Holding

The selection process was not arbitrary; the interview marks and criteria were reasonable, and the appellants' misrepresentations disqualified them, leading to dismissal of the appeals.

Summary

The Punjab Subordinate Selection Board conducted a written test for Assistant District Transport Officer posts and later lowered the qualifying standard, calling additional candidates for interview. The appellants, who were not selected, challenged the selection on grounds of arbitrariness, excessive interview marks, and alleged malafides. The Supreme Court examined the marks awarded, the proportion of interview marks (25 out of 240), and the number of candidates called for interview, finding no gross disproportion or arbitrariness. It also noted that the appellants had made false statements in their Special Leave Petitions, which disqualified them from relief. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the selection, and imposed costs on the appellants.

Issues considered

Whether lowering the qualifying standard after the written test and calling additional candidates for interview renders the selection arbitrary.
Whether criteria for selection, including interview marks, can be framed after the written test results are declared.
Whether allocating 25 marks (approximately 10.4%) for interview out of a total of 240 marks is excessive or unconstitutional.
Whether the number of candidates called for interview (exceeding twice or thrice the vacancies) creates a presumption of arbitrariness.
Whether the appellants' misrepresentation in Special Leave Petitions bars them from obtaining any relief.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136

Subjects

service lawselectionarbitrarinessinterview marksspecial leave petitionmisrepresentationpublic service recruitmentmeritArticle 136Punjab

Judgment

A VJJA Y SYAL AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

MAY 22, 2003

B (SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]

Service Law: Appointments-Selection to the posts of Asst/ .District
Transport Officer-Written test--Certain candidates declared successful-
C Lowering ofthe standard declaring some more candidates successful-Selection
of candidates from both lists after interviewing them-Non-selection of
appellants from the first list--Challenge to--Dismissed by the High Court-
Held: Even after non-consideration ofSelection of the Candidates from second
list appellants would not succeed--Marks allocated for interview reasonably
fair and just and conform with the directions of the Supreme Court in this
D regard-It does not give scope for misuse of discretion by the members of
Interview Committee in favour of undeserving candidates--Marks secured by
the candidates in the written test and interview were not grossly
disproportionate-Hence no arbitrariness in the selection of the Candidates-
Thus selection not vitiated

E Words and Phrases:

'arbitrariness in Selection '-Meaning of in the context of service
jurisprudence.

Punjab. Subordinate Selection Board conducted a written test for
F selection of the candidates to the posts of Assistant District Transport
Officer and declared certain number of candidates successful. Later some
more candidates were declared successful by lowering the standard.
Interview was conducted and successful candidates were appointed.
Respondents, the unsuccessful candidates, filed writ petitions challenging
G the selections. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Hence
the present appeals.

It was contended for the appellants that after declaration of the
result of the written examination the standard could not have been lowered
for making some undeserving candidates eligible for interview/selection;
H 242
VI.TAY SYAL v. STATE 243
that the criteria for selection could not have been framed after declaration A
of result of the written examination; that the maximum marks fixed for
interview was exctssive and that lot of persons were called for interview
as against the ratio of l :3.

On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that appellants made
deliberate misrepresentation regarding allocation of excessive marks for B
interview; and that they attributed ma/afides to the authorities based on
their relationship with the candidates and also political influences. Though
the respondents gave up the contentions before the High Court, they
reiterated the same in the appeal before this Court.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court Held:
c
I.I. Certain statements were made in SLPs to get leave and/or
interim orders on the ground that excessive marks were allocated for
interview and also alltging ma/a fides in selection. The conduct of the
appellants is condemnable and hence they have disentitled themselves for D
....... any relief on this score. (249-H, 250-AI

Hari Narain v. Badri Das; [1964) 2 SCR 203; Rajabhai Abdul Rehman
Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, (19641 3 SCR 480 and Udai Chand v.
Shanker Lal and Ors. (1978) 2 SCR 809, relied on.
E
1.2. No doubt, the candidates in general category were called for
interview from the second list. However, the marks secured by these
respondents were more than any of the appellants in the general category.
But the two candidates in general category called in the first list of the
interview have also secured more marks than all the appellants ,but not
successful. Even if the candidates were to be denied appointment on the F
ground that they were called for interview from the second list, the position
1
of the appellants could not improve. One more fact to be kept in mind is
that two candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes category ha~ing secured
higher marks than the appellants could be selected in the general category.
Thus, even otherwise, the appellants would not succeed in getting selected G
for appointments. Merely because some more candidates were called for
interview without anything more, selection of the candidates does not get
vitiated particularly so when malafides were given up and excessive marks
were not allocated for the interview as wrongly stated by the appellants.
It does not appear abnormal or per se does not smell of any foul play or
does not appear patently arbitrary. (251-D-G) H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.CR.

A 1.3. The marks secured in the interview and the marks secured in
written test are also not grossly disproportionate. This apart, only 25
marks were earmarked for interview out of 240 marks as against 200
marks for written test and 15 marks for qualification and other activities
do not admit an element of arbitrariness or give scope for use of discretion
by members of the Interview Committee recklessly or designedly in giving
B more marks to show favour in interview so as to give an advantage or
march to an undeserving candidate over others who had shown
extraordinary merit in written test. Normally, it is not for the court to sit
in judgment over the assessment particularly in the absence of any mala
/ides or extraneous considerations attributed and established. The
C interview marks of 25 as against total marks of 240, cannot be taken as
excessive. It comes to I 0.4%. Possibly the selection would have been
vitiated, if the marks for interview were 100 as against ISO marks for
written test as sought to be made out. Further, the appellants, knowing
the criteria fixed for selection and allocation of marks, did participate in
the interview; when they were not successful, it is not open to them to turn
D around and attack the very criteria. 1252-A, B, C, DJ

Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 11985) 4
-
SCC 417; All India State Bank Officers' Federation and Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors., 11997) 9 SCC 151 and Jasvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of
E J & Kand Ors., 12003) 2 sec 132, relied on.

1.4. One of the appellants, who had possessed additional educational
qualifications, had been given the maximum marks to which he was
entitled. Hence he cannot make any grievance in this regard. 1262-C, DI

F 1.5. Though the misrepresentation made by the appellants in the
SLPs supported by affidavit require serious action, yet this Court refrains
from taking any further action in view of the apology and regret expressed
by the appellants.

The Court made the following observations on the making of false
G statements/misrepresentation/concealments of material facts in petitions:

In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of
the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should
not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or
misrepresiontation and/or should not conceal material facts with
H a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the
VIJAYSYAL v. STATE [PATIL,.I.] 245

Court. If any party attempts to do so it does so at its risk and A
cost. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts
in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken
instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need
to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and
grace in the administration of justice. 1263-D; B-CI
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 812 of2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 7349 of 1998.

WITH c
C.A. Nos. 937, 5985, 5986 of 2002.

Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, K.K. Venugopal, R. F.
Nariman, H.N. Salve, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Appellant-in-person, H.K. Puri,
J.K. Das, S.A. Sattar, Bir Singh, Ms. Anu Mohla, Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Aditya D
Choudhary, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh for U.S. Prasad, Vipin Gogia, Ms.
Jaspreet Gogia, R.S. Suri, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Krishnan Venugopal, Uday
N. Tiwary, Abhijit Sengupta, V.N. Raghupathy, Brij Kishor Shah, Rajiv K.
Garg, R.K. Joshi, A.D.N. Rao, Atul Sharma and K.K. Gupta for the appearing
parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J, These appeals are directed against the
common judgment and order dated 4.1.200 I passed by the Division Ber.ch
of the High Court. The controversy relates to selection/non-selection of F
candidates to the posts of Assistant District Transport Officer (for short
'ADTO'). The Punjab Subordinate Selection Board advertised 12 posts of
ADTOs on 15.5.1995. Out of them, 7 posts were for the general category, 4
for SC/ST and one was reserved for Ex-servicemen. A written test was
conducted on 24.3.1996, the result of which was declared on 1.4.1998,
declaring 78 persons successful. Out of these 78 persons, 61 belonged to G
general category, 15 belonged to SC/ST category and 2 belonged to category
of Ex-servicemen. Later, on 22.4.1998, 40 more candidates were declared
successful by lowering the standard. Out of these 40 candidates, 21 belonged
to general category, 13 to SC/ST category and 6 to Ex-servicemen category.
Criteria for selection were framed on 22.4.1998; final result was declared on H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 15.5.1998 and the appointments were made on 18.5.1998. Out of the candidates
selected and appointed, 6 were from the general category, 3 were from SC/
ST and 1 from Ex-servicemen category. Out of the 7~ candidates whose
result was declared on 1.4.1998, 4 candidates belonging to general category
were selected. However, out of 40 candidates whose result was declared
later, 2 candidates belonging to general category were selected. The appellants
B in these appeals approached the High Court by filing writ petitions for quashing
the select list of the candidates published by the authorities in Tribune dated
23.5.1998, for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider
their claim on the basis of their merit from amongst the candidates originally
invited for interview and to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining
C the respondents from giving effect to the selection made. It may be mentioned
here itself that the selected candidates were appointed on 18.5.1998 and
having joined the services, they are continuing in service. The High Court
considering the rival contentions on their relative merits and after perusing
the records did not find any merit in the writ petitions. Consequently, they
were dismissed by the impugned common order. Hence, these appeals.
D
Appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002 argued his case as
party-in-person and submissions were made by the learned counsel on behalf
of the other appellants. We may make it clear at the outset that none of the
appellants belonged to the category of either SC/ST or Ex-servicemen and
E their claim is also not against these categories. Hence, we consider it
unnecessary to consider the validity of selection of the candidates made in
these two categories. In other words, we confine our consideration to the
validity of selection of the candidates made in the general category. Mainly,
the submissions made on behalf of the appellants were that after declaration
of the result of the written examination on 1.4.1998, standard could not have
F been lowered for making other 40 candidates eligible for the purpose of
interview; criteria could not have been framed after declaration of result of
the written examination; maximum 21 candidates could have been called for
interview in the ratio of 1:3 in the general category on the basis of the merit
of the written examination whereas out of 78 candidates whose result was
G declared on 1.4.1998, more than 60 candidates were from the general category.
In this regard, reliance was placed on Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State
of Haryana and Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 417.

Learned Additional Solicitor General and learned senior counsel for the
respondents at the outset submitted that they have preliminary objection for
H the very entertaining of these appeals and considering the contentions advanced
VIJAYSYAL v. STATE [PATIL,J.] 247
on behalf of the appellants on merits having regard to their conduct. According A
to them, the appellants made deliberate misrepresentation with regard to the
allocation of marks stating that 150 marks were for the written test and I 00
marks for interview. Further, mala fides were attributed to authorities on the
basis of the relation and political influence, which they gave it up before the
High Court but again reiterated in the SLPs. According to the learned counsel, B
these two grounds are good enough to dismiss the appeals by revoking leave
granted without examining them on merits. Although, we find justification in
these submissions but having heard the parties at length, we consider these
appeals on the merits of the contentions as well. On behalf of the respondents,
further submissions were made explaining the criteria fixed, in what
circumstances, more number of candidates were called for interview and how C
the selection made was fair and proper. According to them, mere calling
more number of candidates for interview did not vitiate the selection made
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; at any rate, the
appellants being lower in merit, even otherwise, could not get any benefit.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the impugned judgment
of the High Court is perfectly valid and justified. They also submitted that D
pursuant to the selection made, the selected non-official respondents have
been continuing in service since May, 1998, i.e., they are continuing in
service for about 5 years by now and as such these are not the fit cases for
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order. E
It is useful to reproduce the chart furnished at the time of hearing
indicating names of candidates, their categories, qualification, marks obtained
in written test as well as interview and the total marks:

F
C.A.No. Sr. Name List• Category Qualifica- Writ- Inter- Total
No. tion ten view
Marks Test Test

812102 I. Umesh Kumar, Appellant G 2(MA-II) 124 12.5 138.5

2. Vijay Kumar, Appellant G 3(MA-11) 126 11.5 140.5 G
3. Karanbir Singh, Resp.4 G I (Sports) 127 20.5 14815

4. Gurindcrjit Singh, Resp.5 G 127 19 146

5. Tarlochan Singh,Resp.6 G 124 21.75 145.75
6. Manjit Singh, Resp. 7 G 2(MA-ll) 123 20.25 145.25 H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

7. Gurcharan Singh, Resp.8 II G l(NSS) 120 22.5 143.5
A
8 Angrej Singh, Resp.9 II G 120 22.87 142.87

9. Sukhwindcr Kumar. Res. I0 I SC l(NSS/NCC) 121 19.37 141.37

10. Dhien Singh, Resp.II II SC 2(MA) 119 19.5 140.5

II. Karam Singh, Resp!. 12 SC 2(MA/LLB) 124 15.75 141.75
B
12. Jaswant Singh, Resp!. 13 II SC 5(MA=2. 114 21.5 140.5
NCC-3)

5986/02 Zulfikar Ali, Appl. G 2(LLB) 122 12.25 136.25

5985/02 Gurdeep Singh, Appl. G 122 14.25 136.25

C 937/02 Sarpinderjit Singh, Appl. G 2(MA) 128 11.5 141.50

Not selected but better than all the Appellants

Ram Nath IG 121 21.75 142.75
Paramjit Singh IG 123 19 142

D *Note - The names of the candidates from among 78 candidates
called for interview for the first time are shown as in List-I and
names of the candidates from among 40 candidates called for interview
are shown as in List-II.

In para 8 of the Writ Petition No. 7349 of I998 filed by the appellant
E No. I in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002, it is averred that he came to know
on inquiry that the entire selection had been made in a totally arbitrary and
biased manner to help certain selected candidates; respondent No. 8 is the
nephew of Shri Jasdev Singh Sandhu, Chairman of the respondent-Board;
sister's husband of Harmail Singh, Minister for Public Works in the present
Government is one of the selected candidates; Shri Angrej Singh, respondent
F No. 9 is politically very-well connected and is a close friend of sitting MLA.
In order to help these persons who did not come within the first list, second
list was issued. In para I 0 of the writ petition, it is asserted that 100 marks
were kept for interview as against the total marks of 250 (I 50 marks for
written test+ 100 marks for interview) which is totally arbitrary. Thus, 40%
G marks have been allocated for interview as against I 2.2%, which are
permissibk in law. In the replication to the written statement filed, in para
8, it is stated that relationship of respondent No. 8 with Shri Jasdev Singh
Sandhu, the Chairman, is concerned, it is fairly conceded that this has been
mentiuned wrongly but not with malajide intention. In the impugned judgment,
the question of ma/a fide is not dealt with, obviously, in view of the replication
H filed by the appellants to the written statement before the High Court as

'
VI.JAY SYAL V. STATE [PAT!L,J.] 249
noticed above. In the impugned judgment, the question of allocation of I 00 A
marks for interview were excess, is also not dealt with as it does not appear
to have been urged on behalf of the appellants. Criteria for selection were
framed on 22.4.1998. The criteria for selection which was produced as
Annexure-R-1 in the wri\ petition before the High Court clearly indicated
total marks for selection 240, out of them 200 marks were allocated for B
competitive test, 15 marks for additional educational, sports and other
qualifications and 25 marks were allocated for interview. The appellants
were very much aware of Annexure R-1. The impugned ord01 shows that the
grievance of the appellants was in regard to the publicatio'l of the criteria,
subsequent to declaration of the result of written examination; not that 100
marks allocated for interview were excessive. With all this, it is painful to C
note that the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002 on page K of List
of dates stated that I00 marks were kept for interview as against the total
marks of 250 (150 marks for written test + 100 marks for interview). It is
further stated that the selection has been made in totally biased manner as the
nephew of the Chairman of the respondent-Board, the sister's husband of the
Minister for Public Works and a friend of known political families in Punjab, D
have been appointed. It may be stated here itself that those persons were
neither made parties nor any particulars were given touching ma/a /ides. At
page 34 of SLP in paras K and L, same things are repeated as to the allotment
of I 00 marks for interview and also ma/a fides attributed to certain persons
to accommodate the private respondents. It is further stated that arbitrarily E
I 00 marks were set apart for interview out of 250 marks in order to help
them only and that the entire selection was arbitrary. This is also the state of
affairs even with regard to the other appellan,ts in other appeals. At the
hearing when pointed out, the appellants regr~tted for the wrong statements
and misrepresentation made but added that they were not with any ma/a fide
intention. Looking to the background, Lpecific statements made in the F
replication filed by the appellant before the High court, being aware of the
criteria that the marks for interview were only 25, having given up ma/a fides
and having not urged the same before the High Court and taking note that the
appellants have sworn affidavits in support of the SLPs that they understood
the accompanying synopsis, list of dates and paragraphs contained in Special G
Leave Petitions and that they were fully conversant with the facts of the case
and that the contents of the affidavit were true to their knowledge and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false, we find it
difficult to accept that the statements were made in the SLPs bonafidely. It
appears to us that these statements were made in SLPs to get leave and/or
interim orders on the ground of excessive marks allocated for interview and H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A ma/a fides. In our view, this conduct of the appellants is condemnable and
we may straightaway say without any hesitation that they have disentitled
themselves for any relief on this score.

A bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Hari Narain v. Badri
Das, (1964] 2 SCR 203 revoked the special leave granted to the appellant
B and dismissed the appeal for making inaccurate, untrue and misleading
statement in SLP observing that "It is of utmost importance that in making
material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave,
care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue
or misleading. In dealing with application for special leave, the Court naturally
C takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their
face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have
come to the conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the
appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent."
D
Again in Rajabhai Abdul Rehman.Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody,
(1964] 3 SCR 480, this Court observed that "exercise of the jurisdiction of
the Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary; it is exercised
sparingly and in exceptional cases, when a substantial question of law falls
to be determined or where it appears to the Court that interference by this
E Court is necessary to remedy serious injustice. A party who approaches this
Court invoking the exercise of this overriding discretion of the Court must
come with clean hands. If there appears on his part any attempt to overreach
or mislead the Court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true
infonnation which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the
F discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion
or if the discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted
even at the time of hearing of the appeal."

In the same judgment, Hidayatullah, J. concurring with judgment of
Shah J. delivered on behalf of himself and Sarkar J., added that "I have
G considered the matter carefully. This is not a case of a mere error in the
narration of facts or of a bona fide error of judgment which in certain
circumstances may be considered to be venial faults. This is a case of being
disingenuous with the Court by making out a point of law on a suppositious
state of facts, which facts, if told candidly, leave no room for the discussion
H of law. The appellant has by dissembling in this Court induced it to grant
VIJAYSYAL v.STATE [PATIL,J.] 251
special leave in a case which did not merit it. I agree, therefore, that this A
leave should be recalled and the appellant, made to pay the costs of this
appeal."

Yet again, a bench of three ieamed Judges of this Court in Udai Chand
v. Shanker Lal and Ors., [1978] 2 SCR 809 revoked the special leave and
dismissed it after referring to the decisions in Hari Narain and Rajabhai B
Abdul Rehman Munshi (supra). It was further observed that this Court cannot
permit abuses of the process of law and of law courts.

However, even otherwise we proceed to examine on the merits of the
contentions urged on either side at length and with all seriousness.
c
From the chart extracted above in regard to the marks secured by the
appellants and the respondents, it is evident that respondents 4-7 (in general
category) were in the first list i.e. they were from out of the 78 candidates.
The appellants cannot make grievance as far as these candidates are concerned
in the sense that they were in the first list and not in the second list so as to D
give them advantage. No doubt, respondents 8 and 9 (in general category)
were called for interview in the second list out of 40 candidates. Admittedly,
the marks secured by these respondents are more than any of the appellants
in the general category. It is pointed out that the two candidates namely Ram
Nath and Paramjit Singh in general category called in the first list of the
interview have secured more marks than all the appellants. Even if the E
respondents 8 and 9 were to be denied appointment on the ground that they
were called for the interview in the second list, the position of the appellants
could not improve. One more fact to be kept in mind is that two candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes category having secured higher marks than
the appellants could be selected in the general category. Thus, even otherwise, F
the appellants would not succeed in getting selected for appointments. Merely
because 40 more candidates were called for interview without anything more,
selection of the candidates does not get vitiated particularly so when malajides
were given up and I 00 marks were not allocated for interview as wrongly
stated by the appellants.
G
As can be seen from the difference of marks secured by the candidates
in interview, it does not appear abnormal or per se does not smell of any foul
play or does not appear patently arbitrary. The lowest of the marks given in
the interview are 11.5 and the highest are 22.87. Further marks secured in the
interview and the marks secured in written test are also not grossly
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A disproportionate. This apart, out of total marks of 240, only 25 marks were
eannarked for interview. So 25 marks for interview out of240 as against 200
for written test and 15 marks for qualification and other activities do not
admit an element of arbitrariness or give scope for use of discretion by
members of the Interview Committee recklessly or designedly in giving more
B marks to show favour in interview so as to give an advantage or march to an
undeserving candidate of their over others who had shown extraordinary
merit in written test. From the chart, we find among the candidates, marks
secured in the written test were between 119 to 128 except in one case
belonging to Scheduled Castes were 114. This apart, the marks secured in the
interview are based on the assessment of the Interview Committee. Normally,
C it is not for the court to sit in judgment over such assessment and particularly
in the absence of any ma/a jides or extraneous considerations attributed and
established. The interview marks of 25 as against total marks of 240, cannot
be taken as excessive. It comes to 10.4%. Possibly the selection would have
been vitiated, if the marks for interview were I00 as against 150 marks for
written test as sought to be made out. Unfortunately, for the appellants, their
D misrepresentation in this regard, is unfolded very clearly as already stated
above. Further, the appellants, knowing the criteria fixed for selection and
allocation of marks, did participate in the interview; when they are not
successful, it is not open to them to turn around and attack the very criteria.
The High Court in the impugned order has found that the criteria contained
E in Annexure R-1 filed in the writ petition was published and that such criteria
was adopted earlier also in respect of other selections.

The appellants heavily relied on a decision of this Court by four learned
Judges in As/wk Kumar Yadav 's case (supra) in support of their contentiom.
that where there is a composite test consisting of written examination followed
F by viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview on the
basis of marks obtained in the written examination should not exceed twice
or at the highest thrice the number of vacancies to be filled; further marks
allocated to viva voce test should not be more than 12.2%. The learned
counsel for the respondents from the very judgment pointed out that it does
G not advance the case of the appellants having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the cases at hand. In the aforementioned case of Yadav, the
facts were that in October, 1980, Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC)
invited applications for recruitment to 61 posts in Haryana Civil Service
(Executive) and Allied Services. The recruitment was governed by the Punjab
Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 as applicable in the State of
H Haryana. In response to that advertisement issued by HPSC, about 6000
VIJAYSYAL v. STATE [PATIL.J.] 253
candidates applied for recruitment and appeared at the written examination. A
Out of them, over 1300 obtained more than 45% marks and were called for
interview. HPSC invited all the 1300 and odd candidates for interview and
the interviews lasted for almost half a year. Though originally, applications
were invited for recruitment to 61 posts, the number of vacancies during the
time taken in the written examination and viva voce test rose to 119. It seems
there were some candidates who had obtained very high marks at the written
B
examination but owing to securing poor marks in the viva voce test, they
could not come within first 119 candidates and consequently they were not
selected. Aggrieved by the non-selection, they filed writ petitions in the High•
Court challenging the validity of the selection. It was contended that the
marks given in the viva voce test should be ignored and selection should be C
made only on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates 'at the written
examination. The writ petitions were allowed by the Division Bench of the
High Court. Hence, the appeals were filed before this Court aggrieved by the
judgment of the High Court. The High Court took the view that there was
reasonable likelihood of bias vitiating the selection process based on the fact
that though only 61 vacant posts were advertised over 1300 candidates D
representing more than 20 times the number of available vacancies were
called for viva voce test. The Division Bench pointed out that in order to have
proper balance between the objective assessment of a written examination
and the subjective assessment of personality by a viva voce test, the candidates
to be called for interview at viva voce test should not exceed twice or at the E
highest, thrice the number of available vacancies. Since the candidates were
called 20 times the number of available vacancies, the High Court held that
the selection pro~ess was vitiated. This Court disagreed with this conclusion
reached by the Division Bench of the High Court. While doing so, this Court
observed that HPSC was not right in calling for interview all the 1300 and
odd candidates; it was difficult to see how a viva voce test for properly and F
satisfactorily measuring the personality of a candidate can be carried, if over
1300 candidates were to be interviewed for recruitment to a service; if viva
voce test was to be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner, to arrive
at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a candidate, the
interview must take anything between 10 to 30 minutes. This Court, while G
considering the question whether selection made by HPSC after calling 1300
candidates for interview was vitiated on that account, in paragraph 21, held
thus:-

"We do not think that the selections made by the Haryana Public
Service Commission could be said to be vitiated merely on the ground H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A that as many as 1300 and more candidates representing more than 20
times the number of available vacancies were called for interview,
though on the view taken by us that was not the right course to
follow and not more than twice or at the highest thrice, the number
of candidates should have been called for interview. Something more
than merely calling an unduly large number of candidates for interview
B must be shown in order to invalidate the selections made. That is why
the Division Bench relief on the comparative figures of marks obtained
in the written examination and at the viva voce test by the petitioners,
the first 16 candidates who topped the list in the written examination
and the first 16 candidates topped the list on the basis of the combined
c marks obtained in the written examination and the viva voce test, and
observed that these figures showed that there was reasonable likelihood
of arbitrariness and bias having operated in the marking at the viva
voce test. Now it is true that some of the petitioners did quite well in
the written examination but fared badly in the viva voce test and in
fact their performance at the viva voce test appeared to have
D deteriorated in comparison to their performance in the year 1977-78.
Equally it is true that out of the first 16 candidates who topped the
list in the written examination, 10 secured poor rating in the viva
voce test and were knocked out of the reckoning while 2 also got low
marks in the viva voce test but just managed to scrape through to
E come within the range of selection. It is also true that out of the first
16 candidates who topped the list on the basis of the combined marks
obtained in the written examination and the viva voce test, 12 could
come in the list only on account of high marks obtained by them at
the viva voce test, though the marks obtained by them in the written
examination were not of sufficiently high order. These figures relied
F upon by the Division Bench may create a suspicion in one's mind
that some element of arbitrariness might have entered the assessment
in the viva voce examination. But suspicion cannot take the place of
proof and we cannot strike down the selections made on the ground
that the evaluation of the merits of the candidates in the viva voce
G examination might be arbitrary. It is necessary to point out that the
Court cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by interviewing
bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is painly and
indoubtably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. It is only if the
assessment is patently arbitrary or the risk of arbitrariness is so high
that a reasonable person would regard arbitrariness as inevitable, that
H the assessment of marks at the viva voce test may be regarded as
VIJAYSYAL v. STATE [PATIL,J.] 255
suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. Moreover, apart from only A
three candidates, namely Trilok Nath Sharma, Shakuntala Rani and
Balbir Singh one of whom belonged to the general category and was
related to Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur and the other two were candidates
for the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and were related to Shri
R.C.Marya, there was no other candidate in whom the Chairman or B
any members of the Haryana Public Service Commission was
interested, so that there could be any motive for manipulation of the
marks at the viva voce examination. There were of course general
allegations of casteism made against the Chairman and the members
of the Haryana Public Service Commission, but these allegations were
not substantiated by producing any reliable material before the Court. C
The Chairman and member of the Haryana Public Service Commission
in fact belonged to different castes and it was not as if any particular
caste was predominant amongst the Chairman and members of the
Haryana Public Service Commission so as even to remotely justify an
inference that the marks might have been manipulated to favour the
candidates of that caste. We do not think that the Division Bench was D
right in striking down the selections made by the Haryana Public
Service Commission on the ground that they were vitiated by
arbitrariness or by reasonable likelihood of bias."

In that case the marks allocated for viva voce test came to 22.2% of the E
total number of marks kept for the competitive examination. This percentage
of 33.3% was in the case of Ex-service officers and 22.2% was in the case
of other candidates.

As regards the allocation of marks for interview, in paras 23 and 24 of
the same judgment it is stated thus:- p
"23. This Court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. pointed in
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, [1982] 1 SCR 320 that the object of
any process of selection for entry into public 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 G
objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient
public service. So open competitive examination has come to be
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
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A examination or it may be based exdusively on oral interview or it
may be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide
what 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 venture into such exclusive
B thickets to 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 to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not necessarily
c always. There may be posts and appointments, where the only p~oper
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 height 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
D Government aided by experts in the field may appropriately decide to
have a written examination followed by a viva voce test.

24. It is now admitted on all hands that while a written examination
assesses the candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, a viva
voce test seeks to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal
E qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages
over the viva voce test, there are yet no written tests which can
evaluate a candidate's initiate, alertness, resourcefulness,
dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical
presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and
F dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision,
ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities
can be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by viva voce
test, much depending on the constitution of the interview board."

Even having found allocation of 22.2% marks for viva voce test were
G unreasonable and excessive, selection was not upset as stated hereunder:-
"28. But the question which then arises for consideration is as to
what is the effect of allocation of such a high percentage of marks for
the viva voce test, both in case of ex-service officers and in case of
other candidates, on the selections made by the Haryana Public Service
H
VIJAYSYAL v. STATE [PATIL.I.] 257
Commission. Though we have taken the view that the percentage of A
marks allocated for the viva voce test in both these cases is excessive,
we do not think we would be justified in the exercise of our discretion
in setting aside the selections made by the Haryana Public Service
Commission after the lapse of almost two years. The candidates
selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission have already B
i been appointed to various posts and have been working on these
posts since the last about two years. Moreover the Punjab Civil Service
(Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 under which 33.3% marks in case of
ex-service officers and 22.2% marks in case of other candidates have
been allocated for the viva voce test have been in force for almost 50
years and everyone has acted on the basis of these rules. If selections C
made in accordance with the prescription contained in these rules are
now to be set aside, it will upset a large number of appointments
already made on the basis of such selections and the integrity and
efficiency of the entire administrative machinery would be seriously
jeopardized. We do not therefore propose to set aside the selections
made by the Haryana Public Service Commission though they have D
been made on the basis of an unduly high percentage of marks
allocated for the viva voce test."

This Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case, aforementioned, found
allocation of 12.2% marks for viva voce test was fair and just and in that view E
directed that marks allocated for the viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2% of
the total marks taken into account for the purpose of selection. Even judged
by this standard in the present appeals, the marks allocated for viva voce test
being 25 as against total marks of 240 are less than 12.2% i.e. well within
the ambit of direction given. In that case, this Court declined to exercise
discretion to set aside the selection made by the HPSC after the lapse of 2 F
years taking note that the selected candidates had already been appointed to
various posts.

In All India State Bank Officers' Federation and Ors. v. Union of India
and Ors., [1997) 9 SCC 151, this Court observed, "there can be no rigid or
hard and fast rule that the interview marks can only be 15 per cent and no G
more. The percentage of marks for viva voce or interview which can be
regarded as unreasonable will depend on the facts of each case. Decisions of
this Court show that no rigid rule, relating to percentage of marks for interview
of general universal application can or has been laid down. What the interview
or viva voce marks should be may vary from service to service and the office H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A or position or the purpose for which the interview is to be held. But the
interview marks should not be so high as to give an authority unchecked
scope to manipulate or act in an arbitrary manner while making selection."

This Court in a recent decision in Jasvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of
J&K and Ors., (2003] 2 SCC 132, after referring to earlier decisions, pointed
B out that the very observations made in Ashok Kumar Yadav 's case show that
there cannot be any hard and fast rule of universal application for allocating
the marks for viva voce vis-a-vis the marks for written examination and
consequently the percentage indicated therein alone cannot be the touchstone
in alt cases; what ultimately is required to be ensured is as to whether the
C allocation as such is with an oblique intention and whether it is so arbitrary
as capable of being abused and misused in its exercise. Para 7 of the said
judgment reads:-

"7. In Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, (1988] 3 SCC
241, prescription of 33% as minimum qualifying marks of 60 out of
D total 180 marks set apart for viva voce examination does not by itself
incur any constitutional infirmity. In Manjeet Singh v. ES/ Corpn.,
(1990] 2 SCC 367 this Court held that in the absence of any
prescription of qualifying marks for the interview test the same 40%
as applicable for written examination was reasonable. Jn Anzar Ahmad
v. State of Bihar, (1994] l SCC 150 this Court exhaustively reviewed
E the entire case law on the subject including the one in Ashok Kumar
Yadav case and upheld a selection method which involved allocation
of 50% marks for academic performance and 50 marks for the
interview. The very observations in Ashok Kumar Yadav case would
go to show that there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule of universal
p application for allocating the marks for viva voce vis-a-vis the marks
for written examination and consequently the percentage indicated
therein alone cannot be the touchstone in alt cases. What ultimately
required to be ensured is as to whether the allocation, as such is with
an oblique intention and whether it is so arbitrary as capable of being
abused and misused in its exercise. Judged from the above the Division
G Bench could not be held to have committed any error in sustaining
the allocation of 25 marks (20%) for viva voce as against 100 marks
for written examination for selection of candidates in the present
case. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has adopted a superficial
xercise and proceeded on a misunderstanding of the real ratio of the
H decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav case. Further, the learned Single
VIJA Y SYAL v. STATE [PATIL ,J.] 259

Judge appears to have applied the ultimate decision in the said case A
to the case on hand drawing certain inferences on mere assumptions
and surmises or some remote possibilities, without any proper or
actual foundation or basis, therefor."

The observations made in para 8 of the same judgment in somewhat
similar circumstances which have negative impact on the contentions urged B
on behalf of the appellants are:-

"8. T~e learned single Judge also seems to have been very much
carried away by few instances noticed by him as to the award of
higher percentage of marks in viva voce to those who got lower
marks in the written test as compared to some who scored higher C
marks in the written examination but could not get as much higher
marks in viva voce. Picking up a negligible few instances cannot
provide the basis for either striking down the method of selection or
the selections ultimately made. There is no guarar.tee that a person
who fared well in the written test will or should be presumed to have D
fared well in the viva voce test and also and the expert opinion about
as well as experience in viva voce does not lend credence to any such
general assumptions, in all circumstances and for all eventualities.
That apart, the variation of written test marks of those who were
found to have been awarded higher marks in viva voce vis-a-vis those
who secured higher marks in the written test but not so in the viva E
voce cannot be said to be so much (varying from five marks and at
any rate below even I 0) as to warrant any proof of inherent vice in
the very system of selection or the actual selection in the case. There
was no specific allegation of any ma/a fides or bias against the Board
constituted for selection or anyone in the Board nor any such plea F
could be said to have been substantiated in this case. The observation
by the learned Single Judge that there was a conscious effort made
for bringing some candidates within the selection zone cannot be said
to be justified from the mere fact of certain instances noticed by him
on any general principle or even on the merits of those factual instances
alone. Further, the course adopted by the learned Single Judge in G
directing selection from general candidates of all those who have
obtained 56 marks in the written examination cannot be justified at
all and it is not given to the Court to alter the very method of selection
and totally dispense with viva voce in respect of a section alone of the
candidates, for purposes of selection. On a careful and overall H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A consideration of the judgments of the learned Single Judge and that
of the Division Bench, we are of the view that the decision of the
learned Single Judge cannot be sustained for the reasons assigned by
r
him and the decision of the Division Bench cannot be considered to
suffer any such serious infirmity in law to call for our interference."

B In Civil Appeal No. 93 7 of 2002 the learned counsel for the appellant
urged an additional ground that 5 marks fixed for higher educational
qualifications were not given to the appellant. According to him the appellant
had additional qualifications of M.A. and LL.B.; he ought to have been given
additional marks for M.A. as well as LL.B., but only 2 marks were given for
C both the qualifications together, which affected his chance of selection. It
appears that this point was not urged before the High Court and no opportunity
was available to the respondents to meet this point. However, during the
course of hearing, based on the criteria fixed for selection, it was explained
to us by the learned counsel for the respondents that for additional educational
qualifications 5 marks were set apart. Out of them maximum marks available
D to the highest educational qualification of a candidate were to be given and
not that marks were to be given to every additional educational qualification.
It is better to look at the criteria, which was filed as Annexure R- I in the writ
petition, which is reproduced hereunder: -

"ANNEXURE R-1
E
CRITERIA/FORMULA ADOPTED FOR SELECTION OF
CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF NAIB TEHSILDAR BY THE
SUBORDINATE SERVICES SEL~CTION BOARD, PUNJAB

Total marks for selection 240
F
(i) marks allotted for competitive test 200
(ii) Marks allotted for Additional Educational, sports I5
and other Qualifications

(iii) Marks allotted for interview/ (VIVA-VOCE) 25
G
I. A. Marks allotted for Educational Qualification
(for additional Qualification) 5
(i) Ph.D. 5
(ii) M.A./M.Sc./M.Tech and
H other post graduate degrees
VIJAY SYAL v. STATE [PATIL J.] 261
1st Division 3 A
2nd Division and
3rd Division 2
(iii) LL.B. 2
(iv) Any other qualification
Note: The candidate will be given the marks on the basis of his/her B
highest qualification and not on the basis of his/her each
qualification lower than this.
II. B. SPORTS/EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 5
(i) fu!9rts
International winner 5 c
National winner 3
State winner 2
(ii) N.C.C. 3
C Certificate 3
B Certificate 2 D
A Certificate -I

(iii) N.S.S. 2
One camp
Two or more camp 2
III. INTERVIEW E
Interview marks of the Board will be 25 and the system for
awarding the marks would be same as approved separately for
all categories.
Sd/-
(Jasdev Singh Sandhu)
F
Chairman
19.1.1999
Sd/- Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh Randhawa) (Ashok Loomba)
Member Member G
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parkash Singh Gardhiwal) (Virsa Singh Valtoha)
Member Member

H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Sd/-
(Jarnail Singh Wahid)
Member"

From Annexure R-1 it is clear that total marks for selection were 240. Marks
allocated for competitive test were 200, marks allocated for additional
B educational, sports and other qualifications were 15 and marks allocated for
interview (Viva voce) are 25. Marks allocated for educational qualifications
are 5 and maximum marks are 5 for Ph.D., for post graduation in first division
3 marks, for second and third divisions 2 marks, for LL.B. 2 marks and any
other qualification I mark. If the argument of the learned counsel for the
C appellant is to be accepted, it may result in anomalous situation. Suppose, a
candidate, who possesses three additional qualifications including Ph.D., in
that event he would be entitled 5 marks for Ph.D. and additional marks for
every additional educational qualifications. Then the total marks to be assigned
to a candidate for the educational qualifications shall be more than 5 marks.
Jn the case of the appellant, although he had two additional educational
D qualifications, the maximum marks to which he was entitled for highest
qualification were given. Hence he cannot make any grievance. This being
the position, we do not find any merit in the contention. Hence it is rejected.

In Civil Appeal No. 5985 of 2002 it was urged that no marks were
given to the appellant for additional educational qualifications. It appears that
E this point also was not raised before the High Court and similarly no
opportunity was available to the respondents to meet the point. The learned
counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had additional post
graduation qualification and no marks were given to him. It was brought to
our notice by showing the original record that in the application form no
F mention was made about additional post graduation qualification acquired by
the appellant and no record or certificate was placed before the authorities at
appropriate time to show that the appellant had acquired additional
qualifications. Hence the contention has no merit and consequently it is
rejected.

G In these appeals, the non-official respondents having been appointed in
May, 1998, are continuing in service almost for a period of five years. On
this ground as well as looking to the conduct of the appellants in making
misrepresentation to this Court and finding no merit in these appeals, we
should d~cline to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. It may be
H noted that even in the Ashok Kumar Yadav 's case (supra) this Court set aside
-
VIJAYSYAL v. STATE [PAT!L.J.] 263
the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court by rejecting the A
challenge to the validity of the selection made by the HPSC.

In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings
in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly,
inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material
facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the B
court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the
solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting
recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does
so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that
follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous C
treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly
taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to
take serious view in such ma:ners to ensure expected purity and grace in the
administration of justice.

Before we part with these cases, we must observe that the D
misrepresentation made by the appellants in the SLPs supported by an affidavit
require serious action but we refrain from taking any further actio11 in view
of the apology and regret expressed by the appellants during the hearing. But,
we administer a warning to them to be careful in future and not to make any
misrepresentation or false statement before any court and impose cost also.
E
For the reasons stated and discussion made above, these appeals are
dismissed but with cost of Rs. I 0,000/- (Rs. 5000 to be paid by each of the
appellants) in Civil Appeal No. 812 of2002 and Rs. 5,000 in each one of the
remaining appeals to be paid by the appellants which amount shall be depositeJ
with the Legal Aid Committee of the Supreme Court.
F
S.K.S. Appeals dismissed,