BINDUMOL Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these original petitions were applicants to the post of Assistant Grade III in the services of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent (in O. P. No. 9897/93) invited applications for recruitment to the said post by publishing a notification in the newspapers in June 1992. The petitioners applied. A written test was conducted. All of them have become successful in the written test. They were invited for interview. They appeared for interview. Thereafter, nothing was heard. On enquiry, they could understand that a list had been prepared and appointments had been made from the list. On enquiry, they could understand that the respondents adopted a selection process wherein out of the total 100 marks 50% alone was set apart for written test; while the balance 50% was set apart for interview. Thus, the mark awarded in the interview was sufficient to tilt the balance even depriving the candidates who have scored his marks in the written test. The job is of clerical nature. In such circumstances, there cannot be such predominance for interview in the process of selection. Setting up of 50% marks for interview will vitiate the selection, as the candidates could be chosen by awarding marks in the interview and even neglecting the performance in the written test. In the matter of public employment, oral interview test should not be relied upon as an exclusive test but can only be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test. Thus, the method adopted by respondents 1 and 2 was highly arbitrary, vitiating the entire process of selection. The petitioners submit that they were eliminated by awarding marks in the interview to candidates who scored less marks than them. This was arbitrary and illegal. The academic brilliance, ability and other qualities of candidates who had scored high marks in the written test were given a go bye by reason of setting up 50% marks for interview alone. This was easily susceptible to malpractice and favoritism. provides for awarding 50% marks or interview alone. They seek a direction to the 1st respondent not to award more than 50% marks for interview alone. They seek a direction to the 1st respondent not to award more than 30% of the total marks for interview and to conduct interview afresh for the purpose of selection.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent 1 and 2. 50% marks was set apart for the interview, is rather admitted in the counter affidavit. But, it is submitted by reason of that the selection process is not vitiated. Marks were awarded during the interview impartially taking into account the performance of the candidates. The interview committee consisted of officers of proved integrity, competency and impartiality. The marks obtained in the written test and interview were taken for the purpose of selection. It is further submitted that, as the written test and interview were held in September and October, 1992, the original petitions filed in 1993 were highly belated. No explanation has been offered for the delay. By reason of delay, the petitioners dis entitled themselves for any relief being granted in the original petitions. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the very same selection was under challenge in O. P. 14793/92 and connected cases. Those cases were purported to be representative action. The petitioners were aware of those cases and were sitting on the fence awaiting decision in those cases. It is after disposal of those cases that this new batch of original petitions have been filed. On that count also, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

(3.) IT is an accepted position 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 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 initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and 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 a viva voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board". But, interview has no role in the mode of selection, 'Where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination' as held in Lila Dhara's Case (AIR 1981 SC 1777). In such circumstances, only minimal importance shall be attached to the viva voce test, as held in Lila Dhar's Case. It was for this reason that in Ajay Hasia's Case, the Supreme Court took the view that allocation of a high percentage of marks as 33.3% to viva voce test was beyond all reasonable proportion and the selection of candidates was arbitrary. But, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test, is the only way, subject to basic requirements being satisfied, "to assess the fitness of the candidates" as held in Lila Dhar's Case (AIR 1981 SC 1777). There may also be services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise. In the cases, a process of sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise. So, as held in Ashok Kumar Yadav's Case (AIR 1987 SC 454), "there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter for determination by experts. 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 Liladhar's Case "exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives".