PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M. FARIDA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1976
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BHAGWATI, P.N.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1976 AIR 2482 1977 SCR (1) 323
1976 SCC (4) 153
ACT
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I
and II Posts appointment by competitive Examination) Rules
1966--Rule 9 read with Part IV of Schedule II--Scope
of--Awarding block marks in interview--if violative of the
rule.
HEADNOTE
Rule 9 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Proba-
tioners (Class I and II Posts appointment by Competitive
Examinations) Rules, 1966, Prescribes a written examination
for selection of candidates for the service followed by a
personality test. The qualities to be judged at the time of
viva voce, stipulated in Part IV of Schedule II to the rules
are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear
and logical exposition etc.
In their writ petitions before the High Court the re-
spondents, who were the unsuccessful candidates in the
selections, impugned the personality test on the ground that
the Selection Committee did not award separate marks for
each of the _seven qualities required to be judged in the
candidates at the test. Following the decision of this Court
in A. Periakaruppan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. the
High Court allowed the petitions and directed the Service
Commission to hold a fresh personality test.
On the question whether r. 9 read with Part IV of Sched-
ule 1I required the Selection Committee to award separate
marks for the seven qualities:
Allowing the States appeal,
HELD: (1) It would not be correct to assume as a general
proposition that in every case where the interviewing body
is asked to take into consideration several specified quali-
ties. they must be of equal value and separate marks should
be allotted under each head. Where the rules do not contain
a clear direction, it would be reasonable to suppose that
the intention is that there should be a block assessment on
an integrated test. [327 B]
In the instant case the interviewing body was required
to award a block mark on a total impression of the personal-
ity of each candidate giving due consideration t0 the seven
qualities specified in Part IV. Part IV of the Schedule
never intended that separate marks should be allotted for
the seven qualities stated therein. [328 F]
(2) Personality is commonly understood as an aggregate
of traits that identifies a person and distinguishes him
from others. Quite often with some practical aim. emphasis
is laid on some of the attributes. The end result may no be
an assessment of the whole personality, but attributes are
abstracted for study in an attempt to evaluate the man for
the purpose in view. [328 C]
In the instant case the qualities are mentioned only as
guide, as indicating the attributes to be kept in view in
assessing the personality of the candidates. It is hardly
possible in the test contemplated to allocate separate marks
for each of the various qualities specified because most of
them overlap and are so intermixed that they cannot be
separated. The test carries a maximum mark of 200; it is a
little absurd to suppose that the seven qualities to be
judged at the interview are of equal value each carrying
28-4/7 marks. [328 E]
A. Periakaruppan & Am’. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
[19711 2 SCR 430 distinguished and held inapplicable.
324
R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors. [1964]
6 S.C.R. 368, 382 referred to.
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeals Nos. 1261-
1264 of 1975.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1/2.7.1975 of the
Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1202. 1607, 1608
and 2739/74 respectively).
V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. Genl. (in CA. 1261/75) and
B.R.G.K. Achar (In CAs. 1261-1264/75) for the Appellants.
D.V. Patel (In CA. 1261/75), S.S. Khanduja & S.K. Jain
for Respondents 1-2 in CA. 1261/75 and Respondent No. 1 in
CAs. 2263-1264/75.
V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. General and Girish Chandra for
Intervener in CA 1261/75.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J.---These are four appeals brought on certifi-
cates of fitness granted by the High Court of Karnataka.
The question which according to the High Court needs to be
decided by this Court was framed as follows:
"whether in the personality test of candi-
dates for selection to public appointments, the
selecting authority should allot separate marks
for each of the seven qualities required to be
judged in a candidate or whether it is permissible
for the selecting authority to allot marks in a
lump in each personality test."
Considering the facts of these cases which we will presently
state, the question seems to have been framed a little too
broadly. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (called
the Commission hereinafter) by its notification dated Sep-
tember 7, 1972 called for applications for the combined
competitive examinations under the Karnataka Recruitment of
Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Post appointment
by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966. In response to
this notification, the respondents in these appeals along
with others applied for selection. The Commission held a
written examination followed by a personality test as pro-
vided by rule 9 of the rules and sent a list of 30 candi-
dates whom they selected for appointment as class I gazetted
probationers, and another list of 88 candidates for appoint-
ment as class II gazetted probationers. The manner in which
the personality test is to be held is laid down in Part IV
of Schedule 11 to Rules, the relevant portion of which is as
follows:
"Personality test carrying a maximum marks of
200 for all Services. The candidates will be
interviewed by the Commission who will have before
them their particulars such as qualification,
experience, age etc. They will be asked questions
of general interest, the object of the viva voce
is to assess the personal suitability of the candi-
dates for. the service or services for which they
have applied. The
325
qualities to be judged at the time of viva voca are
the mental alertness, critical powers of assimila-
tion, clear and logical exposition, balance of
judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability
for social cohesion and leadership and intellectual
depth of the candidates."
Five of the respondents in the four different
appeals who were not selected, M. Farida, P.V.
Mohan, B.R. Kulkarni, L.V. Dharmayat and M.R.
Devappa had applied for the posts of gazetted
probationers, class II, two of them, Farida and
Mobart, were also applicants for the class I post.
They filed writ petitions in the Karnataka High
Court, Farida and Mohan jointly, and each of the
three others separately, challenging the selec-
tions made. Their common grievance was that the
personality test held by the Commission was invalid
as the selection committee did not award separate
marks for each of the seven qualities which were
required to be judged in the candidates at the
test. Admittedly, the selection committee did not
allot separate marks for each of the specified
qualities, but awarded a block mark to each candi-
date in assessing his personality with reference to
those qualities. The argument for the writ peti-
tioners in the High Court was that the personality
test as required under the Rules was an objective
test based upon seven factors or criteria, and,
therefore, it was essential that separate marks
were allotted in respect of each such factor or
criterion. In support of this contention reliance
was placed on a decision of the Mysore High Court,
D.G. Viswanath v. Chief Secretary, Government of
Mysore, (1) and the decision of this Court in ,A.
Periakaruppan & ,Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(2) which appears to affirm the view expressed in
Viswanath’s case. On behalf of the State of Karna-
taka it was contended that the seven qualities
referred to in Part IV of schedule II were merely
different facets of the integrated personality of a
candidate which could not easily be demarcated from
one another, and, therefore, awarding a block mark
on an appraisal of the personality of the candidate
as a whole was the correct method. The High Court
found that there was "considerable force in the
contention of the learned Government advocate", but
felt that in view of the decision in Periakatup-
pan’s case the writ petitions must succeed, and by
a common judgment allowed the. petitions directing
the State of Karnataka and the commission to hold a
fresh personality test. These appeals arise out of
these four writ petitions.
In Periakaruppan’s case this Court was consid-
ering a case of admission to certain medical col-
leges in the State of Tamil Nadu. In that case the
selection committees were authorised to give a
maximum of 75 marks at the interview on the basis
of the following tests:
1. Sports or National Cadet Corps activities;
2. Extra-curricular special services;
3. General physical condition and endurance;
4. General ability; and
5. Aptitude.
(1) [19631 2 Mysore L.J. 302. (2)
[19711 2 S.C.R. 430.
326
periakaruppan’s case came up on a writ petition
before this Court. The petitioners in that case
challenged the selections, inter alia, on the
ground that the selections were manipulated by the
Government. This Court came to the conclusion that
the allegations of malafide had not been estab-
lished, but by its judgment and order dated Septem-
ber 23, 1970 directed the State of Thamil Nadu to
constitute a separate committee for selection on
the view that as the previous selection committee
had not divided the "interview" marks under the
aforesaid five different heads but awarded marks in
a lump, the interview was vitiated. This Court
accordingly ordered that the Committee should allot
separate marks under the five heads mentioned in
the rule. periakaruppa’s case approved the decision
of the Mysore High Court in Viswanath’s case. The
Mysore High Court had held that it could not be
said that the Government had conferred an unguided
power on the selection committees and, therefore,
"in the absence of specific allocation of marks for
each head, it must be presumed that the Government
considered that each of the heads should carryas
being equal in importance to any other," and that
it must be inferred that the intention of the
Government was that each one of those heads should
carry equal marks. It appears that periakaruppan
came to this Court a second time challenging the
selection made by the new selection Committee
constituted pursuant to the order of this Court
dated September 23, 1970; one of the grounds of
challenge was that despite the direction in the
earlier judgment, the selection committee did not
distribute the "interview" marks equally among the
five heads. The second writ petition made by
periakaruppan also succeeded and this Court again
quashed the impugned selection. (1)
Mr. Raman, Additional Solicitor General of
India, appearing for the appellants and the inter-
vener, Union Public Service Commission, sought to
distinguish parliakaruppan’s case from the cases
before us on the same ground on which the
Government Advocate made a similar attempt in the
High Court. Mr. Raman submitted that admission to
technical or professional courses with which peria-
karuppan’s case was concerned stood on a different
footing from selection of candidates for adminis-
trative services as in these cases. It was argued
that the test in the former case may be regarded as
an objective test but in the latter it has to be
subjective because the qualities specified here
are intangible qualities. We do not think it is
possible to distinguish periakaruppan’s case on
this ground. For, as pointed out in the judgment
under appeal, some of the qualities for test in
Viswanath’s case which periakaruppan approved,
were also intangible, like aptitude and personali-
ty. Further, even where the qualities to be tested
are intangible qualities, if the relevant rule
required that separate marks should be allotted for
each, the interviewers have to follow the rule and
do the best under the circumstances.
Whether a block mark should be given after the
interview on a consideration of the qualities
evinced by a candidate, or marks are to be allotted
separately under each head depends, in our opinion,
upon the rule regulating the examination. In
periakaruppan’s case it was held that the inten-
tion of the Government was that each of the
327
specified qualities should carry equal marks. In
these appeals we have not been called upon to
decide whether the rule concerned in Periakarup-
pan’s case was correctly interpreted. We do not
however think that it would be correct to assume as
a general proposition that in every case where the
interviewing body is asked to take into considera-
tion several specified qualities, they must be of
equal value and separate marks should be allotted
under each head; on the contrary, in our opinion,
where the rules do not contain a clear direction,
it would be reasonable in such cases to suppose
that the intention is that there should be a block
assessment on an integrated test. It was observed
in Periakaruppan’s case that conceding to the
selection committee the right to award block marks
would enable the selection committee to act arbi-
trarily and allot marks "as it pleased". It is not
clear how the position is altered if the committee
has to allot marks separately under each head if it
wished to proceed "as it pleased". On this point
it may be relevant to refer t.? what this Court
said in R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore
& Ors. (1)
"In the field of education there are diver-
gent views as regard the mode of testing the
capacity and calibre of students in the matter of
admissions to colleges. Orthodox educationists
stand by the marks obtained by a student in the
annual examination, The modern trend of opinion
insists upon other additional tests, such as inter-
view, performance in extra-curricular activities,
personality test, psychiatric tests etc. Obviously
we are not in a position to judge which method is
preferable or which test is the correct one. If
there can be manipulation or dishonesty in allot-
ting marks at interviews, there can equally be
manipulation in the matter of’ awarding marks in
the written examinations. In the ultimate analy-
sis, whatever method is adopted its success depends
on the moral standards of the members constituting
the selection committee and their sense of objec-
tivity and devotion to duty. This criticism is
more a reflection on the examiners than on the
system itself. The scheme of selection, however
perfect it may be on paper, may be abused in
practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a
ground for quashing it."
We do not think that the total arrived at by adding up the
separate marks awarded for the different qualities is always
a true measure of a candidate’s suitability. An illustra-
tion from Periakaruppan’s case would serve to clarify the
point. Of the five qualities mentioned there, suppose a
candidate secures full 15 marks for extra-curricular activi-
ties but fails to get any credit under any of the other four
heads, and another candidate gets a few marks under each
head aggregating, say, 14 marks, one mark less than the
total marks secured by the first candidate. Which of the
two should be considered more qualified for admission to
medical profession ? It would take great courage, we think,
to hold that the candidate who secured 15 marks was more
suitable.
(1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368 (p. 382).
5--104SCI/76
328
The question therefore is whether rule 9 read with Part
IV of Schedule 11 of the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted
Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by Competi-
tive Examinations) Rules, 1966 required the selection
committee to award separate marks for the seven qualities
mentioned in Part IV. Rule 9, so far as it is relevant for
the present purpose, says that the Commission shall call
for a personality test five times the number of candidates
as there are vacancies in the services in the order of
merit on the basis of the results of written papers.
Personality is commonly understood as an aggregate of
traits that identifies a person and distinguishes him from
others. Quite often with some practical aim, like selecting
the most promising students for admission to particular
courses or picking out the suitable ones from a group of
job applicants, emphasis is laid some of the attributes.
The end result may not be an assessment of the whole per-
sonality, but attributes are abstracted for study in an
attempt to evaluate the man for the purpose in view. Part
IV of Schedule 11 which provides the details of the test
calls it a personality test, the object of which is to
assess the personal suitability of the candidates for the
service or services for .which they have applied. The
candidates will be asked questions of general interest, on
the answers to which, it appears, the assessment would
depend. It is further provided that the qualities to be
Judged are: mental alertness, critical powers of assimila-
tion, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment,
variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion
and leadership and intellectual depth. It seems to us in
the context that the qualities are mentioned only as guide,
as indicating the attributes to be kept in view, in assess-
ing the personality of the candidates. It seems hardly
possible in the test contemplated to allocate separate marks
for each of the various qualities specified, because most of
them overlap one another and are so intermixed that they
cannot be separated, Also, the test carries a maximum mark
of 200; it seems a little absurd to suppose that the seven
qualities to be judged at the interview are of equal value,
each carrying 28 4/7 marks. This further confirms the view
that Part IV of Schedule 11 never intended that separate
marks should be allotted for the several qualities stated
therein. Reading Rule 9 with Part IV of Schedule 11, we are
of opinion that the interviewing body was required to award
a block mark on a total impression of the personality of
each candidate after giving due consideration to the seven
qualities specified in Part IV. For these reasons we think
that the appeals should succeed. We therefore allow the
appeals and dismiss the writ petitions. There will be no
order as to costs
P.B.R.
Appeals allowed.
329