LILA DHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the ideal mode of selection to a Public Service. by written examination. by oral test (viva voce). or by a combination of both If the last. what is the proper. relative weight that should be attached to the written examination and the oral test Is the oral test so pernicious in practice. as suggested by some. that it should be abandoned without regrets or the weight to be attached to it be made minimal Has any such consensus emerged among the informed and the cognoscenti as to require the Court to scrap a selection as arbitrary on the sole around that the weight accorded to the oral test appeared to be high

(2.) Pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the High Court of Rajasthan. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission held a competitive examination for recruitment of Munsifs. The competitive examination consisted of a written examination with two papers in law carrying 100 marks each and two papers. one in Hindi and the other in English, each carrying 50 marks and a viva voce examination carrying 100 marks. The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. D. Kudal. Judge. Rajasthan High Court. Shri Hari Datt Gupta. Chairman. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Adaviappa. Member. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and an expert. The expert Member was either Dr. I. C. Saxena. or Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by rotation. Schedule III of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules pre- scribes the criteria to be considered and the matters to be tested in the viva voce examination. The relevant paragraph is as follows:

(3.) Shri Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner raised two principal contentions before us. The first was that the entire selection was vitiated by the allocation of 25 per cent of the total marks for the viva voce examination. The submission was that the allocation of so high a percentage of marks for the interview test introduced in irredeemable element of arbitrariness so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In support of this submission reliance was Placed on the decisions of this Court in Ajay Hasia. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi. AIR 1981 SC 487, Shri Mehta's second contention was that marks were awarded in the interview-test in a single lot instead of sub-dividine and awarding marks separately under various heads for the various matters tested in the interview. Reliance was placed on Pariakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu. (1971) 2 SCR 430.