ANJUSHRI PATHAK Vs. REGISTRAR, DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1984 SCR 407]. The Supreme Court observed that it had generally indicated that interview marks should not be more than 15% of the total marks. Kasliwal, J expressed the minority view but concurred on this point after taking stock of the earlier case law and observed in para 123 of the judgment that under the existing circumstances allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid. The law on the point is thus settled. Let us now examine the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid settled view of the Supreme Court. The break up of marks given in para 4 in the return of respondent No. 1 reproduced above would show that out of the total 200 marks for the selection, 100 marks were reserved for objective type written test and 100 marks were reserved for interview. 100 marks for interview were then sub -divided into marks for academic achievements and marks for performance at viva -voce in the ratio of 40:60. So far as marks reserved for academic achievements are concerned, there should be no quarrel, because they are to be assessed on a definite unalterable criteria reflecting the performance of a candidate in his previous academic career. No element of arbitrariness existed or can be smelt in the process of assessment of academic achievements. Thus virtually the reservation of marks for oral interview come to 60 marks out of 200 marks i.e. 30%. Under the law laid down by the Supreme Court reservation of more than 15% marks for oral interview would be arbitrary and invalid. The provision of 30% marks, therefore, cannot be sustained and has to be taken as arbitrary, invalid and unconstitutional. Fortunately, it is not necessary for us to hold that the entire selection process is vitiated because of this, because in para 7 of the return the. respondent No.1 has set out the comparative performance of the petitioner and respondents No. 3 and 4. Our purpose will be served by reducing 15% marks scored by the candidates in viva -vace exam. The petitioner has scored 20% marks in the viva, the respondent No. 3'hasscored 35 marks and respondent No.4 has scored 40 marks. 50% cut in the marks would bring them to the 15% level. Thus, after 50% deduction the marks obtained by the petitioner, respondents No.3 and 4 in viva examination would come to 10, 17.5 and 20 respectively. Consequent the total marks secured by the candidates out of 200 marks would now be 109 marks by the petitioner, 107.5 marks by respondent No.3 and 104 marks by respondent No.4. Thus, the petitioner would be catapulted to first position, the respondent No.3 and 4 would be pushed down to second and third positions respectively. This will result in exclusion of respondent No.4 from the list of selected candidates as only two vacancies existed. The petitioner thus will have to be granted admission and so the petition deserves to succeed. 2. The respondent No.4 submitted before us that because of the selection he had left his job and has joined the course and has been in it for nearly 4 months now. If, he is asked to quit now, he would suffer irreparable loss for no fault of his. We realise the difficulty. Since respondent No.1 cannot be visited on respondent No.4, who could not be blamed for the mistake in the system especially where he proportion of marks reserved for viva -voce was not made known to the candidate earlier. Pronouncements of the Supreme Court right from the year 1981 in Ajay Hasia's case, the respondent No.1 did not realise that fixing the percentage of marks for interview at 30% would be violative of Art. 14 and, therefore, the blame lies with the institute. The institute has, therefore, to suffer, if at all its interest will suffer by providing an extra seat for accommodation, the respondent No. 4 who has lost his job because of his wrong selection made by the Institute. AIR 1992 SC 1630 followed. Petition allowed.