Supreme Court of India
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & OTHERSversusD. SUNDARA RAJU
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 246
- Decided
- 30 March 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
Allocating 50% of the total marks to a personal interview for promotion under the ICAR Career Advancement Scheme is excessive, arbitrary and contrary to the Scheme, rendering the selection process invalid.
Summary
The respondent, a Senior Scientist, was assessed for promotion to Principal Scientist under ICAR's Career Advancement Scheme. The Selection Committee allocated 50% of the total marks to a personal interview, a method not disclosed to the candidate, and he scored only 49 marks, failing to meet the 60‑mark threshold. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the promotion decision, deeming the interview weightage arbitrary, but the Karnataka High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order, holding that the Scheme did not sanction such an interview. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Scheme’s norms must be followed, that assigning 50% of marks to an interview is excessive and contrary to established case law, and that the selection process was therefore arbitrary. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
Issues considered
- The validity of allocating 50% of total marks to a personal interview under the ICAR Career Advancement Scheme.
- Whether the interview procedure was disclosed to the candidate and thus complied with principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Selection Committee had authority to determine the weightage of interview marks for promotion.
- Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Tribunal’s order in view of the Scheme’s provisions.
Subjects
PromotionCareer Advancement SchemeICARSelection CommitteeInterview marksArbitrarinessService lawAdministrative lawMerit-based promotion
Judgment
--
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 95
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL FOR A
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & OTHERS
v.
D. SUNDARA RAJU
(Civil Appeal No. 2714 of 2005)
B
MARCH 30, 2011
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
SERVICE LAW:
c
Career Advancement Scheme (formulated by Indian
Council for Agricultural Research):
Para 2.4 - Agricultural Research Services - Senior
Scientist - Promotion as Principal Scientist - Selection
Committee prescribing 50 marks for viva voce out of total 100 D
marks - Officer securing total 49 marks not found fit - CAT
quashed the order and directed consideration of officer for
promotion - High Court held that Career Advancement
Scheme did not sanction the procedure adopted by the
Selection Committee - Held: Promotion to the post of E
Principal Scientist pertains to the "Career Advancement
Scheme» - Norms, Rules and Guidelines which are
employed while granting benefit of Career Advancement
Scheme ought to be applied in the instant case - Allocation
of 50% marks for interview was unjustified, particularly when F
the officer was not even disclosed that interview would also
be held to evaluate suitability of the candidate - The
procedure adopted by Selection Committee for evaluating the
officer was totally arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal
·position - No interference with the judgment of High Court G
called for.
The respondent, a Senior Scientist in the Agricultural
Research Services Cadre, was called upon to present
95 H
--
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 4 S.C.R.
A himself for assessment and interview for his promotion
as Principal Scientist in terms of the Career Advancement
Scheme. The respondent appeared before the Selection
Committee, but he was found unfit as he secured only 49
marks out of 100 marks, the minimum qualifying marks
B being 60. The respondent filed an O.A before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the order of the
appellant-authorities and directed them to consider the
case of the respondent for promotion. The writ petition
filed by the authorities was dismissed by the High Court
c holding that Career Advancement Scheme did not
sanction the procedure which was adopted by the
Selection Committee. Aggrieved, the authorities filed the
appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1 No interference with the judgment of the
High Court is called for the following reasons:
(A) Promotion to the post of Principal Scientist
E pertains to the "Career Advancement Scheme". Norms,
Rules and Guidelines which are employed while granting
the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme ought to be
applied in the instant case.
(B) It is amply clear that the quinquennial assessment
F scheme for the ICAR/ARS Policies and Rules were: (a) for
providing opportunities for the career advancement,
irrespective of the occurrence of vacancies, through a
system of assessment should lead to each scientist
competing with his or her rather than with colleagues and
G to the acceptance of the principle that "all the rights
accrue from a duty well done"; (b) to enable scientists to
get the highest salary possible, within the system while
remaining rooted to work in their respective discipline/
field, thereby eliminating both the undue importance
H attached in the past to research management policy and
--
DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 97
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU
the request for such positions purely for the A
advancement of salary; and (c) to link rights and
responsibilities and instill through the five-year
assessment system the conviction that dedicated and
efficient discharge of responsibilities alone would be the
means of securing professional advancement (para 45· B
46] [114-G-H; 15-A-G]
1.2 The procedure evolved by the Selection
Committee for evaluating the respondent was totally
arbitrary and allocation of 50% marks for the interview C
was highly excessive and contrary to the settled legal
position crystallized from a series of the judgment of this
Court. The respondent was not disclosed by the
appellant either that the interview would be held for
evaluating personal or intellectual qualities that attribute
a Scientist and that it shall carry 50% of the total marks. D
This is uncontroverted position. Had the appellants
disclosed the method of evaluation the respondent may
have challenged the same before participating in the
selection process. The appellants themselves have found
50% marks for interview highly excessive, therefore, now E
the criterion has been changed from 50% to 10%. In this
view of the matter, no fault can be found with the
impugned judgment. [para 47,48 and 50-51] [115-G-H; 111!
A·F]
F
K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Others 2009 (5)
=
SCR 89 2009 (5) SCC 515; and Kiran Gupta and Others
v. State of U.P. and Others (2000) 7 sec 719 - held
inapplicable.
Ashok Kumar Yadav & Others v. State of Haryana & G
=
Others 1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 657 1985 (4) SCC 417; Ajay
Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others
1981 (2) SCR 79 = 1981 (1) SCC 722; Minor A.
Peeriakaruppan v. Sobha Joseph 1971 (2) SCR 430 = 1971
(1) SCC 38, Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Others 1982 H
--
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A (1) SCR 320 =1981 (4) SCC 159, Nishi Maghu & Others v.
State of J&K & Others 1980 (3) SCR 1253 =1980 (4) SCC
95, Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Others 1990 (3)
Suppl. SCR 108 =1991 (1) SCC 662, P. Mohanan Pillai v.
State of Kera/a & Others 2007 (3) SCR 53 = 2007 (9)
B SCC 497; Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and Another v.
State of Karnataka 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 493 = 1992 (1) SCC
28 - relied on.
R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and Others
=
1964 AIR 1823 1964 SCR 368, Mehmood Alam Tariq v.
=
C State of Rajasthan 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 379 1988 (3) SCC
241- referred to.
Dr. S.M. //yas and Others v. Indian Council of Agricultural
=
Research and Others 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 438 1993 (1)
D sec 182. - cited.
Case Law Reference:
1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 493 relied on para 12
E 2009 (5) SCR 89 held inapplicable para 22
(2000) 1 sec 119 held inapplicable para 23
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 438 cited para 30
1985 (1) Suppl. SCR 657 relied on para 32
F
1982 (1) SCR 320 relied on, para 33
1981 (2) SCR 79 relied on para 35
1971 (2) SCR 430 relied on para 36
G 1964 SCR 368 referred to Para 38
1980 (3) SCR 1253 relied on para 40
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 379 referred to para 41
H 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 108 relied on para 43
--
DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 99
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU
2007 (3) SCR 53 relied on para 44 A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2714 of 2005.
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.6.2004 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WP No. 19516 of 2004. B
Kush Chaturvedi, Perna Priyadarshni, Rohit Bhat (for
Vikas Mehta) for the Appellants.
Manu Mridul, Anant K. Vatsya (for Surya Kant) for the C
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. _This appeal emanates from
the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court D
of Karnataka at Bangalore delivered in Writ Petition No. 19516
of 2004.
2. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal
are recapitulated as under:
E
3. The controversy in this appeal pertains to the promotion
to the post of Principal Scientist under the "Career
Advancement Scheme" formulated by the Indian Council for
Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as 'ICAR'). There
are two streams from which selections are made to the post F
of Principal Scientist: (i) Direct recruitment; and (ii) Promotion
from the post of Senior Scientist on the basis of personal merit.
4. The ICAR had formulated the "Career Advancement
Scheme" in consultation with the Department of Personnel &
Training and Ministry of Finance, Government of India laying G
; down guidelines for promotion of a Scientist from one grade
to another in the Agricultural Res·earch Services (ARS) cadre,
which were made effective from 27.7.1998. The promotion of
scientist to the next higher grade. (Principal Scientist) is
H
--
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 4 S.C.R.
A independent of the occurrence of vacancies and is based only
when the applicant secures the requisite merit.
5. The procedure for promotion to the post of Principal
Scientist is contained in Para 2.4 of the Career Advancement
Scheme. The relevant rule is set out as under:
8
"In addition to the sanctioned posts of Principal Scientists
as per cadre strength already fixed, which is to be filled
through direct recruitment through All India advertisement,
promotions will be made from posts of Senior Scientist to
C the posts of Principal Scientists after 8 years of service
as Senior Scientist. This promotion will be personal to the
Scientist who is promoted.
A senior Scientist will be promoted to the post of
0 Principal Scientist if he/she:
i. has completed 8 years of service; and
ii. he/she presents himself/herself before the Selection
Committee constituted by ASRB with some of the
E following:
(a) Self appraisal reports (required).
(b) Research contribution/books/ articles/
research papers published.
F
(c) Any other academic contributions. The best
three written contributions of the Sr. Scientist
(as defined by him/her) may be sent in
advance to the experts to review before
G coming for the selection. The candidate
should be asked to submit these in 3 sets
with the application .
.
(d) Seminars/conferences attended.
H (e) Contribution to teaching/academic
--
DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 101
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
environment/institutional corporate life. A
· (f) Extensions and filed outreach activities."
6. A·Selection Committee was constituted under the
Career Advancement Scheme for considering eligibility of
applicants for promotion from the post of Senior Scientist to B
Principal Scientist. The Selection Committee consisted of a
Chairman, Agricult~ral Scientists Recruitment Board
(hereinafter referred, to a$ "ASRB"), Director General, ICAR or
his nominee, three experts and the Director of the Institute of
the applicant. For different disciplines, different Selection C
Committees were constituted with three experts from the
relevant discipline so that the merit of the applicant could be
comprehensively and accurately assessed. The said Selection
Committee allocated marks for the assessment procedure for
promotion as under:· o
Research Publication/Achievement 30 marks
Recommendation of Superiors 20 marks
, Personal Interview 50 marks E
7. The minimum required marks to qualify for promotion
to the post of Principal Scientist was 60 marks out of 100
marks. The candidates were accordingly assessed and the
recommendation for promotion or otherwise was submitted to
the Minister of Agriculture for his approval in his capacity as F
the President of ICAR.
8. The respondent is a· Senior Scientist in the service of
the ICAR at the National Research Centre for Cashew at Puttur,
Kamataka. Upon the respondent submitting information as per G
the prescribed assessment proforma, the ASRB-addressed a -
letter to the Respondent calling upon him to present himself for
assessment and interview for the Career Advancement
Scheme. Accordingly, the respondent appeared for an
interview before Selection Committee on 3.5.2001. However, H
-
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 4 S.C.R.
A the respondent secured only 49 marks out of 100 and was
found unfit for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist. The
recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved by
the competent authority, i.e., the Union Minister for Agriculture.
The respondent was accordingly intimated of his non-promotion
B as a Principal Scientist on 14.8.2001.
9. The respondent made representations to the appellant
Institute for review of the decision of not promoting him, but,
when the respondent did not get any relief from the appellant
institute, he filed a case (original application) before the Central
C Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The Tribunal clearly held
that the ICAR had acted in an arbitrary manner to allocate 50%
marks for a personal interview and on this ground alone the
non-selection of the applicant ought to be set aside.
D 10. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
quashed the order of the ICAR and the appellants were directed
to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the
higher grade of a Principal Scientist with effect from
27.07.1998. The Tribunal also observed that the respondent
E would be entitled for notional fixation of pay but would not be
entitled for arrears of back wages.
11. The appellants, aggrieved by the said order of the
Tribunal filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.
The High Court observed that it is not in dispute that the
F respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion to the
post of Principal Scientist under the Career Advancement
Scheme. It was also not in dispute that he was invited for such
consideration by the concerned authorities. The only question
which, according to the High Court, fell for consideration was
G whether the claim of the respondent was considered was in
consonance with the Scheme? The Selection Committee
constituted by the appellant had devised a method of evaluation
of the candidates according to which it had allocated 30 marks
for research publication/achievement, 20 marks for
H recommendation of superiors and 50 marks for personal
--
DIR GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 103
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
interview out of a total of 100 marks. A
12. The High Court held that the Career Advancement
Scheme does not however sanction any such procedure. It
does not refer to or even remotely indicate that an interview of
the candidate can provide a basis for determining his
8
entitlement to promotion. The High Court also observed that the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras was justified in allowing
the petition of the respondent. The High Court relied on a
judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok alias Somanna
Gowda and Another v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 28
in which it has been laid down that 50% marks in the interview C
was excessive and rendered the process of selection arbitrary.
13. The High Court has also observed that the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, correctly came to the
co~clusion that the Scheme did not envisage holding of any D
interview.
14. The High Court also relied on para 2.4(ii) of the
Scheme and observed that Senior Scientists are eligible to the
post of Principal Scientist if they have completed eight years E
of service and if he/she presents himseff/herself before the
Selection Committee constituted by ASRB with the documents
indicated therein. The fact that the eligible officer appears
before the Selection Committee with the relevant documents
does not necessarily imply that the process of evaluation of his F
merit has to be on the basis of an interview nor does it indicate
that the weightage to the interview can go to the extent of 50%
of the total marks. The High Court upheld the judgment of the
Tribunal.
15. The appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, G
as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, has
preferred this appeal on the following grounds before this Court.
(A) Whether the Division Bench erred in holding that
award of 50% of marks for interview was excessive H
-
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A and rendered the selection process arbitrary? , •
' .
(B) Whether the inclusion of an interview process is a
material irregularity that vitiated the selection
process?
B (C) Whether the Division Bench was justified in holding
that the Career Advancement Scheme precluded
the Selection Committee from adopting an
appropriate method of evaluation?
c (D) Whether a distinguished body of experts
constituting the Selection Committee appointed
under the Career Advancement Scheme had no
power to assess and interview the applicants for
promotion?
D (E) Whether the High Court was justified in not
appreciating that appointment to the post of a
Principal Scientist was not on the basis of seniority
but on the basis of merit alone through a process
of assessment by a high powered Selection
E Committee.
(F) Whether, under the Career Advancement Scheme,
the promotion to the post of a Principal Senior
Scientist is merely upon the completion of 8 years
F of service or is based exclusively on the individual
merit of the applicant?
(G) Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore was bound to follow an erroneous Order
rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
G Madras.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the Division Bench erred in directing the
appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent as he had
H secured only 49 out of 100 in the selection process and was
--
..
DIR. GEN~. INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 105
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
not found fit for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist A
under the Career Advancement Scheme.
17. The impugned judgment was also challenged on the
ground that the Division Bench ought to have appreciated that
the Career Advancement Scheme provides for an interview B
procedure in para 2.4 (ii), where it states that "the applicant shall
present himself/herself before the Selection Committee".
18. The appellants also submitted that the Division Bench
has erred in holding that award of 50% of marks for interview
was excessive and rendered the entire selection process c
arbitrary. The appellant further submitted that Division Bench
erred in holding that the inclusion of an interview process is a
material irregutarity that vitiated the selection process.
19. The appellants further submitted that the Division D
Bench of. the High Court ought to have appreciated that the post
'
of Principal Scientist is a very senior post which requires many
personal and intellectual qualities and attributes which can be
evaluated only through a personal interview of the applicant.
20. The impugned judgment was also challenged on the E
ground that the Division Bench of the High Court ought to have
appreciated that the weightage to be given for the interview
procedure had been determined by a body of experts ·
constituting the Selection Committee based on the post for
which promotions were being considered . F
.,
21. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submitted that the inclusion of an interview could
not be treated as material irregularity that vitiated the entire
selection process. Mr. Chaturvedi further submitted that the G
Division Bench seriously erred in holding that award of 50% of
-~.~.
.. ,
,
marks for interview was excessive and rendered the selection
process arbitrary.
22. Mr. Chaturvedi also submitted that the interview Board
consisted of academicians and they were justified in H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A formulating the criteria which should not be disturbed by the
court. He submitted that according to the Career Advancement
Scheme, the promotion to the post of Principal Scientist is not
dependant merely on completion of 8 years of service. He
placed reliance on the judgment of this court in K.A. Nagamani
B v. Indian Airlines and Others (2009) 5 SCC 515 to strengthen
his submission. According to him, for the post of Upper
Managerial cadre, allocation of 50% marks for interview cannot
be termed as arbitrary. In this case, 25% marks were kept for
viva voce which were not found to be excessive. This case has
c no application to the facts of the instant case because in the
instant case, 50% marks have been kept for interview. This case
does not support the case of the appellants in any manner.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance
on the judgment of this court in Kiran Gupta and Others v. State
D of U.P. and Others (2000) 7 sec 719. In this case, this court
has taken the view that it is difficult to accept the omnibus
contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only was
arbitrary and illegal since allocation of 15% marks for the
interview was not held to be arbitrary by this court, this case
E also provides no assistance to the appellants because in the
instant case 50% marks have been kept for the interview.
24. Mr. Manu Mridul, the learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the Career Advancement Scheme
_F did not envisage conducting of any interview for the eligible
candidates and introduction of interview itself was arbitrary and ,
against the Career Advancement Scheme.
25. He also submitted that the candidates were never
informed that 50% marks would be allocated for interview.
G Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to have ·
challenged the aspect of allocating marks for interview before
his appearing for the interview.
26. He also contended that allocation of 50% marks for
H interview out of a total of 100 marks was highly excessive,
--
DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 107
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
hence arbitrary. He submitted the allocation of 50% marks for A
interview is clearly contrary to a large number of judgments of
this court.
27. Mr. Mridul further contended that the respondent was
considered for selection to the post of Principal Scientist on
the basis of his work and performance from 1985 to 1998. 8
According to him, the nature, work, duties and responsibilities
of a Senior Scientist and Principal Scientist are almost identical
in nature, but in order to remove stagnation, the promotion is
envisaged under the Career Advancement Scheme. He
submitted that the stand of the respondent is fortified, reinforced C
and strengthened by the Career Advancement Scheme 2004
and 2005 of the appellants. According to the 'Information
Handbook of Agricultural Scientists' Recruitment Board under
Right to Information Act, 2005, the criteria for promotion is that
the Board evaluates the contribution made b} the concerned D
Scientist in academic research. The Board also evaluates the
confidential reports for the last eight years while granting benefit
of the scheme.
28. According to the procedure of the Career E
Advancement Scheme of 2004, the allocation of marks for
personal interview has been reduced from 50% to 10%
because the appellants themselves realized that allocation of
50% marks was highly excessive and in clear contravention to
the series of judgments of this court.
F
29. He also submitted that in 2007, the Career
Advancement Scheme has undergone a further change and for
personal interview, 20% marks have been allocated. According
to him, in any event, allocation of 50% marks was highly
excessive and in contravention of the law declared by this court G
in a series of judgments.
30. Mr. Mridul fairly submitted that in exceptional cases if
the nature of job is such then even 50% allocation of marks for
interview could be justified. But, in the instant case, the H
--
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A promotion to the post of Principal Scientist is primarily
dependant on the length of service as Senior Scientist,
publication and evaluation of confidential reports. The
promotion to this post is granted predominantly to remove
stagnation. For the selection to the post of Principal Scientist,
8 by no stretch of imagination, 50% marks can be justified. He
placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Dr. ~ M. llyas
and Others v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and
Others {1993) 1 SCC 182. In the Career Advancement
Scheme, the seniority is the important criteria apart from the
publication and the evaluation of the confidential reports.
C Therefore, there cannot be any justification in allocating 50%
marks for interview.
31. Mr. Mrudil also argued that the appellants in their
wisdom reduced the allocation of marks for interview from 50%
D to 10% to eliminate or reduce the arbitrariness for the
subsequent selections for the post of Principal Scientist.
32. learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Mridul
submitted that 50% marks allocated for interview were highly
E excessive and rendered the selection of the candidates
arbitrary. He placed reliance on a judgment of this court in
Ashok Kumar Yadav & Others v. State of Haryana & Others
(1985) 4 SCC 417, wherein the Court observed as under:
".. the object of any process of selection for entry into public
F service is to secure the best and the most suitable person
for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection
based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the
essential foundation of any useful and efficient public
service. So open competitive examination has come to be
G accepted almost universally as the gateway to public
services. But the question is how should the competitive
examination be devised? The competitive examination
may be based exclusively on written examination or it may
be based exclusively on oral interview or it may be a mixture
H
-
DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 109
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
·.of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what A
kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in
a given case. To quote the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J.
"In the very nature of things it would not be within the
province or even the competence of the Court and the
Court would not vent1.1re into such exclusive thickets to B
discover ways out, when the matters are more
appropriately left" to the wisdom of the experts. It is not for
the Court to lay down whether interview test should be held
at all or how many marks should be allowed for the
interview test. Of course the marks must be minimal so as c
to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not necessarily
always. There may be posts and appointments where the
only proper method of selection may be by a viva voce test.
Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses,
it may sometimes be necessary to allow a fairly high 0
percentage of marks for the viva voce test. That is why rigid
rules cannot be laid down in these matters by courts. The
expert bodies are generally the best judges. The
Government aided by experts in the field may appropriately
decide to have a written examination followed by a viva E
voce test."
33. This Court further observed that the Court does not
possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for
the Court to pronounce upon it, unless to use the words of
Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and F
Others (1981) 4 SCC 159 observed that the exaggerated
weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives.
34. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the controversy is, no longer res integra. G
According to him, a 4..Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok
Kumar Yadav & Others (supra) has observed 22.2% marks
of the total marks allocated for the viva voice test as infecting
the selection process with the V,ice of arbitrariness.
H
-
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A 35. In Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), the Court relied on
earlier judgment of this Court in Ajay Hasia and Others v.
Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others (1981) 1 SCC 722,
wherein the Court took up the view that allocation of as high a
percentage as 33.3% of the total marks for the viva voice test
B was beyond reasonable proportion and rendered the selection
of the candidates arbitrary.
36. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. Sabha Joseph (1971)
1 sec 38, the Court observed that earmarking 75 marks out
C of 275 marks for interview as interview marks prima facie
appears to be excessive. The Court observed that various
researches conducted in other countries particularly in USA
show that there is possibility of serious errors creeping in
interviews made on haphazard basis. C.W. Valentine on
"Psychology and its Bearing on Education" refers to the marks
D given to the same set of persons interviewed by two competent
Boards and that is what is stated in his book:
'The members of each board awarded a mark to each
candidate and then he was discussed and an average
E mark agreed on.
When the orders of merit for the two boards were
compared it was found that the man placed first by Board
A was put 13th by Board B when the man placed 1st by
Board B was 11th with Board A."
F
37. In this case, the Court also observed that even when
the interviews were conducted by impartial and competent
persons on scientific lines very many uncertain factors like the
initial nervousness on the part of some candidates, the mood
G in which the interviewer happens to be and the odd questions
that may be put to the persons interviewed may all go to affect
the result of the interview.
38. This Court in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and
H Others AIR 1964 SC 1823 obse.ved as under:-
-
DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 111
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
"In the field of education there are divergent views as A
regards the mode of testing the capacity and calibre of
students in the matter of admissions to colleges. Orthodox
educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student
in the annual examination. The modern trend of opinion
insists upon other additional tests, .such as interview, B
performance in extracurricular activities, personality test,
psychiatric tests, etc. Obviously we are not in a position
to judge which method is preferable or which test is the
correct one. If there can be manipulation or dishonesty in
allotting marks at interviews, there can equally be C
manipulation in the matter of awarding marks in the written
examination. In the ultimate analysis, whatever method is
adopted its success depends on the moral standards of
the members constituting the selection committee and their
sense of objectivity and devotion to duty. This criticism is
0
more a reflection on the examiners than on the system
itself. The scheme of selection, however, perfect it may
be on paper, may be abused in practice. That it is
capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing it. So long
as the order lays down relevant objective criteria and
entrusts the business of selection to qualified persons, this E
Court cannot obviously have any say in the matter.•
39. In Minor A. Peeriakaruppan (supra), the Court referred
to Ajay Hasia's case (supra) where the Court found that the
allocation of more than 15 per cent of the total marks for the F
oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would
be lic:hle to be struck down as constitutionally invalid. The
Court observed that the viva voce test conducted must be held
to be fair, free from the charge of arbitrariness, reasonable and
~ G
40. In Nishi Maghu & Others v. State of J&K & Others
(1980) 4 sec 95, the Court observed that 50% marks out of
total 150 marks allotted for interview were excessive.
41. In Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan (1988) H
-
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A 3 SCC 241, the question involved was regarding the validity
of certain provisions of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate
Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive
Examination) Rules, 1962, the Rajasthan Administrative
Service Rules, 1954, the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962
B which contained a provision special to the said three services
and not applicable to other services, that candidates, other than
those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
should secure a minimum of 33 per cent marks in the viva voce
test. The rules further stipulated that the candidates for these
c services must also secure 50 per cent marks in the written
examination, but that was not in the area of controversy. While
dealing with the above questions a reference was made to
cases Ajay Hasia (supra), Lila Dhar (supra) and A.K. Yadav
(supra). It was observed as under:
D "The much desired transformation from patronage to
open competition is a later development, to which, now,
all civilised governments profess commitment. However,
though there is agreement in principle that there should be
a search for the best talent particularly in relation to higher
E posts, however, as to the methods of assessment of
efficiency, promise and aptitude, ideas and policies widely
vary, though it has now come to be accepted that selection
is an informed professional exercise which is best left to
agencies independent of the services to which recruitment
F is made. The 'interview' is now an accepted aid to
selection and is designed to give the selectors some
evidence of the personality and character of the
candidates. Macaulay had earlier clearly declared that a
young man who in competition with his fellowmen of the
G same age had shown superiority in studies might well be
regarded as having shown character also since he could
not have prepared himself for the success attained without
showing character in eschewing sensual pleasures. But the
interview came to be recognised as an essential part of
H the process of selection on the belief that some qualities
--
DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 113
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
necessary and useful to public servants which cannot be A
found out in a written test would be revealed in a viva voce
examination. In justification of the value and utility of the
viva voce, the committee on Class I examinations in Britain
said:
B
... It is sometimes urged that a candidate, otheriNise
well qualified, may be prevented by nervousness
from doing himself justice in viva voce. We are not
sure that such lack of nervous control is not in itself
• a serious defect, nor that the presence of mind and C
nervous equipoise which enables a candidate to
marshal! all of his resources in such conditions is
not a valuable quality. Further, there are
undoubtedly some candidates who can never do
themselves justice in written examinations, just as
there are others who under the excitement of written 0
competition do better than on ordinary occasions ....
We consider that the viva voce can be made a test
of the candidate's alertness, intelligence and
intellectual outlook, and as such is better than any
other.... E
42. As to the promise as well as the limitations of the viva
voce, Herman Finer says:
If we really care about the efficiency of the civil F
service as an instrument of government, rather than as a
heaven sent opportunity to find careers for our brilliant
students, these principles should be adopted .. The
interview should last at least half an hour on each of the
two separate occasions. It should be also entirely devoted
to a discussion ranging over the academic interests of the G
candidate as shown in his examination syllabus, and a
short verbal report could be required on the subject, the
scope of which would be announced at the interview. As
now, the interview should be a supplementary test and not
H
--
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 4 S.C.R.
A a decisive selective test. The interviewing board should
include a business administrator and a university
administrator. The interview should come after and not
before the written examination, and if this means some
inconvenience to candidates and examiners, then they
B must remember that they are helping to select the
government of a great State, and a little inconvenience is
not to be weighed against such a public duty... .""
43. In Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Others
(1991) 1 sec 662, allocation of 25 per cent of total marks for
C viva voce test in selection was held arbitrary and excessive.
44. In P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kera/a & Others
(2007) 9 sec 497, 50% marks were fixed for the interview.
The Court observed as under:
D
"16. In this case allocation of marks for interview was in
fact misused. It not only contravened the ratio laid down
by this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and subsequent
cases, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, it
is reasonable to draw an inference of favouritism. The
E
power in this case has been used by the appointing
authority for unauthorised purpose. When a power is
exercised for an unauthorised purpose, the same would
amount to malice in law. (See: Govt. Branch Press v. D.B.
Bel/iappa (1979) 1 SCC 477, Punjab SEB Ltd. v. Zora
F Singh (2005) 6 SCC 776 and K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P
(2006) 3 sec 581)."
45. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and
G the orders of the Tribunal.
46. In our considered view, no interference is called for,
on account of following reasons:-
(A) Promotion to the post of Principal Scientist
H
--
DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 115
v. D. SUNDARA RAJU [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
pertains to the "Career Advancement Scheme". A
Norms, Rules and Guidelines which are employed
while granting the benefit of Career Advancement
Scheme ought to be applied in the instant case.
(B) It is amply clear that the quinquennial assessment
8
scheme for the ICAR/ARS Policies and Rules
were-
(a) for providing opportunities for the career
advancement, irrespective of the occurrence
of vacancies, through a system of C
assessment should lead to each scientist
competing with his or her rather than with
colleagues and to the acceptance of the
principle the "all the rights accrue from a duty
well done". D
(b) Enable scientists to get the highest salary
possible, within the system while remaining
rooted to work in their respective discipline/
field, thereby eliminating both the undue E
importance attached in the past to research
management policy and the request for such
positions purely for the advancement of
salary.
(c) Link rights and responsibilities and instill · F
through the five-year assessment system the
conviction that dedicated and efficient
discharge of responsibilities alone would be
the means of securing professional
advancement. G
47. The respondent was not disclosed by the appellant
either that the interview would be held for evaluating personal
or intellectual qualities that attribute a Scientist and that it shall
carry 50% of the total marks. This is uncontroverted position. H
-
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A Had the appellants disclosed the method of evaluation the
respondent may have challenged the same before participating
in the selection process.
48. No fault can be found in the impugned judgment in view
of the legal position which emerges after proper scrutiny of
8
following cases of this Court, namely, Ashok Kumar Yadav
{supra), Ajay Hasia {supra), Lila Dhar {supra) and Minor A.
Peeriakaruppan {supra). 50% marks allocated for the interview
were highly excessive for the post of a Principal Scientist and
C contrary to the settled legal position crystallized from a series
of the judgments of this court.
49. The appellants were totally unjustified in allocating 50%
marks for the interview particularly when the appellants did not
even disclose to the respondent that the interview would also
D be held to evaluate suitability of the candidate for the said post.
50. The procedure evolved by the Selection Committee for
evaluating the respondent was totally arbitrary and contrary to
E the settled legal position.
51. The appellants themselves have found 50% marks for
interview highly excessive, therefore, now the criterion has been
changed from 50% to 10%. This is indicative of the fact that
good sense had ultimately dawned on the appellants.
F
52. The appeal is totally devoid of any merit and is
accordingly dismissed with costs which are quantified as
50,000/-. The costs to be paid to the respondent within four
weeks.
G R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Promotion"Sign in to search