-
C munity only and therefore the committee has shown special liking for such
candidates who are preferred by inflating their marks in the oral interview.
To say the least, it is a mere conjecture on the part of the petitioners. The
very first candidate in the order of merits is roll no. 100 who does not
belong to the other community. He is one Sh. Vinod Chatterji. Similarly,
there are also other candidates in the said merit list of 16 candidates who
D do not belong to the other community. Once the interview process is found
to be proper and justified and not being vitiated by any mala fides, the
result of the viva voce test may project a picture in which more candidates
from one community may get selected on merits but that is neither here
nor there. The validity of viva voce test cannot be judged simply on the
E basis of the result thereof unless there is anything to show that the entire
selection process was vitiated on account of mtila fides or bias or that the
interview committee members had acted with an ulterior motive from the
very beginning and the whole selection process was a camouflage. No such
allegations have been made by the petitioners against the selectors who sat
in the interview committee. Consequently even this contention is found to.
F be devoid of any factual basis and stands rejected.
Contention No. 6

So far as this contention is concerned the submission of learned
senior counsel for the petitioners is that as per rule 9 of the rules a
G candidate for recruitment to the service must have put in at least two years
actual practice at the bar by the date on which he submits his application
for such recruitment and must produce a certificate to this effect from the ,,.,.,_
District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he has practiced
at the Bar. It is submitted that neither respondent no. 10 nor respondent
, H no. 13 had put in two years of actual practice at the bar. This contention
MADANLALv. STATEOFJ.ANDK. [S.B.MAJMUDAR,J.] 925

is sought to be repelled by the respondents. They submitted that the A
1 District Judge of Jammu has issued requisite certificates to both these
candidates showing that they had put in at least 2 years of actual practice
at the bar. It may be noted that learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that so far as the certificate issued by District Judge to respon-
dent no. 10 is concerned he had nothing more to say but according to him,
there is nothing on record to show that such a certificate was available to
B
respondent no. 13. During the course of arguments learned counsel for
respondents showed to us a certificate issued to respondent no. 13 by the
.r District Judge, Jammu. That was shown to the learned counsel for the
petitioners who thereafter did not pursue this objection further. However,
he submitted that according to him this certificate may not be correct as c
atleast respondent no. 13·was stationed in Leh where her husband was a
police officer. This contention is controverted by the respondents. Even
apart from that the rule requires production of certificate by District Judge
within whose local limits of jurisdiction the concerned advocate should
have practiced at the bar. The Commission would be justified in not going D
behind the certificate issued by the concerned District Judge and in not
holding any further enquiry into the extent of actual practice put in by such
candidate at the bar for being permitted to appear at the written and viva
voce test. As both these candidates are armed with certificates which
clearly indicate that before 28th December'92, being the last date for
submitting applications by concerned candidates for such recruitment, E
these candidates had completed atleast 2 years of actual practice at the bar
as certified by their District Judge, it cannot be urged with any emphasis
that still they are not eligible to complete for the said posts.

.... It was next vehemently contended by the petitioners that actual F
practice would mean that the concerned candidates should have appeared
before courts and conducted cases during these two-years. It is difficult to
accept this contention. A member of the bar can be said to be in actual
practice for 2 years and more if he is enrolled as an Advocate by the
concerned Bar Council since 2 years and more and has attended law courts
during that period. Once the Presiding Officer of the District Court has G
given him such a certificate, it cannot be said that only because as an
advocate he has put in less number of appearances in courts and has kept
himself busy while attending the courts regularly by being in the law library
or in the bar room, he is not a member of the profession or is not in actual
practice for that period. The words 'actual practice' as employed in rule 9 H
\
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A indicate that the concerned advocate must be whole ~me available as a
professional attached to the concerned court and must not be pursuing any
other full time avocation. To insist that the terins 'actual practice' should
t
mean continuous appearances in the court would amount to re-writing the ·
rule when such is not the requirement of the rule. There is Iio substance
B even in this additional aspect of the matter canvassed by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners. It must therefore be held that respondent no.
10 & 13 were eligible for competing for the said posts of Munsiffs.

Contention No. 7

C It is difficult to appreciate how only because respondent no. 13 was
the daughter of the Chairman and daughter· in-law of another Member of
the Commission, both of whom disassociated themselves from the selection
process as she was competing, can be said to be disqualified from being
considered for selection only on the ground of her relationship with the
D concerned Members of the Commission. The learned senior counsel for
the petitioners fairly submitted that relatives of Members simpliciter are
not disqualified but his contention was that other Members of the Com-
mission are also bureaucrats and would be having liking and soft corner
for each other. They may therefore try to push up the relative of the
Chairman by inflating her marks at the oral test. Such a contention, to say
E the least, is totally outside the scope of the present proceedings. As we
have noted earlier, it iS not alleged by the petitioners that the Members
of the Interview Committee were biased either against the petitioners or in
favour of any given candidate. In the. absence of such pleading of bias and
ma/a fides such a hypothetical contention, only based on the result of the
p oral interview cannot be sustained. It is also to be kept in view that there
is one salient feature of the case which cmitra~indicates this contention. As
noted earlier there were 11 vacancies of Munsiffs for which the selection
---
process was started by the Commission as recommended by the State of
Jammu and Kashmir. So far as respondent No. 13 is concerned her rank
on merits of open category candidates is at sl. no. 14, in the light of the·
G marks obtained by her. There are 13 candidates above her who have got
more marks. Therefore, if 11 vacancies were to be filled in, respondent no.
13 would be left out. If what the petitioners contended was t~ue and if the ......
Members of the Commission were interested in seeing that anyhow she
walks in and for that purpose they were to inflate her mark5, they would
H have resorted to inflating her marks to such an extent that she would clearly.
MADANLALv. STAIBOFJ.ANDK. [S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.) 927

walk in the list of first 11 selected candidates. Consequently there is no A
substance in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. In this
i
connection, we may also profitably recapitulate what is stated in para 2 of
the affidavit in reply of Dr. Girija Dhar. She has clearly stated that as a
matter of fact the particulars furnished by the candidates in their applica-_
tions in pursuance of the advertisement only had been placed before the B
Members of the Interview Board. The results of the candidates at the
written examination were not placed before the Members of the Interview
Board. These averments could not be successfully challenged by .the
learned cousel for the petitioners. Consequently, it must be held that the
Members of the Interview Committee were not knowing as to what marks
were obtained by the candidates at the written test. Therefore, there would C
be no occasion for them to manipulate the marks of any candidate at the
oral interview so as to bring them in the light of the marks obtained by him
in the written test to a total which would make him eligible to be included
in the select list of first 11 candidates as there were only 11 clear vacancies.
Consequently, there is no substance even in this grievance of the D
petitioners.

Contention No. 8

This takes us to the last contention. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that as per the requisition forwarded by the State of E
Jammu and Kashmir through the Secretary to the Law Department, the
second respondent was required to hold the selection process for recruiting
candidates from open market for filling up 11 vacancies. The said letter of
the Secretary to the Government, Law Department is at annexure-A to the
petition. It reads as under : -
F
"GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR CIVIL
SECTT. : LAW DEPARTMENT

To

The Secretary, G
J & K State Public Service Commission,
. -'<.
Srinagar

No. LD(A) 92ns Dated : 22.7.1992

Subject : Selection of candidates for appointment as Munsiffs in H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995J 1 S.C.R.

A the Judicial Department.
t
Sir,

I am directed to say that the Public Service Commission may
kindly start a process in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir
B Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 for selection of
candidates for appointment as Munsiffs in the K.C.S. (Judicial)
Service. However, considering the fact that only 11 vacancies are
presently available, only a select list of twently candidates inclusive
of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates as per their
reservation quota may kindly be prepared and furnished to the
c Government. No waiting list of candidates is required.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- - ---
G.A. Lone,
D
Secretary to Government
Law Department"

A mere look at the letter shows that the Government requested the
Commission .to hold selection for filling up 11 clear vacancies only. The
E letter nowhere showed that more vacanci~s were likely to arise in future
and selection may be held also for such anticipated vacancies. It is true
-that the letter mentioned that a select list of 20 candidates may be prepared
and furnished to the Government but these 9 additional candidates would
serve as waiting list candidates from which eligible candidates can be drawn
F in order of merits if any of the first 11 candidates selected did not join or
for any reason could not join. That is the precise reason why no separate
list of waiting list candidates was directed to be prepared. Learned senior
counsel for the petitioners was right when he submitted that the recruit-
ment process in the present case was only for filling up 11 existing clear
vacancies of Munsiffs. It is not possible to agree with the respondents that
G this requisition also took note of anticipated vacancies during the course
of one year and therefore it can be said to be a requisition for recruiting
20 candidates on clear and anticipated vacancies. If that was so, the
contents of the letter would have-been -different: We agree with the learned
counsel for the respondents that while sending the requisition for re"cruit-
H ment to posts the Government can keep in view not only actual vacancies
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. (S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 929

then existing but also anticipated vacancies during one more year or for a A
given period of time and in that ~ase the requisition would cover actual
vacancies and anticipated ones. But on the clear wordings of the aforesaid
letter, it is not possible to agree with this submission. It must be held that
the requisition in the present case by the Government was for holding
selection tests by the Commission for filling up 11 clear vacancies and
nothing more. No anticipated vacancies were contemplated to be filled in.
B
The process of recruitment was got initiated by the State through the
Commission, for only eleven clear vacancies.

It is no doubt true that even if requisition is made by the Government
for 11 posts the Public Service Commission may send merit list of suitable c
candidates which may exceed 11. That by itself may not be bad but at the
time of giving actual appointments the merit list has to be so operated that
only 11 vacancies are filled up, because the requisition being for 11
vacancies, the consequent advertisement and recruitment could also be for
11 vacancies and no more. It is easy to visualise that if requisition is for 11 D
vacancies and that results· in the initiation of recruitment process by way
of advertisement, whether the advertisement mentions filling up of 11
vacancies or not, the prospective candidates can easily find out from the
·Office of the Commission that the requisition for the proposed recruitment
is for filling up 11 vacancies. In such a case a given candidate may not like
to compete for diverse reasons but if requisition is for larger number of E
vacancies for which recruitment is initiated, he may like to compete.
Consequently the actual appointments to the posts have to be confined to
the posts for recruitment to which requisition is sent by the Government.
In such an eventuality, candidates in excess of 11 who are lower in the merit
list of candidates .:an only be treated as wait listed candidat~s in order of
merit to fill only the eleven vacancies for which recruitment has been made,
F
in the event of any higher candidate not being available to fill the 11
vacancies, for any reason. Once the 11 vacancies are filled by candidates
taken in order of merit from the select list will get exhausted, having served
its purpose.
G
It is now time to refer to rule 41 as pointed out by the learned counsel
for the petitioners. The said rule reads as under :-

"Security of the list. - The list and the waiting list of the selected
candidates shall remain in operation for a period of one year from H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995} 1 S.C.R.

A the date of its publication in the Government Gazette or till it is
exhausted by appointment of the candidates whichever· is earlier,
provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the list and the
waiting list prepared as a restilt of the examination held in 1981
which will remain in operation till the list or the. waiting list is
exhausted."
B
A mere look at the rule shows that pursuant to the requisition to be
forwarded by the Government to the Commission for intiating the recruit-
ment process, if the Commission has prepared merit list and waiting list of
selected candidates such list will have a life of one year from the ·date of
C publication in Government Gazette or till it is exhausted by the appoint-
ment of candidates, whichever is earlier. This means that if requisition is
for filling up of 11 vacancies and it does not include any anticipated
vacancies, .the recruitment to be initiated by the Commission could be for
selecting 11 suitable candidates. The Commission may by abundant caution
D prepare a merit list of 20 or even 30 candidates as per their inter se ranking
on merits. But such a merit list will have a maximum life of one year from
the date of publication or till all the required appointments are made
whichever event happened earlier. It means that if requisition for recruit-
ment is· for 11 vacancies and the merit list prepared is for 20 candidates,
the moment 11 vacancies are filled in from the merit li~t the list gets
E exhausted, or if during the span of one year from the date of publication
of such list all the 11 vacancies are not filled in, the moment the year is
• over the list gets exhausted. In either event, thereafter, if further vacancies
are to be filled in or remaining vacancies are to be filled in, after one year,
/a fresh process of recruitinent is to be initiated giving a fresh opportunity
F to all the open market candidates to compete. This is the thrust of rule 41.
...:.·
It is in consonance with the settled legal position as we will presently see. •
We cannot agree with the learned counsel for respondents that during the
period cif one year even if all the · 11 vacancies are filled in for which
requisition is initiated by the State in the present case and if some more
vancancies arise during one year, the present 1ist can still be operated upon
G because the Commission has sent the list of 20 selected candidates. As
discussed above, the candidates standing at serial nos. 12 to 20 in the list
can be considered only iri case within one year of its publication, all the 11 .
vacancies do not get filled up for any reason. In such a case only this
additional list of selected candidates would. serve as a reservoir from which
H meritorious suitable candidates can be drawn in order of merit to fill up
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF J. AND K. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 931

the remaining requisitioned and advertised vacancies, out of the total 11 A

,.. vacancies. If that cannot be done for any reason within one year of the
publication of the list, even this reservoir will dry up and the entire list will
1

.. get exhausted. We asked learned counsel for respondents State to point
out whether after the letter at page 87, there was any further communica-
tion by the State to the Commission to initiate process for recruitment to
additional anticipated vacancies. He fairly stated that no further request
B
was sent. That letter at page 87 is the only material for this purpose since
that is the basis for the recuitment made by the Commission in the present
case. In this connection, we may usefully refer to a decision of this Court
C>fJ in the case of State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh & Ors., AIR (1994) SC
765. In that case appointments to the posts of Additional District and c
Sessions Judges were being questioned. The question was whether appoint-
ments could be made to more than 32 posts when the selection process
was initiated for filling up 32 vacancies and whether the merit list of larger
number of candidates would remain in operation after 32 vacancies were
"" filled in. Negativing the contention that such merit list for larger number
D
of candidates could remain in operation after 32 advertised vacancies were
filled in, K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. made the following pertinent observa-
tions :-

"Where the particular advertisement and the coQsequent selection
process were meant only to fill up 32 vacancies and not to fill up E
the other vacanices, the merit list of 129 candidates prepared in
the ratio of 1:4 on the basis of the written test as well as viva voce
will hold good only for the purpose of filling up those 32 vacancies
and no further because said process of selection for those 32
vacancies got exhausted and came to an end. If the same list has
F
~- to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other vacancies
also that would naturally amount to deprivatidn of rights of other
candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said
advertisement and selection process."

Reliance placed by the learner counsel for respondents in the case of Asha G
Kaul (Mrs.) and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., [1993] 2

-· SCC 573, is of no avail. In that case the very same J ammu and Kashmir
Gover.nment had sent a requisition to .the Public Service Commission to
select 20 candidates for the posts of Munsiffs in accordance with the High
Court requirement. Therefore, the Commission advertised for recruitment H
•
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R. .

A to the said posts and held written test and oral interview. The Commission
having selected 20 candidates· in the order ·of merits and also having ·
· prepared a waiting list of candidates, the State of J ammu and Kashmir did
not appoint even selected 20 candidates on these advertised posts. The
High Court rejected the writ petition praying for a suitable writ of man-
damus to the State to fill up the remaining vacancies out of 20 for which
B recruitment was made. The petitioners approached this court in appeal by
way of special leave. This court speaking through Jeevan Reddy, J. took
the view that though inclusion in the select list does not confer ·any
indefeasible right to appointment, there was an obligation for the Govern-
ment to fill up all the posts for which requisition and advertisement were
C given. However 011 the peculiar facts of the case, the court did not think it
fit to interfere. This court in para 10 of the report clearly observed that by
merely approving the list of 20 there was no obligation on the Government
to appoint them forthwith. The appointment depends upon the availability
of the vacancies. The list remains valid for one year from the date of its
D approval and date of publication and if within such one year any of the
candidates therein is not appointed, the list lapses and a fresh list has to
be prepared. Though a number of complaints had been received by the
Govt. about the selection process, if the Government wanted to disapprove
or reject the list, it ought to have done so within a reasonable time of the
receipt of the select list and for reasons to be recorded. Not having dcne
E that and having approved the list partly (13 out of 20 names), they cannot
put forward any ground for not approving the remaining list. It is difficult
to appreciate how this judgment can be of any avail to the respondents. In
the case aforesaid before this court there was a clear requisition and
recruitment for 20 posts. The State had however chosen to appoint only 13
F out of 20. The list had a life of one year till all the 20 posts were filled up.
This was in consonance with rule 41. In the present case the facts are
different. The requisition is not for 20 vacancies as in Asha Kaul's case but
for 11 posts. There is no requisition to fill up any anticipated more
vacancies. Once the list is approved enen though it may contain names of
20 candidates, the list in the present case will get exhausted once 11
G vacancies for which advertisement had been issued and recruitment is
made are filled up.

At this stage we may profitably refer to one more decision of this
court in Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1993] Supp. 4 SCC
H 377. In that case the requisition for recruitment as sent by the Director
MADANLALv. STATEOFJ.ANDK. [S.B.MAJMUDAR,J.] 933

General of Police to the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board A
was for appointment of 8 posts of Inspector of Police. The Board howC;ver
sent the list of 19 selected candidates, out of them 18 persons were given
appointments. The appointments on posts beyond the 8 posts for which
requisition was made by the Director General of Police were brought in
challenge before the High Court. The High Court accepted the challenge B
and held that appointments beyond 8 posts were illegal. This Court while
upholding the decision of High Court speaking through Agrawal, J. ob-
served in para 10 of the report as under :-

"The learned counsel for these appellants have not been able to
show that after the revised requisition dated January 24, 1991
c
whereby the Board was requested to send its recommendation for
8 posts, any further requisition was sent by the Director General
of Po!ice for a larger number of µosts. Since the requisition was
for eight posts of Inspector of Police, the Board was required to
send its recommendations for eight posts only. The Board, on its D
own, could not recommend names of 19 persons for appointment
even though the requisition was for eight posts only because the
selection and recommendation of larger number of persons than
the posts for which requisition is sent. The appointment on the
additional posts on the basis of such selection and recommendation E
would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment
to the posts on the last date for submission of applications men-
tioned in the advertisement and who became eligible for appoint-
ment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for
appointment on the additional posts because if the said additional
posts are advertised subsequently those who become eligible for F
appointment would be entitled to apply for the same. The High
Court was, therefore, right in holding that the selection of 19
persons by the Board even though the requisition was for 8 posts
only, was not legally sustainable."
G
In the present case as the requistion is for 11 posts and even though the
..... Commission might have sent list of 20 selected candidates, appointments
to be effected out of the said list would be on 11 posts and not beyond 11
posts, as discussed by us earlier. This contention will stand accepted to the
extent indicated hereinabove. H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995} 1 S.C.R.

A As per annexure-C so far as open category candidates are concerned,
they are shown in the order of merits upto sl. no. 16. There are also 2
Scheduled Castes and 2 Scheduled Tribes candidates in all making 20. The
extent of selected Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates on
reservation quota works out to be 115 of the total 20 selected candidates.
B If this list has to operate, as we have held, only till 1l vacancies are filled
up, then on the ratio of 115 of the total vacancies to be filled up, the posts
to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes out of total 11
posts could be one each for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe can-
didates, as 1/5 of 11 would be 2.5 which would yield either 2 reserved
candidates or maxmimum 3 candidates but as maximum 3 candidates may
C tilt the inter se balance between the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, if either of these two categories is given 2 posts out of 3, interest
of justice would be served if we direct the respondents to reserve 2 posts
in all out of 11 for being filled up by 1 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe candidate each, in the order of inter se merits of Scheduled Caste
D and Scheduled Tribe selected candidates as mentioned in the list at an-
nexure-C. The remaining 9 posts will be available to general category
candidates as listed in order of merits in the list at annexure-C. The,
moment these 11 posts are filled ur within 1 year of the publication of list
at annexure-C this list will get exhausted or if for any reason these 11
vacancies could not be filled up by the time one year from the date of
E publication of the list is over, even then the list would get exhausted and
fresh rec1 uitment will have to. be made in the light of fresh requisition from
the State. For computing one year's currency of impugned select list as per
rule 41, the period during which appointments were stayed during penden-
cy of these proceedings would naturally get excluded. The contention no.
F 8 therefore will stand accepted to the aforesaid extent. In the result this
writ petition fails subj(!ct only to the directions issued by us to the State
Govt. while accepting conte?tion no. 8 as aforesaid. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

R.A. Petition dismissed.

,'