PRAFULLA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. CHAIRMAN BAITARANI GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is serving as a Junior Clerk -cwm -Cashier in Baitarani Gramya Bank, oppt. party No. 1. On 26 -3 - 1987 the Bank issued a circular informing ail concerned that it wanted to till up 24 posts of Field Supervisor by internal promotion from among the eligible Junior Clerk -cum -Cashiers. The promotions were to be given on the basis of appraisal of performance of the eligible candidates and result of the viva voce test. Those clerks who had put in six years' service were to be considered as eligible for promotion. For appraisal of the performance, 70 marks and for viva voce test 30 marks were allotted. It appears that in the Board's meeting which was held on 25 -5 - 1987 it was decided that the minimum eligible marks shall be 40%, i.e., 28 out of 70 marks, allotted for appraisal of the performance. The appraisal was to be done for the years 1986 and 1987. The petitioner, as it now appears, secured 49 marks out of 70, but in the viva voce test, he secured 11 marks. As the petitioner did not get the minimum 12 marks out of 30 at the interview, he was not promoted whereas those who secured minimum or more than the minimum marks came to be promoted by en order passed on 3 -3 -1988, The petitioner is challenging in this petition the said order of promotion, Annexure -2 to this petition.

(2.) WHAT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that allotment of 30 marks out of 100 for viva voce test was very excessive and on that ground alone the selection and promotions made on the basis thereof should be quashed. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454, more particularly upon the following observations made in paragraph 29 of the judgment : 'Now if the allocation, of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3% in case of ex -service officers and 22.2 % in case of other candidates, for the viva voce test is excessive as held by us, what should be the proper percentage of marks to be allocated for the viya voce test in both these cases......We would therefore direct that hereafter in case of selections to be made to the Haryana Civil Services(Exscutive Branc ) and other allied services, where the competitive examination consists of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the marks allocated for the viva voce test should not exceed 12. 2% of the total marks taken into account for the purpose of selection. We would suggest that this percentage should also be adopted by the Public Service Commissions in other States, because it is desirable that there should be uniformity in the selection process throughout the country and the practice followed by the Union Public Service Commission should be taken as a guide for the State Public Service Commissions to adopt and follow. The percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test in case of ex -service officers may, for reasons we have already discussed, be somewhat higher than the percentage for the candidates belonging to the general category. We would, therefore, direct that in cease of ex -service officers having regard to the fact that they -would ordinarily be middle aged persons with personalities fully developed, the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test may be 25%..................' It was emphasised that even in case of persons with developed perso - nalities the Supreme Court has considered 25% marks for viva voce test as the maximum. Now, that was a case where employment was sought to a public service on the basis of local competitive exam nation and the candidates were entering that service for the first time.

(3.) IN Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 1777, the Supreme Court has pointed out the usefulness of interview test in the following words : 'It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates' overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test, there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness resourcefulness, dependableness, co -operativeness, 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 may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board.' As to what weight should be attached, to the written examination and oral test when both are considered necessary for proper selection, the Supreme Court has observed as under: 'In the case of admission to a college, for instance, 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. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. That was what was decided by this Court in Pariakaruopan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1971 SC 2303;, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib ,Sehravardi (AIR 1981 SC 437 and other cases. On the other hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied.' The Supreme Court then observed that there cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given and it must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualifications prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. The Supreme Court did not consider allocation of 33% of the total marks for the interview test as bad for selection of Munsits in Rajasthan. The view taken in Lila Dhar's case has been reiterated by the Supreme Cout in Mahmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, (AIR 1988 SC 1451) Therefore, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court has laid down an inflexible rule that if more than 15% marks are allotted to viva voce test, then the selection based upon such a test should be regarded as bad. As regards allocation of 30 marks, the same cannot be regarded as arbitrary or unreasonable as the selection was to be made for promotion to a higher post from amongst those clerks who were already in service for six years and the post to which they ware to be promoted were that of Field Officer. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, must be rejected.