Gujarat High Court
Raghav Sanjay Gupta vs Indian Institute Of Management ... on 1 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 (NOC) 154 (GUJ.), AIRONLINE 2020 GUJ 816
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath, J.B.Pardiwala
C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 388 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7804 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 388 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
RAGHAV SANJAY GUPTA
Versus
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AHMEDABAD
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NAVIN PAHWA, SR.ADVOCATE with MR TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NANDISH Y CHUDGAR(2011) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 01/10/2020
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. This Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-applicant of a writ-application Page 1 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 28 th July 2020 in the Special Civil Application No.7804 of 2020, by which the learned Single Judge rejected the writ-application filed by the appellant herein.
2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal may be summarised as under :
3. The appellant herein came before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.7804 of 2020, praying for the following reliefs:
"(A) To issue appropriate writ, direction or order to quashing and set aside the Respondent's selection process whereby 50% the weightage is given to personal interview and only 25% CAT score which is produced in Annexure-B as the same is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal;
(AA) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent to set aside the Respondent's selection process also on the ground of providing 10% weightage to AWT as compared to 25% weightage to CAT score and 15% weightage to the previous academic/professional score as being unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, in contrary to settled legal position and also violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
(AB) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent to revise the final merit based selection list of Page 2 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT the candidates for the course of post graduate programme of the Respondent institute through CAT-2019 on the basis of settled law which determines not more than 15% weightage to oral interview on the basis of the questions which are directly connected with the course/programme in question and to make admissions on the basis of such revised final merit based list, in the interest of justice and equity.
(AC) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent to record the oral interview of all the candidates for all the programmes and courses and supply a copy thereof on demand by a candidate, in the interest of justice and equity.
(B) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, direct the Respondent;
1. To keep one seat vacant for admission to 2020- 2022 batch of PGP course;
2. Disclose the break up marks obtained by the last successful candidate, last wait listed candidate in general category and the Petitioner under each head including CAT marks and Personal Interview.
(BB) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, direct the Respondent to grant provisional admission to the Petitioner to the course/programme of the Respondent institute through CAT - 2019;
Page 3 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT(BC) Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, direct the Respondent to provide a copy of video/audio record of the oral interview of the Petitioner as conducted on 12/02/2020 by the interview panel."
(C) To pass any other and further order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;
(D) To provide for the cost of this petition;"
4. The appellant herein, along with 2,44,000 other students, appeared for the Common Admission Test (CAT) conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, in 2019 for the Post Graduate Programme in Management 2020-2022 batch. The appellant secured 206.86 marks in the CAT 2019 examination, thereby securing 99.95 percentile. He secured a rank in the top 10 students across the country.
5. The appellant, thereafter, was shortlisted for the next round of Analytical Written Test (AWT) and Personal Interview (PI) by the Institute. He received a call-letter dated 6 th January 2020 for the purpose of appearing in the AWT and PI. It is his case that he holds a certificate issued by the Director, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, U.K., certifying that he has completed a Strategic Professional ACCA Examination, which is an internationally recognized and accepted qualification equivalent to the Indian Chartered Accountant qualification.Page 4 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
6. By an email dated 11th May 2020, the appellant was informed that he was not selected nor wait-listed. As the Institute declined to disclose the marks secured by the appellant, he issued a legal notice dated 11 th May 2020 and sought for the following details :
(a) Total score/grade under different heads of the last candidate in the merit list of the general category
(b) Total score/grade under different heads of the last candidate in the wait list
(c) Total score/grade under different heads of the petitioner.
(d) Seats alloted to engineering and non-engineering candidates.
(e) Average months' work experience of candidates selected.
7. On 19th June 2020, the appellant was informed that his composite score is 0.630269, whereas the composite score of the last selected candidate was 0.657594 and that the last wait- listed candidate had a composite score of 0.645370. The trouble started over here. It is the case of the appellant that the allotment of 50% weightage of marks to the Personal Interview (PI) is something very unreasonable. It is his case that the allocation of only 25% marks secured in the CAT examination leads to subjective and lack of transparency in the admission process.
Page 5 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT8. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant came before this Court by filing the writ-application. The learned Single Judge declined to grant any relief to the appellant substantially on the ground that the allotment of 50% of marks for the Personal Interview in the IIM at Ahmedabad being the policy matter, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should not interfere. In other words, according to the learned Single Judge, as it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving an academic matter, the writ court should keep its hands off. We quote the relevant observations of the learned Single Judge as under:
"14. What has come forth during the course of arguments and hearing of the matter is that IIM, Ahmedabad conducts personal interviews in order to select the best candidates out of the pool of shortlisted candidates to its flagship management program (PGP). Personal interviews are a critical component in the admission process. Finding quality candidates to management program involves interacting with the candidates on a wide range of topics such as their academic background and clarity of concepts learnt in the undergraduate degree, learnings from work experience, logical reasoning and ability to frame coherent arguments, achievements and learning in co-curricular and extra- curricular fields, awareness of national as well as international events, and ability to communicate in English, among others. For the PGP Program, these are essential characteristics of a management post-graduate who will in Page 6 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT the future become leader of an enterprise that can only be determined during a personal meeting. As reproduced at the beginning of the judgement is the message from the Chairperson of IIM, Ahmedabad which also makes it clear that other than academically intelligent students, the institute also needs candidates who can excel in wide range of areas beyond conventional business, areas that seek knowledge and expertise in management.
15. What therefore comes to the foray is that the admission policy of respondent IIM, Ahmedabad is in the public domain at the time of beginning of the admission process. It has to be kept in mind that as discussed above, the course offered by IIM, Ahmedabad is not a mere professional degree course. Here at the time of admission, not only the candidate's Intelligence Quotient is assessed by way of CAT examination but also the Emotional Quotient by way of Personal Interview. At the time when due weightage has to be given to CAT score, the same has been done by giving it a weightage of 65% and when the interview is to be given more weightage, it is also so done. It has to be kept in mind that for an admission to IIM, Ahmedabad, a candidate's Emotional Quotient is rather more important than the Intelligence Quotient. The CAT score does measure a candidate's intelligence to an extent, the final selection process is based on many qualities which are necessary for a professional's career growth.
16. The institute's selection process/admission process thus cannot be faulted with as it can be seen that IIM, Page 7 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Ahmedabad offers studies in a higher education course which cannot be compared to graduate degrees because the course offered requires overall development of a candidate and the intellectual ability of a candidate can be judged only on the basis of an interview and not on the basis of a CAT score which includes a limited assessment in the three Multiple Choice Questions phase which the candidate undertakes. CAT score at best entitles the candidate to be short-listed for further rigorous test for the admission process.
17. So far as the contention that there is violation of Section 7(e) and Section 8(3) of the IIM Act is concerned, Section 7(e) stipulates that the IIM is obliged to conduct examinations and to establish processes for evaluation and performance assessment through a fair and transparent system. Section 8(3) of the IIM Act stipulates that every academic course or programme of study shall be based on merit assessed to the transparent system and reasonable criteria disclosed through the prospectus prior to the commencement of the process of admission. From the discussions hereinabove, it cannot be said that the said sections have been violated by the respondent Institute. The prospectus has been very clear and the entire evaluation process has been fairly explained therein.
18. I would also agree with Mr. Chudgar's submission based on the judgements cited by him that it is now pleaded by the petitioner that he is not selected and such ignorance Page 8 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT on the part of the petitioner that he was not aware of the selection process is misconceived in view of the fact that the prospectus was uploaded, reading of which would indicate that a categorical assertion was made in the prospectus that it was important for the candidate to read them carefully. When such specific instructions were laid down in the prospectus, it is not proper for the petitioner now to turn around after having found himself not been selected to challenge the selection process. The petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra), relevant paragraph of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"22. It is the responsibility of the Courts to interpret the text in a manner which eliminates any element of hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity or anomaly. This principle of statutory construction has been approved by this Court in Modern School v. Union of India , by reiterating that a legislation must further its objectives and not create any confusion or friction in the system. If the ordinary meaning of the text of such law is non-conducive for the objects sought to be achieved, it must be interpreted accordingly to remedy such deficiency."
18.1 The decision relied upon by Mr. Pahwa would not help the petitioner because in the above decision it was a case of misconstruction of statutory rules which is not the case here. Here is a case where the petitioner participated in the admission process being fully aware of the standards of assessment laid down in the prospectus. The candidate like Page 9 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT the petitioner who has himself undergone as stated in the petition an accredited course like ACCA and has academically performed well should have understood and should be treated to have accepted the admission process and the criteria laid therein. Once having found from the prospectus that the final selection is based on a diverse set of attributes which includes performances in CAT, AWT and PI and having read such process of selection, on being unsuccessful, to challenge the same also is a ground on which the petitioner does not deserve any relief. Thus, the petitioner will have to accept the fact that he was not selected for final admission at IIM, Ahmedabad as there are number of other more meritorious candidates ahead of the petitioner.
19. What also needs to be seen that the jurisdiction of the High Court is well limited as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in All India Council for Technical Education vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Ors . [(2009) 11 SCC 726]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed this principle as under :-
"17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, courts will step in. In J.P. Page 10 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980)3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] this Court observed:
"11. ... Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. ..."
20. Thus, having found that the process of admission undergone and undertaken by the IIM, Ahmedabad being above board, as having so laid out in detail in the affidavit in reply and as so seen from the prospectus, and the limited scope of this court, coupled with the fact that different business schools have their own way of selection and parameters and this court does not think it fit to interfere with the same, as no arbitrariness has been borne out, the apprehension of the petitioner that undue weightage has been given to interview and the student who has secured such a high CAT score failed to secure an admission and this process being unjust, is a submission which is misconceived."
9. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein (original writ- applicant) is here before this Court with the present Appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT :
10. Mr.Navin Pahwa, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has filed his written submissions as under :
Page 11 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT1. IIM ACT, 2017 All IIMs are governed by this Central Act. A cumulative reading of Sections 17(j), 10(2), 11, 21, 23, 29, 32 and 34 would demonstrate that the respondent is under direct control and supervision of the Central Government and is therefore a "State" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India.
Section 7(e) and 8(3) of the Act, in particular, are relevant and therefore are reproduced:-
"7(e) to conduct examinations and to establish processes for evaluation and performance assessment through a fair and transparent system;
8(3) The admission to every academic course or programme of study in each Institute shall be based on merit assessed through transparent and reasonable criteria disclosed through its prospectus, prior to the commencement of the process of admission by such Institute:
From the above provisions, it is therefore clear that respondent is under statutory obligation to establish a process for evaluation and performance assessment through a fair and transparent system .Page 12 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
Similarly, the admission to the IIM is to be based on merit assessed through transparent and reasonable criteria disclosed through its prospectus prior to the commencement of process of admission by such institute .
2. Selection process is in violation of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of section 7(e) r/w. 8(3) of the IIM Act, 2017.
The selection process of respondent IIM is produced at Page 39/48 of the SCA. It is in two parts. In the first part, the respondent allocates 35 marks to the score for the previous academic career i.e. from Class- 10th Standard to Graduation and 65% marks are allocated to the score of CAT (Pg.43).
The second part and the final selection process contain following allocation (Pg.45).
Personal Interview 50%
AWT 10%
CAT Score 25%
Previous Academic Career 15%
Total 100%
There are no marks allocated towards co-curricular and extra curricular activities as per the prospectus.
Page 13 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Allocation of 50% marks towards Personal Interview (PI) as compared to only 25% to CAT Score is ex-facie arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Constitutional Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia (1981) 1 SCC 722 in terms observe :-
"19. ... .... there can be no doubt that allocating 33 1/3 of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is significant to note that even for selection of candidates for the Indian administrative service, the Indian Foreign Service and Indian Police Service, where the Personality of the candidate and his personal characteristics and traits are extremely relevant for the purpose of selection, the marks allocated for oral interview are 250 as against 1800 marks for the written examination, constituting only 12.2% of the total marks taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. We must, therefore, regard the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained. ... ..."Page 14 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
"... ... we are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid." (Pg.Z/7 to Z/11 of Appeal) The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Liladhar (1981) 4 SCC 159 in Para 6 was pleased to make certain observations, relevant of which are reproduced as under:-
"6. ... .... 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 per force to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview must be minimal. ... ...." (Pg.Z/11 of Appeal) Again the constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (1985) 4 SCC 417 while considering selection by PSC was pleased to observe thus :
"26. ... ... It is therefore obvious that the allocation Page 15 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3% opens the door wide for arbitrariness and in order to diminish, if not eliminate, the risk of arbitrariness, the percentage needs to be reduced. ... ...
... .... .. But in any event, the marks allocated for viva voce test cannot be as high as 33.3%.
29. ... ... We would therefore direct that in case of ex-service officers, having regard to the fact that they would ordinarily would be middle aged personalities fully developed, the percentage of marks allocated for viva voce test may be 25. Whatever selections are made by the Haryana Service Commission in the future shall be on the basis that the marks allocated for the viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2% in case of candidates belonging to general category and 25% in case of ex-service officers. ... ..."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok @ Somanna Gowda (1992) 1 SCC 28, while considering recruitment to service for the post of Assistant Engineer was pleased to observe as under :-
"2. ... ... Further, the selections were made according to the Rules of 1973 and this practice is being consistently followed for the last 17 years and there is no allegation of any malafides in the matter of the impugned selections. However, the Page 16 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Rules are clearly in violation of the dictum of this Court in the above referred cases and in case the marks for viva voce would have been kept say at 15% of the total marks, the appellants before us were bound to be selected on the basis of the marks secured by them in interview, calculated on the basis of converting the same to 15% of the total marks.... ... ..." (Pg.Z/12-13)"
The appellant also relied upon judgments in the case of Kiran Gupta & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 719 (Para 22), Mrudul Dhar (Minor) vs. UOI, AIR 2005 SC 666 and a Division Bench judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Ravinder Baloria, as mentioned in written submissions of the appellant placed at Pg.108, at Pg. 109 to 111.
In view of the observations, it was urged that by allocating 50% of marks to oral interview and additional 10% marks to AWT as compared to 25% marks to CAT score which is written examination score, the merit is completely compromised. A reference was also made to the table contained at Pg.61 (Part of SCA) to demonstrate the effect of allocation of 50% marks to PI as compared to only 25% marks to CAT score on the result of the appellant. A candidate who secured only 163.69 marks in CAT score is the last candidate who is selected and the appellant is rejected. The selection process is therefore not in violation of Art. 14 of the Page 17 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Constitution of India but is also in violation of Sec. 7(e) and 8(3) of the Act.
There is no distinction carved out in Ajay Hasia between admission to Under Graduate Course and Post Graduate Course. The only classification is made between admission to educational institutions and service recruitments. (Ref. Kiran Gupta (2000) 7 SCC 719, Para 22 and also in Ravinder Baloria vs. State of H.P, 2006 (1) ShimLC 259). The age of appellant was only 21 years when he appeared for the interview.
The appellant begs to place on record a chart referring to list of cases where the issue of weightage on oral interview has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Annexure-I .
Observations and findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge The Hon'ble Single Judge is pleased to reject this contention by making observations as contained in Para 13 @ Pg. Z/30, Para 16 and 17 @ Pg. Z/32 of the impugned judgment. Other judgments which were placed are not even dealt with.
2A. Allocation of 6% marks towards co-curricular and extra-
curricular activities is also arbitrary and unreasonable.
The prospectus does not provide allocation of any marks to co-curricular and extra-curricular activities Page 18 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT (Pg.45 of the petition). However, it was disclosed through reply affidavit of the respondent @ Pg.64 that 6% marks out of 50% marks are allocated to co- curricular and extra-curricular activities.
In rejoinder, the appellant took serious objection to this allocation of marks which was disclosed for the first time only through the reply affidavit. (Para 4 to 7 @ Pg.82/83) A specific contention was also taken in the written submissions at Clause C @ Pg.112 relying upon Section 8(3) of the Act and Division Bench Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. However, this contention has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment.
No marks are granted to the appellant for the ACCA qualification and less marks are granted towards International Financial Olympiad Achievements. Detailed submissions are made in Para 8 @ Pg.84 of Rejoinder Affidavit and Clause C of written submissions @ Page 112/114. However, even this contention is not dealt with in the impugned judgment.
3. Estoppel - No bar when challenge is based on violation of the Constitution of India or the statute A specific contention on behalf of the appellant in this Page 19 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT regard is made before the Hon'ble Single Judge in written submissions (Pg.115). Five Judgments were cited. The Hon'ble Single Judge however referred to only one judgment which is in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (Pg.Z/5). However, this contention is rejected while however referring to Para 22 of the judgment and not Para 18 of the judgment (Pg.Z/33, Para 18). He contention that there cannot be an estoppel when the challenge is made on the ground of arbitrariness under Art. 14 and on the ground of violation of Sec. 7(e) and Sec. 8(3) of the Act is not considered.
4. Selection Process- a policy decision The Hon'ble Single Judge also rejected the petition on the ground that admission process is a policy decision (Para 19 & 20, Pg. Z/34 & 35).
The Hon'ble Single Judge however did not consider that if admission process is arbitrary and unreasonable, the same can be challenged even if it is considered to be a policy decision. The impugned selection process is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
Judgments
1. (1980) 4 SCC 95 (Para 12) Nishi Maghu vs. State of J&K Page 20 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
2. (1980) 3 SCC 418 J.P.Kulshreshta vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University
5. Prayer of the Appellant The appellant, as can be seen from the facts, stood at 110 in the CAT merit list. There are about 200 general seats in IIM, Ahmedabad. If the allocation of marks to the PI were given at 15% considering judicial pronouncements, the appellant was bound to be in the select list. The Hon'ble Single Judge by interim order dated 26.6.2020 was pleased to direct to keep one seat vacant. The said interim order has been continued by this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court may consider to allow the present appeal considering the submissions. No prejudice will be caused to the IIM since one seat is already kept vacant under the orders of this Hon'ble Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, AHMEDABAD :
11. Mr.Nandish Chudgar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also filed his written submission as under :
1. The Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal is challenging the admission criteria/admission process for the course of 'Two Year Post Graduate Programme in Management' (PGP Course) offered by the Respondent i.e. Indian Institute of Page 21 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Management - Ahmedabad ("IIMA"). The case of the Petitioner is that the selection should be on the basis of written examination i.e. CAT Score and that the weightage of only 25% to CAT Score in the final round of selection is bad in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Hansia reported in 1981 (1) SCC 722.
Relying on the said Judgment the Petitioner is contending that the weightage to interview score cannot be more than 15% for final selection in any Educational Institute irrespective of the nature of Education/Course offered to be imparted i.e. irrespective whether it is Engineering, Medicine, Science, Arts, Humanities or Higher Education in Management Studies. While in the instant case, where IIMA is engaged in imparting Higher Education in the field of Management, for the final selection the weightage of personal interview is 50% and weightage of CAT Score is only 25%.
DEFENCE / JUSTIFICATION BY IIMA:
2. IIMA is an autonomous institute, imparting Higher Education in the field of Management studies. Though with effect from 31.01.2018, IIMA is covered under the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017, IIMA continue to be independent and autonomous body governed by the Board of Governors. The overall superintendence, direction and control of the Institute including powers to frame policies/ regulations lies with the Board of Governors and all the IIMs have full autonomy to prescribe the courses of learning to be Page 22 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT imparted including the criteria and procedure to be prescribed for admission to each of the courses offered to the students. IIMA is offering nine different courses.
Present Petition is with regard to 'Two Year Post Graduate Programme in Management' (PGP). The course of PGP in Management as offered and imparted by IIMA is a course having much more in-depth studies in the subject of Business Management which includes studies of the following intra-subjects/topics within the Business Management studies:
Organisational behaviour, Human Resource Management, Economics, Agri-business Management, Public Policy, Strategy, Law, Educational Innovation and Educational Psychology, Communication, Finance and Accounting, Information Systems, Marketing, and Production and Quantitative Methods (including operations research, operations management and statistics).
3. Thus, it may be noted that in the instant case, it is with regard to admission to higher studies in the field of Management, and is not with regard to other courses like Engineering, Medicine, Science, Commerce, Arts or Humanities.
Selection Process/ Criteria
4. The selection process for the PGP Course in Management Studies is consisting of two phases / two rounds: (1) Short Page 23 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT listing for Analytical Writing Test (AWT) and Personal Interview (PI); and (2) Final Selection.
For being selected for the second round (final selection round), i.e. short listing for AWT and PI the weightage is as under:
(a) CAT Score 65%, (b) Past Academic 30% and (c) work experience 5%.
The criteria/parameters for final selection round is as under:
(a) Normalized PI Score 50%, (b) Normalized AWT Score 10%, (c) Normalized CAT Score 25%, (d) Application Rating Score (Past Academic) 15%.
The entire selection process and the basis for arriving at the different scores and the criteria/weightage has been explained in detail in the prospectus which was uploaded on the website of IIMA and is also produced by the Petitioner himself in the petition.
Nowhere in the prospectus, it has been mentioned that CAT Score will be the sole criteria for the admission in IIMA. The prospectus mentions in detail the different criteria and weightage of different parameters for both the rounds and for different streams of past academics.
5. It may be noted that the CAT Score plays an important role Page 24 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT for being short listed for AWT and PI inasmuch as, the weightage of CAT Score is 65% for being short listed for final round, at that stage. Thereafter, in the final round, along with other parameters, the weightage of CAT Score is 25%.
Rationale for Weightge of 50% for Personal Interview:
6. (a) IIMA conducts personal interviews in order to select the best candidates out of the pool of shortlisted candidates to its flagship management program (PGP). Personal interviews are a critical component in IIMA's admission process. Finding quality candidates to Management Program involves interacting with the candidates on a wide range of topics such as their academic background and clarity of concepts learnt in the undergraduate degree, learnings from work experience, logical reasoning and ability to frame coherent arguments, achievements and learning in co-curricular and extra-curricular fields, awareness of national as well as international events, and ability to communicate in English, among others. For the PGP Program, these are essential characteristics of a management post-graduate who will in the future become leader of an enterprise that can only be determined during a personal meeting.
(b) Unlike undergraduate degrees where the candidates are enrolled in a technical/engineering or commerce or arts/humanities degree; management post-graduates are Page 25 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT often required to understand business/management problems from multiple perspectives drawing upon knowledge from various domains. Also, management is about leading people which is often very subjective, involves a lot of interpersonal dynamics, one needs good hold on language (communication skills) as well as an impressive personality. These are skills that are difficult to assess in a written examination. CAT is an examination that is geared toward testing candidates on numerical ability, data interpretation and reading/ comprehension ability. However, skills such as general awareness, ability to present coherent arguments, communication skills, etc. can only be assessed through a face-to-face meeting. Considering these issues, IIMA believe that a personal interview plays an important role in selection to a post- graduate management degree.
7. It may be noted that the CAT Examination is of a Pattern having Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ Pattern). The CAT Examination is geared towards testing candidates on Numerical Ability (i.e. MATH), Data Interpretation (i..e. MATH) and Reading / Comprehension Ability. While the Management Course requires evaluation of a candidate in several different attributes such as learning from academic discipline, learning from work experience, learning from other domains, analytical abilities, socio cultural awareness, communication abilities, leadership quality and overall development and personality of a candidate. Such attributes cannot be evaluated through any written test.
Page 26 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENTThe rationale for 50% weightage given to personal interview by IIMA has been explained in detail at para 17 of the Reply of IIMA filed in SCA.
8. All the top ranking IIMs and other top ranking Business Management Schools in the Country, also give much more weightage to personal interview scores than 15% as is sought to be capped by the Petitioner. A chart showing the personal interview score weightage of various top ranking IIMs and other Management Schools is produced at paragraph 16 of the Reply of IIMA (Running page 63 of the Paperbook), which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
Personal Interview Score weightage of different IIMs:
BUSINESS NIRF 2020 WEIGHTAGE OF
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT PERSONAL
SCHOOL SCHOOL INTERVIEW
RANKING
IIM Ahmedabad 1 44% + 6% = 50%
IIM Bangalore 2 30%
IIM Calcutta 3 48%
IIM Lucknow 4 40%
IIT Kharagpur 5 40%
(Department of
Management
Studies)
IIM Kozhikode 6 35%
IIM Indore 7 40%
IIM Ranchi 20 30%
IIM Shillong 30 50%
IIM Nagpur 40 40%
Page 27 of 75
Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020
C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
Thus, it will be appreciated that CAT Score alone is not a criteria for admissions in IIMs. A combination of weightage of different attributes of a candidate has always been recognized by IIMs and other top ranking management schools.
Petitioner's Score and his Standing in Merit List:
9. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, his scores for different attributes and different parameters have been stated in paragraph 15 of the Reply of IIMA. The charts produced at paragraph 15 (running pg. 61 and 62) also shows the comparison between the Petitioner, the last select list candidate and the last wait list candidate. It may be noted that there is not much difference between the CAT Scores of the Petitioner and the last wait list candidate, however, since the Normalized Final Composite Score of the Petitioner is slightly less than the Normalized Final Composite Score of the last select list candidate, unfortunately the Petitioner has missed out of being selected.
It may be noted that there are 64 number of candidates whose Final Composite Score is more than the Petitioner i.e. there are 64 candidates between the last selected candidate the Petitioner. Further, for the batch of 2020-2022, out of the short listed candidates for the Second Phase/Second Round of selection at IIMA, there are 37 number of Page 28 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT candidates who have scored more than 206.86 in CAT, which is the score of the Petitioner, but are also NOT figuring in the select list or the wait list because their Final Composite Score is less than the last of the wait listed candidate.
Thus, it may be appreciated that CAT Score is not the sole criteria for securing admission in IIMA.
Petitioner is estopped from challenging selection process/criteria after participating in it without grievance, after coming to know that he is not successful.
10. The selection criteria/weightage and the selection process has been explained in detail in the prospectus/website of IIMA. The Petitioner, right from the beginning was well aware of the selection process and the selection criteria as explained in detail in the prospectus/website. The Petitioner himself has annexed at Annexure-H, Page 39 to the Petition, the prospectus and particularly the admission/selection process. It will be worthwhile to point out at this juncture that, it has been clearly mentioned in the prospectus of IIMA, amongst other things as under:
"The following information is about the admission process followed by IIMA for its PGP subsequent to CAT. It is therefore, important for the candidates to read them carefully.Page 29 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
1 Performance in CAT is an important input in the admission process. Candidates should note that it is important to perform well in each section of the test. In addition to the performance in CAT, IIMA uses academic performance of the candidates throughout their academic career up to the bachelor's level for shortlisting for AWT & PI.
2 .....
3 .....
4 After the AWT & PI round, admission offers are made by IIMA to successful candidates. The final selection is based on a diverse set of attributes which includes performance in CAT, performance in AWT & PI, academic, co-curricular and extra-curricular achievements, work experience etc.....
5 .....
6 ....."
(emphasis supplied) Thus, the Petitioner was always aware that, the CAT score was to be considered for the purpose of shortlisting for AWT and PI round. While the final selection is to be based on diverse set of attributes which includes performance in CAT, performance in AWT and PI, academic co-curricular and extra-curricular achievements, work experience etc. The Prospectus clearly mentions that for shortlisting for the final Page 30 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT round the weightage of CAT Score is 65%, past academics is 30% and work experience is 5%. The prospectus also mentions that for final selection the weightage of CAT score is 25%, personal interview is 50%, AWT is 10% and Application Ratings is 15%. The Petitioner was thus, also aware that for final selection, the weightage of CAT score is 25% while the weightage of Personal Interview is 50% and that of AWT is 10%. The Petitioner with complete knowledge of the said aspect applied for being selected at IIMA and has participated in the admission/selection process.
In this context, the following dates may kindly be noted:
Dates Events
July, 2010 Prospectus uploaded on website of
IIMA.
18.09.2019 Last date for submission of Forms for
CAT Examination.
November, 2019 CAT Examination held.
04.01.2020 CAT Results declared.
06.01.2020 Petitioner short listed for Second/Final
Round (i.e. short listed for AWT and
PI).
12.01.2020 Interview of Petitioner held.
11.05.2020 Petitioner informed by regret letter that
he is not selected or wait-listed.
22.06.2020 Petition filed by Petitioner.
The Petitioner, therefore, after being unsuccessful in getting selected, is now, as an afterthought, trying to contend that the selection process and the criteria was not made known Page 31 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT in advance by IIMA. The said contention, on the face of it, is absolutely false and frivolous and is made by the Petitioner only to suit his purpose. The prospectus uploaded on the website, has been produced by the Petitioner himself at Annexure-H, Page 39 to the Petition. The Petitioner has clearly tried to mislead this Hon'ble Court. It is well settled that, when the selection process and the selection criteria is made known to the public at large including the participating candidates before the selection, then the candidates are not entitled to challenge the selection process and the selection criteria, after having participated in and not being successful in getting selected. This principle of law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the decisions reported in (a) 1995(3)SCC 486 [Madanlal Vs State of J & K]; (b) 1998 (3) SCC 694; (c) 2008(4)SCC 486 [Dhananjay Malik Vs State of Uttaranchal]; and (d) 2010(12) SCC 576 [Manish Kumar Shahi Vs State of Bihar]. The Petition, therefore, fails on this ground alone.
11. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1632, is also ill founded and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is submitted that in the said matter of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai, it was a case of mis-interpretation and misconstruction of statutory rules concerning selection by the Institute concerned and consequent discrimination arising from such misconstruction of statutory rules. It was in such Page 32 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT circumstances that the Hon'ble Court has observed and permitted a candidate to challenge the selection, after participating in the selection process. In the instant case that is not the issue involved. There is no statutory rule or a provision of Statute which is being misinterpreted or misconstrued by IIMA. On the contrary IIMA has scrupulously followed the process as documented in the prospectus.
Decision of Ajay Hasia reported in 1981(1) SCC 722 relied upon by the Petitioner is not applicable:
12. It is respectfully submitted that there is no provision of any Statue including IIM Act or any other Statutory Rule which prescribe of not giving 50% weightage to Personal Interview for being selected for a course of higher education i.e. post graduate studies in the field of Business Management. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the decision of Ajay Hasia reported in 1981 (1) SCC 722 is also misplaced in the present matter. In the case of Ajay Hasia, the issue was with regard to admission to the course of the Basic Degree of Engineering after 12th grade. The students to be admitted to the college of engineering were the boys of 16-17 years of age who were not experienced with other attributes and their personality was yet to be developed. Moreover, the admissions were for engineering courses and not for higher education in the field of Business Management where many attributes to the personality of a candidate are relevant. It is the overall development of a candidate which is required to Page 33 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT be ascertained, for admission in the course of higher studies in Management field. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said Judgment by the Petitioner is ill-founded.
The dicta in the case of Ajay Hansia has been much water down by the subsequent Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the matter of appointment for job in Services Law. In the matter of Kiran Gupta V/s. State of UP, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 719, the Supreme Court has observed as under:
"22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selection solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview-test has to be decided on the facts of each case. ........."
Even in the matter of Lila Dhar V/s. State of Rajsthan reported in 1981 (4) SCC 159, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 of the said Judgment has observed as under:
"... ...... .....
It is now well recognised that while a written Page 34 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview-test is valuable to assess a candidate's 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, 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 may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview-test, ...... ............"
Generally Courts not to interfere in Educational Policy Matters or issue involving academic matter:
13. Without undermining the wide powers and jurisdiction exercised by this Hon'ble Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is respectfully submitted that generally, in a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the Courts keep their hands off. Only if any provision of law or rules has to be interpreted or applied with reference to or connected with education that the Courts may step in. It is respectfully submitted that, what should be norms and standards in regard to entry qualification, weightage to be given to different parameters/ attributes for admission, content of course, inspections/ manner of assessing the performance, are all decisions in Page 35 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT academic matters of technical nature. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that, the Courts may not be equipped nor may have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of professionals and academicians and take the decision in academic matters involving standard and quality of higher education. In a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (11) SCC 726, it has been observed as under:
"16. The courts are neither equipped nor have academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies in matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.
17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha Page 36 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424 & 426, paras 11 & 17) "11. ... Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. ...
***
17.... While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies."
18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) "29. ...the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them."
14. Thus, the following aspects emerges in the instant case:
(i) The entire selection process has been well documented in advance and uploaded on the website and is Page 37 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT transparent, fair and designed to select the most meritorious candidates;
(ii) The selection procedure and criteria is framed and designed by the expert academicians of IIMA;
(iii) The Petitioner was well aware of the selection criteria and weightage of different of tests/parameters as well as the weightage of personal interview visa-a-vis weightage of CAT Score;
(iv) Petitioner participated in the selection process as well as participated in the AWT and PI round without any grievance;
(v) Having not fared well in the interview, Petitioner challenges the selection criteria on being not selected in the final round at a very belated stage (Petitioner is estopped from challenging the criteria after having participated in the selection process without any grievance);
(vi) There are no allegations of mala-fide or prejudice against any of the Member of the Interviewing Penal who had interviewed the Petitioner;
(vii) The interviews are conducted by experts in the field and lasts on an average about 20-30 mins. The interview scores are rescaled to remove any bias that may exist in the interview scores;Page 38 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
(vii) Almost all top ranking IIMs and other top ranking Business Management Schools also give much more weightage to person interview and Analytical Writing Test (Essay Writing);
(viii) There is no statute or a statutory regulation prohibiting any management school from having weightage of more than 15% to personal interview score for the purpose of selection for admission in the course of Higher Studies in Management field.
15. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the admission/selection procedure and criteria framed and designed by the expert academicians of IIMA to assess and ascertain the most meritorious candidate from out of the shortlisted brilliant candidates may not be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court and that too on a Petition of a candidate who has not been successful in selection, after participating in the selection process, knowing fully well the selection process and the criteria including the weightage given to AWT & PI and the weightage of CAT score. It is only because the Petitioner has not been able to score well in AWT and PI after scoring well in CAT examination, that he wants weightage of all other attributes/ parameters to be nullified and weightage of CAT score be increased so that he is able to secure an admission. This would, in the respectful submission of IIMA create a bad precedence, encouraging all other candidates to challenge the selection criteria after participating in the selection process, on not being selected.
Page 39 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT16. The Ld. Single Judge has rightly appreciated the above aspects and the position of law and has rightly dismissed the Petition by a well reasoned Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2020. Therefore, the present Appeal is required to be dismissed in limine.
ANALYSIS :
12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is, whether the learned Single Judge committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order.
13. As pointed out by Mr.Navin Pahwa, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the selection process of the respondent is in two parts : In the first part, the respondent allocates 35 marks to the score for the previous academic career, i.e. from Class-X to Graduation and 65% marks are allocated to the score of the CAT. The second part and the final selection process contained the following allocation :
1. Personal Interview (PI) 50%
2. Analytical Written Test (AWT) 10%
3. Common Admission Test (CAT) 25%
4. Previous Academic Career 15% TOTAL : 100% Page 40 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
14. We need to consider the principal argument of Mr.Pahwa that the allocation of 50% marks towards the Personal Interview as compared to only 25% marks to the CAT score is ex-facie arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. One of the first cases where the question regarding the validity of interview/viva voce as a mode of assessing the merit of a candidate arose is R.Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and others, [1964]6 SCR 368. This case related to admission to the Medical and Engineering Colleges. The contention raised was that the system of selection by interviews is illegal inasmuch as it enables the interviewers to act arbitrarily and to manipulate the results and, therefore, it contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that the highly qualified educationists were appointed to the Selection Committees and guidelines had been issued to the Selection Committees to allot marks in interview keeping in view the general knowledge, aptitude and personality, previous academic career including the special distinction and the N.C.C., A.C.C., etc. of the candidates. Taking into consideration all these factors the Court observed as follows:
"It is, therefore, clear that the Government by its order not only laid down a clear policy and prescribed definite criteria in the matter of giving marks at the interview but also appointed competent men to make the selection on that basis. The order of the Government does not in any way contravene Article 14 of the Constitution."
16. The court further held as under:
Page 41 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT"We cannot, therefore, hold without better and more scientific material placed before us that selection by interview in addition to the marks obtained in the written examination is itself bad as offending Article 14 of the Constitution."
17. A similar question came up for consideration in Minor A Peeraikaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, [1971]2 SCR
430. In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with a case relating to admissions to the Medical Colleges where 75 marks out of 275 marks had been earmarked for the interview. The Supreme Court dealing with the contention that the marks allotted to the interview were excessive held as follows:
"13. Earmarking 75 marks out of 275 marks for interview as interview marks prima facie appears to be excessive. It is not denied that the interview lasted hardly for three minutes for each candidate. In the course of three minutes interview it is hardly possible to assess the capability of a candidate. In most cases the first impression need not necessarily be the best impression....
14. Even when the interviews are conducted by impartial and competent persons on scientific lines very many uncertain factors like the initial nervousness on the part of some candidates, the mood in which the interviewer happens to be and the odd questions that may be put to the persons interviewed may all go to affect the result of the interview....Page 42 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
17. We may note that the committee had not divided the interview marks under various heads nor were the marks given on itemized basis. The marks list produced before us shows that the marks were given in a lump. This is clearly illegal."
18. In Dr. J.P.Kulshrestha and others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University and others, (1980)II LLJ 175 SC, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case relating to the selection of Readers by the Allahabad University. In this case while dealing with the question whether the method of interview is a proper method for selecting persons for the post of Readers, the court observed as follows:
"10. Certainly, cases arise where the art of interviewing candidates deteriorates from strategy to stratagem and undetectable manipulation of results is achieved by remote control tactics masked as viva voce tests. This, if allowed, is surely a sabotage of the purity of proceedings, a subterfuge whereby legal means to reach illegal ends is achieved. So it is that courts insist, as the learned Single Judge has, in this very case, suggested on recording of marks at interviews and other fair checks like guidelines for marks and remarks about candidates and the like. If the court is skeptical, the record of the selection proceedings, including the notes regarding the interviews, may have to be made available. Interviews, as such, are not bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad...."Page 43 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
19. In this regard, a constitutional bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, reported in (1981)1 SCC 722, has been significantly relied upon. We must understand the principles of law discernible from this judgment, more particularly, the ratio.
20. In Ajay Hasia (supra), the validity of the admissions made to the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar, in the academic year 1979-80 was brought in question. The College was sponsored by the Government of India. It was established and its administration and management were carried on by a society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act, 1898. The Society had framed certain rules regulating its administration. Rule 15(iv) conferred power on the Board of Governors to make by-laws for admission of students to various courses. Pursuant to Rule 15(iv), the Board of Governors laid down the procedure for admission to students to different courses.
21. Separate marks were assigned under four different heads for the viva voce examination. The petitioners in that case challenged the validity of the admissions on the ground that the Society acted arbitrarily in the matter of granting of admissions; first, by ignoring the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination; secondly, by relying on the viva voce examination as a test for determining comparative merit of the candidates; thirdly by allocating as many as 50 marks for the viva voce examination as against 100 marks allocated for the written test and lastly, by holding superficial interviews lasting Page 44 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT only 2 or 3 minutes on an average and asking questions which had no relevance to the assessment of the suitability of the candidates with reference to the four factors required to be considered at the viva voce examination. The first ground of challenge was rejected. On the second ground of challenge, the holding was that it could not be said that the oral interview test is so defective that selecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral interview in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. However, the following further observations were made while dealing with the said challenge:
"The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression. Its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission of Colleges or even in the matter of public employment the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity, calibre and qualification."
22. As regards the third ground of challenge, it was held that the allocation of 50 marks out of 150 marks for the viva voce test Page 45 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT was arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as it came to 331/3% of the total number of marks taken into account for the purpose of making the selection and it was observed as follows:
"....having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing in the country, particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase, allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the Court as free from the vice of arbitrariness....There can be no doubt that allocating 33 1/3 of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable.... and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained.... We are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid."
23. On the facts of the case, it was pointed out that it was a rather disturbing feature that a large number of successful candidates succeeded in obtaining admission to the college by virtue of very high marks obtained by them at the viva voce examination, which tilted the balance in their favour, though the marks secured by them at the qualifying examination were much less than those obtained by the petitioners and even in the written test, they had fared much worse than the petitioners. As regards the last ground of challenge, the holding was that if the Page 46 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT interview did not take more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average and the questions asked had no bearing on the factors required to be taken into account, the oral interview test would be vitiated, because it would be impossible in such an interview to assess the merit of a candidate with reference to these factors. On the facts of the case, it was found that the interview of each candidate did not last for more than two or three minutes on an average and hardly any questions were asked having bearing on the relevant factors. The selections made on the basis of such oral interview test were held to be vitiated as arbitrary. As regards the grant of relief, however, the Supreme Court was of the view that although the selections were vitiated on the two grounds mentioned above, no relief could be granted in the exercise of discretion of the court since it would cause immense hardship to those students in whose case the validity of the selection could not otherwise be questioned and who had nearly completed three semesters and it would not be possible to restore the petitioners to the position as if they were admitted for the academic year 1979-80 which had long since run out. Besides, in that case, the respondents had agreed before the court that the best fifty students out of those who had failed to secure admission would be granted admission for the academic year 1981-82 and that the seats allocated to them would be in addition to the normal intake of students in the college and an order was made accordingly. Having regard to all these factors, the writ petitions were dismissed but the Supreme Court cautioned the authorities that for the future academic years, selections should be made on the basis of the observations made in the judgment lest they might run the risk of being struck down.
Page 47 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT24. In Arti Sapru and others v. State of J&K and others, [1981]3 SCR 34, the Supreme Court held that in view of the judgment in Ajay Hasia's case (supra), the allocation of more than 15% marks for interview in case of admission to the Medical Colleges would be arbitrary and unreasonable. However, it did not interfere in the case and asked the State to revise the marks ratio.
25. In Koshal Kumar Gupta and others v. State of J & K and others, [1984]3 SCR 407, the Supreme Court held that for the purpose of interview for admission to the Engineering College the allocation of 15 marks in the interview was valid especially since the method of interview was virtually foolproof. The Supreme Court held as follows:
"...15 marks assigned for viva-voce test were further split-up under four heads, namely, (i) Science-5 marks, (ii) General Knowledge-4 marks (iii) curricular activities-3 marks (iv) Personality test-3 marks. In respect of the first three heads the Selection Committee prepared cards on each of which a question was typed referable to the 4 subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and General Knowledge and they were kept in 4 different boxes. When the candidate entered the room for interview, he was required to pick-up at random one card from each of the four boxes, each box containing at least 150 cards and answer the question. A tape recorder was kept on the table in front of the members of the Selection Committee and the candidate appearing, for Page 48 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT the interview and the two-way dialogue was recorded in full. Marks were assigned under each head of viva-voce test depending upon the merit of the answer. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared on the basis of the total marks obtained at written test and the viva-voce test and it was strictly adhered to save and except for reserved seats where also persons seeking admission to reserved seats had to stand in queue as in the merit list. The method and the number of marks assigned for the viva-voce test was challenged on the ground that reservation of 15 marks for viva-voce test conferred arbitrary, unguided and uncanalised power on those conducting the viva voce test and that reservation of 15 marks for viva-voce test would have the pernicious tendency of affecting the merit disclosed by the marks obtained at written examination. Not a single case was pointed out in which the candidate otherwise being eligible for admission on merit, lost the same because of inability to get some marks under the personality test, the maximum being 3 only."
26. In Javid Rasool Bhat and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, [1984]2 SCR 582, the Supreme Court held that the allotment of 15 marks for the interview out of which 8 marks were for the aptitude and 7 marks for the general knowledge and the general information were just and reasonable especially when the Selection Committee consisted of the Chairman of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission and two members, namely, the Principals of the two Government Medical Colleges of Srinagar and Jammu.
Page 49 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT27. In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 159, a three-Judge Bench rejected the Petitioner's challenge to the recruitment to Rajasthan Judicial Service on the ground prescribed for interview (25%) were highly excessive and observed:
"Thus, the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection. If both written examination and interview test are to be essential features of proper selection, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. 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 per force 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 Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. 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. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. There are, of course, many services Page 50 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise, and the discerning may in an interview-test, catch a glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services, where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given, though not much too great a weight, to the interview-test. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements 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. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not for courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives. that the marks The Kothari Committee also suggested that in view of the obvious importance of the subject, it may be examined in detail by the Research Unit of the Union Public Service Commission.
In this background, let us now examine the situation presented by the Rajasthan Rules. The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules have been made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation with the High Court of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The High Court may be expected to know the precise requirements of the judicial service of the State and the calibre of the available source- material, while the Public Service Commission is an expert Page 51 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT body thoroughly conversant with recruitment policies and selection methods. Both the High Court and the Public Service Commission are independent bodies, outside executive control, occupying special positions and enjoying special status under the Constitution. Neither is an outside agency. Both are well-acquainted with the particular needs of their State and the people. If the Governor, in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission of the State makes rules stipulating seventy-five per cent of the marks for the written examination and twenty-five per cent for the interview-test, on what basis can a court say that twenty-five per cent for the interview-test is on the high side? It must not also be forgotten that the interview test is generally conducted and was, in the present case, conducted by a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court, the Chairman and a Member of the Public Service Commission and a special invitee expert. There can surely be no legitimate grievance or hint of arbitrariness against this body. Yet another factor worthy of consideration is that the candidates expected to offer themselves for selection are not raw graduates freshly out of college but are persons who have already received a certain amount of professional training. The source-material is such that some weightage must be given to the interview-test and can it possibly be said that twenty-five per cent of the total marks is an exaggerated weightage. We may add here that it has been made clear by the Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission on whose behalf a counter- affidavit has been filed before us that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were not made available to the Page 52 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT members of the Interview Board either before or at the time of the interview. We are unhesitatingly of the view that the selection cannot be struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview-test."
28. In State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin and Ors., 1987 Supp SCC 401, the court referred to the ratio of the Judgment in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), refused to nullify the selection made for recruitment to the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and observed:
"In A.K. Yadav v. State of Haryana a Constitution Bench of this Court approved the view expressed in Lila Dhar case. The Court observed there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the weight to be given as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service; according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification, prescribed 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. It is 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. In Lila Dhar case 25 per cent of marks fixed for viva voce test was upheld. In A.K. Yadav case selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Haryana Civil Service (Executive and other allied services) was under
challenge. The Court held that allocation of 33.3 per cent for viva voce was high as it opened door for arbitrariness and Page 53 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT in order to diminish it if not eliminate the same the percentage needs to be reduced. The Constitution Bench made observation that marks for viva voce test should not exceed 12.2 per cent. In spite of these observations the Constitution Bench did not interfere or strike down the selection instead it directed the Commission to give one more opportunity to the aggrieved candidates to appear at the competitive examination. In the instant case there has been no allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness against the Commission which held the viva voce test."
29. In Mehmood Alam Tariq and others v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 241, the court distinguished the earlier Judgments in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981)1 SCC 722, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, relied upon Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and held that prescription of 33% marks for interview for recruitment to the Rajasthan State and Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962, Rajasthan Service Rules, 1954, Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954, Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Some of the observations made in that Judgment are extracted below:
"On a careful consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the view that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 60 (33 per cent) out of the maximum marks of 180 set apart for the viva voce examination does not, by itself, Page 54 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT incur any constitutional infirmity. The principles laid down in the cases of Ajay Hasia, Lila Dhar, Ashok Kumar Yadav, do not militate against or render impermissible such a prescription. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the stipulation that officers to be selected for higher services and who are, with the passage of time, expected to man increasingly responsible positions in the core services such as the Administrative Services and the Police Services should be men endowed with personality traits conducive to the levels of performance expected in such services. There are features that distinguish, for instance, Accounts Service from the Police Service -- a distinction that draws upon and is accentuated by the personal qualities of the officer. Academic excellence is one thing. Ability to deal with the public with tact and imagination is another. Both are necessary for an officer. The dose that is demanded may vary according to the nature of the service. Administrative and Police Services constitute the cutting edge of the administrative machinery and the requirement of higher traits of personality is not an unreasonable expectation."
30. The same view has been reiterated in the Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1994)1 SCC 150, P. Mohanan Subordinate Administrative 1962 and Pillai v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 497 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 515.
31. In Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1987 SC 454, the Supreme Court considered in Page 55 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT detail the question as to how many marks should be allotted for the interviews. In this case, the court was concerned with selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission to the cadre of Haryana Civil and Allied Services. It was held that the allocation of 22.2% marks for the viva voce test in the case of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services were unreasonable. The court directed as follows:
"29. We would therefore direct that hereafter in case of selections to be made to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) 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 shall 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."
32. In Atul Khullar and others v. State of J&K and others, MANU/SC/0056/1986, the Supreme Court upheld the allocation of 15% marks for the viva voce.
33. In Ashok alias Somanna Gozvda and another v. State of Karnataka and others, (1992)I LLJ 87 SC, the Supreme Court Page 56 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT was considering the validity of marks allotted in the interview in case of selection to the posts of Assistant Engineers, it was held as under:
"2. However, the Rules are clearly in violation of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above referred cases and in case the marks for viva voce would have been kept say at 15 per cent of the total marks, the appellants before us were bound to be selected on the basis of marks secured by them in interview, calculated on the basis of converting the same to 15 per cent of the total marks."
34. In St. Stephen's College and others v. The University of Delhi and others, AIR 1992 SC 1630, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"64. The oral interview as a supplementary test and not as exclusive test for assessing the suitability of candidates for college admission has been recognized by this Court. But at the same time, to avoid arbitrariness in the selection it has been repeatedly held that there shall not be allocation of high percentage of marks for oral interview test. Where candidate's personality is yet to develop, it has been emphasized that greater weight as per force to be given to performance in the written examination and the importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. The court has generally indicated that interview marks should not be more than 15 per cent of the total marks."Page 57 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
35 In Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C. Shukla and others, (1993)I LLJ 215 SC, where the Supreme Court was considering the case of promotions to the post of Deputy Operations Manager and in Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others, [1995]1 SCR 908, where the selections to the post of Munsifs in the State of Jammu and Kashmir were being made and the court upheld the viva voce examination in addition to the written test.
36. In D.V. Bakshi and others v. Union of India and others, 1993 ECR 209 (SC), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the examination was for grant of licence to the Customs House Agents. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances the allocation of 50% marks was justified where the nature of the job was such that it required a well developed personality. The court held that the test which is valid for the competitive examination or admission to the educational institutions may not be relevant in that case. With regard to the method of conducting the interview the court held as follows:
"7. If an oral test is, therefore, a 'must' as in this case, a heavy responsibility is cast on the examiners to maintain a proper record of the oral test in respect of each candidate and marks must preferably be assigned under each head considered relevant to evaluate the candidate. That is why we have said that a heavy responsibility lies on those examining the candidates at the interview to ensure that proper record is maintained so that there is no room for suspicion in the minds of the unsuccessful candidates that Page 58 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT the result of the oral test is tainted with bias for or against any candidate because even light proof in support of the charge may upset the result of the oral test as a whole or qua a candidate, as the case may be."
37. In Jasvinder Singh and others v. State of J&K and others, (2003)2 SCC 132, the Court was concerned with a case relating to the selection to the post of the Sub Inspector of Police and upheld the allocation of 20% marks for the interview.
38. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered in Mridul Dhar (minor) and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 2005 SC 666, was dealing with the whole gamut of questions relating to the admissions to the Medical Colleges. The directions of the court are contained in para 35. Direction No.13, which is relevant for the purpose of the decision of the present case, reads as follows:
"13. For granting admission, the merit determined by competitive examination shall not be tinkered with by making a provision like grant of marks by mode of interview or any other mode."
39. From a perusal of the various judgments cited above, it is clear that right from the very beginning the law has been that for admission to the educational courses where interviews are conducted, the weightage of marks given for the interview should be as low as possible. The law also is that the persons of very high integrity who are impartial and known to be competent in Page 59 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT their fields should be made the members of the Selection Committee. A clear and unambiguous guidelines should be given to them. The interview marks should be awarded under the various heads to make the procedure more objective and transparent. The court has held that where young children of impressionable mind, whose personality has still to develop are to be tested, then the admission should be, as far as possible, on the basis of the performance in the written test. The importance attached to the interview should be as less as possible.
40. The Supreme Court has also drawn a clear-cut distinction between the weightage of marks to be given for the interviews when admission to the educational courses is to be made and the weightage when the interviews are conducted for recruitment to services. In the latter case, the nature of the service shall also be very relevant. This would also be a relevant factor to determine what should be the weightage of marks to be given for the interview. In case the interview is of persons who are of the matured age and the requirement of the job is that person's personality is well developed, then obviously higher marks can be kept for the interview. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard.
41. From the judgments noticed above, it is clear that in cases relating to the admission to the Medical and Engineering Colleges, initially it was held that the marks for the interview should not exceed 15% of the total marks. However, in Mridul Dhar (minor) (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the marks obtained in the written test should not be tinkered by Page 60 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT making a provision for marks by way of interview or any other mode. Therefore, the Supreme Court has moved from granting 15% marks to nil marks for the interview.
42. With everything that has been stated above, more particularly, the various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, could it be said that such decisions has laid down a straitjacket formula for determining, whether the prescription of particular percentage of marks for the viva voce test/interview introduces an element of arbitrariness in the process of selection or gives unbridled power to the recruiting authority/agency to select less meritorious candidates ? Should a writ court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise its eyebrows on the mere look at the figure of 50 ? Or, should a writ court try to look into and understand the rationale behind such policy of allocating 50% marks for the viva voce test ?
43. In the aforesaid context, we must try to understand the rationale behind the policy of the IIM to allocate 50% marks for the personal interview. The rationale has been explained in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent in the main matter, in paragraphs 14 and 17 respectively, which read thus :
"14. Thereafter he had appeared for Analytical Writing Test (AWT) and Personal Interview (PI). He has scored 7 out of 10 in AWT and has scored 8.5 out of 44 in PI. In respect to co-
curricular and extra-curricular attributes he has scored 1 out of 6. At this juncture, it may be pointed out that so far as the Page 61 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT Personal Interview is concerned, such interviews last for about 20 to 30 minutes and sometimes even 40 minutes for each candidate. There are two professors in the panel for interview for each candidate. The process adopted at IIMA is such that, the interviewers do not know the CAT score or AWT score or AR score of the candidate being interviewed. Both the panelists give their independent marks with regard to different attributes of a candidate in the PI test, and thereafter the average of both the panelist is taken into consideration for each candidate. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, in his case, panelist-1 has given score of 7/44 and panelist-2 has given score of 10/44 and thus the average score of the Petitioner came to 8.5/44. It is submitted that, the PI test is aimed at finding out the expertise of the candidate in respect to different attributes such as : (i) Learning from Academic Discipline, (ii) Learning from Work Experience, (iii) Learning from other Domains, (iv) Analytical Abilities, (v) Socio-Cultural Awareness, (vi) Communication Abilities, (vii) Leadership quality, (viii) Overall Suitability, etc. It is submitted that, such attributes of a candidate can be ascertained only through personal interviews and cannot be ascertained through any written test, and particularly not through CAT examination. It may be noted that, the CAT examination is following the MCQ pattern i.e. multiple-choice question. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to judge the aforesaid attributes of a candidate from the CAT scores and hence CAT score alone cannot form basis for final selection of a candidate.
Page 62 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT17. It will be appreciated that, CAT score cannot be made the sole criteria for securing admission for higher studies like PGP in Management at IIMA, which ranks higher compared to degree of MBA offered by other Universities and Colleges. The rationale for weightage to Personal Interview is as under :
A. IIMA conducts personal interviews in order to select the best candidates out of the pool of shortlisted candidates to its flagship management program (PGP). Personal interviews are a critical component in IIMA's admission process. Finding quality candidates to Management program involves interacting with the candidates on a wide range of topics such as their academic background and clarity of concepts learnt in the undergraduate degree, learnings from work experience, logical reasoning and ability to frame coherent arguments, achievements and learning in co- curricular and extra-curricular fields, awareness of national as well as international events, and ability to communicate in English, among others. For the PGP Program, these are essential characteristics of a management post-graduate who will in the future become leader of an enterprise that can only be determined during a personal meeting.
B. Unlike undergraduate degrees where the candidates are enrolled in a technical/engineering or commerce or arts/ humanities degree; management post-graduates are often required to understand business/management problems from multiple perspectives drawing upon knowledge from various domains. Also, management is about leading people Page 63 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT which is often very subjective, involves a lot of interpersonal dynamics, one needs good hold on language (communication skills) as well as an impressive personality. These are skills that are difficult to assess in a written examination. CAT is an examination that is geared toward testing candidates on numerical ability, data interpretation and reading/ comprehension ability. However, skills such as general awareness, ability to present coherent arguments, communication skills, etc. can only be assessed through a face-to-face meeting. Considering these issues, IIMA believe that a personal interview plays an important role in selection to a post-graduate management degree.
C. To given an example, questions on analytical thinking during the personal interview are devised to see how the candidate can analyse a situation and create a solution. For example, an interviewer may ask a candidate to explain a time when the candidate had to work quickly against a pending deadline. In the personal interview, the interviewer may ask follow-up questions to dig deeper into the candidate's analytical thinking process, to see if he/she fits the profile for a successful management graduate.
D. Another example could be, when an interviewer is engaged in a personal interview with a candidate, he/she will listen to hear how the candidate gives answers to questions, watch for body language that can indicate the candidate is not being truthful or is uncomfortable; determine confidence by gauging eye contact. In positions of management (such as a leader, manager), being able to Page 64 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT effectively communicate using his/her entire body is important, and these skills can only be assessed during a personal interview."
44. Thus, the respondent has tried in its own way to explain the rationale behind its policy to allocate 50% marks for the personal interview. If we have to put the policy or the rationale in few words, we may only say that while the written examination will testify the candidate's academic knowledge, the oral test alone can bring out or disclose his overall intellectual and personal qualities like 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, quality of leadership, etc.
45. As the fate of a candidate desirous of securing admission in the IIM is more dependent on his performance in the viva voce test, the principle-oriented approach would in the end-result convince one that norms or guidelines are very much essential from the following stand-points :
(1) The criteria are well defined and well known to all the members of the Selection Committee so that all of them measure with the same yardstick and not with different weights and measures.
(2) The same criteria is applied in the case of all candidates so that all are selected or discarded by the same standards.Page 65 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
(3) The same criteria is uniformly applied from year to year unless a deliberate modification is made in light of new developments and/or past experience.
(4) The criteria are capable of being ascertained if occasion so demands.
(5) The members of Selection Committee are rendered immune from the external pulls and pressures as also from the inner subconscious pulls, pressures and predilections.
(6) The selectors inform themselves and there is a guarantee that only the relevant factors enter into the decision and all irrelevant factors are excluded.
(7) The same extent of weightage within known parameters is accorded to every individual criterion uniformly inter se amongst the contestants from year to year.
46. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court does not sit in appeal over a decision of the Selection Committee. However, the selection procedure adopted by the Committee is open to judicial scrutiny. If it is found that the mode and method of selection was arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, irrelevant, bias or vitiated by malafides or contrary to the rules and regulations, the court would have the power, indeed duty, to quash the selection because of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 respectively of the Constitution. However, in the present case, the challenge is not to the Page 66 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT selection procedure adopted by the Committee. The challenge is to the very policy of the IIM of allocating 50% marks to the viva voce test.
47. In Arti (supra), the challenge was to the admission of a number of candidates to the M.B.B.S. course in the Government Medical College, Srinagar, for the academic year 1980-81. The basis for the selection was threefold: (i) merit in the qualifying examination (35 marks), (ii) objective test (35 marks) and (iii) viva voce examination (30 marks). The viva voce examination was held by the Selection Committee which determined the inter se merit on the strength of : (a) physical fitness, (b) personality,
(c) aptitude, (d) general knowledge and (e) general intelligence. There was also a distribution of seats into three distinct divisions. As many as 660 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for the viva voce examination at its sittings held for four days. A selection list was then finalised taking into account the reservations made for the various categories and classes and the names of 75 candidates were announced for admission. The petitioners, who were not selected, challenged the selection, inter alia, on two grounds: first, the allocation to the viva voce test of 30 per cent of the total marks was patently unreasonable and arbitrary and, secondly, having regard to the number of candidates interviewed and the time applied for conducting the interview, no more than two minutes or so could have been given on the average to the oral interview of each candidate which demonstrated that the selection process was conducted in a perfunctory manner and there was no real application of the mind to the selection of candidates. As regards the first challenge, the Supreme Court referred to the decisions Page 67 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT in A.Peeriakarappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 SC 2303, Nishi Maghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1975 and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (supra) and observed that the State Government would have done well to apply its mind seriously to the evaluation of ratio between the three criteria adopted for admission. However, it expressed its reluctance to interfere on the said ground because a clear pronouncement that an allocation of more than 15% of the total marks to the viva voce examination would result in constitutional invalidity had been made in Ajay Hasia's case (supra) after the selection process in the case in hand had already been completed. The State Government was, however, cautioned that "there is need to revise the marks ratio because of the very real risk future selections will face on this score". As regards the second challenge, the Supreme Court observed that it was the case of the State Government itself that the time spent on interviewing each candidate was approximately only four minutes. However, it was held that there was no adequate material for striking down the selection on the said ground. The Supreme Court, however, sounded the following note of caution:
"But here again the State Government would do well to note the observations made by this Court in Ajay Hasia (MANU/SC/0498/1980: AIR 1981 SC 487) (supra) in this matter, and to ensure that Selection Committees take care to devote sufficient time to the oral interview of individual candidates having regard to the several relevant considerations which must enter into their judgment respecting each candidate."Page 68 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
48. It may be reiterated that there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the extent of weightage that is to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination and there are a series of considerations for conducting such a test which are best left to the experts in the field. As observed in Lila Dhar's case (supra) and Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra), it is not for the court to lay down, whether interview test should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test and the matters of this nature are more appropriately left to the wisdom of the experts. It is also relevant to note that no allegations of malafides have been levelled by the petitioner against either the respondent, or the committee that conducted the viva voce test, so as to invalidate the process.
49. In our opinion, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any material infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference at our end in this Appeal. The learned Single Judge has taken the pains to study, understand and discuss the entire admission policy of the IIM. This is evident from the paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment. Ultimately, it is a policy decision. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of education policy or an issue involving academic matter, the court should keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced with reference to or connected with education, the court will step in. This is what the Supreme Court observed way back in the year 2009 in the case of All India Council for Technical Education (supra). This decision of the Supreme Court has been rightly referred to by the Page 69 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT learned Single Judge in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment.
50. The Supreme Court, in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2010)12 SCC 576, had the occasion to consider the very same question which we are called upon to decide as regards the percentage of marks which ordinarily should be allocated for the purpose of personal interview. In the case before the Supreme Court, the challenge was to the decision of the Patna High Court, whereby the petitioner's challenge to the earmarking of 200 marks for the viva voce test as against the 850 marks for the written test for recruitment to the Bihar Civil Services (Judicial Branch) was negatived. In the said case, the petitioner was one of the candidates who had applied for selection pursuant to an advertisement dated 18th November 2005 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division). After being declared successful in the written examination, the petitioner was interviewed. However, his name did not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. After nine months, the petitioner filed a writ-petition questioning the constitutionality of the Appendix-C of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955, on the ground that the marks prescribed for the viva voce test were excessive and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) and its various other decisions. The Supreme Court, after an exhaustive review of its earlier decisions on the subject, ultimately observed in paragraph 10 as under :
Page 70 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT"10. The question whether the marks prescribed for viva voce test/interview are excessive and selection made in accordance with the criteria like the one specified in Rule 14 read with Appendix-C and para (vi) of the advertisement issued by the Commission has been considered by this Court in several cases including those upon which reliance has been placed by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Although, no straitjacket formula has been judicially evolved for determining whether the prescription of particular percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview introduces an element of arbitrariness in the process of selection or gives unbridled power to the recruiting authority/agency to select less meritorious candidates, by and large, the courts have not found any Constitutional infirmity in prescribing of higher percentage of marks for viva voce test/interview for recruitment to judicial services, administrative services and the like."
51. Thus, the Supreme Court held that no straitjacket formula has been judicially evolved for determining, whether the prescription of particular percentage of marks of viva voce test/interview would introduce an element of arbitrariness in the process of selection. The court further observed that the Supreme Court, by and large, has not found any constitutionality infirmity in prescribing of higher percentage of marks for the viva voce test/interview. Of course, such observations fell from the Supreme Court in context with the recruitment to the Judicial Services, Administrative Services and the like. By and large, the same principle would apply even in the case on hand, wherein the respondent is the IIM.
Page 71 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT52. There is one another important aspect taken note of by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has taken notice of the fact, and in our opinion, very rightly, that the appellant herein participated in the admission process being fully aware of the standard of assessment laid down in the prospectus. Once having participated in the admission process, being very much aware of the fact that the final selection would be based on a diverse set of attributes, which includes performances in the CAT, AWT and PI, thereafter, on being unsuccessful, the appellant cannot come to a writ court and complain that the policy of the respondent in allocating 50% marks to the viva voce test is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
53. We have referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Manish Kumar (supra) above. We have also stated that Manish Kumar (supra) arose from a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court. The petitioner lost before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in challenging the legality and validity of prescription of marks for the personal interview. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in (1995)3 SCC 486, and held thus :
"In the light of the aforesaid legal position, it has to be held and we do hold that the Petitioner by his conduct has disentitled himself to any relief in the high prerogative jurisdiction of this Court. He was well aware when he Page 72 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT applied to appear in the 26th Judicial Competitive Examination 2005 that out of combined written test and viva voce test of total marks of 1050, 200 marks have been provided for viva voce test. The Petitioner had no grievance about the criteria when he applied nor he had any grievance when he appeared in the written test and the viva voce test. Had he been successful, he would have no grievance at all about the provision of maximum 200 marks for interview. Had he secured higher marks in the viva voce test, he would have been happy with the provision made in the Rules. It is only after the entire selection process has been over and he remained unsuccessful that he thought of raising grievance about unreasonableness of maximum 200 marks fixed for viva voce test. He approached the court much after the entire selection process was over. BPSC had recommended the names of 318 candidates for selection and the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar appointed the selected candidates. The entire selection process has been over. In our view, the same cannot be undone or upturned at the instance of the Petitioner who approached the court only after he remained unsuccessful in the examination on the plea that the provision of 200 marks for viva voce test out of total marks 1050 was unreasonable. If out of 318 candidates who were recommended by the BPSC to the State Government for appointment, any candidate did not join, that vacancy has to be carried forwarded to the next year. There is no challenge to the circular issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department way back in the year 1977 that any vacancy having remained unfilled due to non-Page 73 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
joining of the selected candidates will be carried forwarded to the next year."
54. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court ultimately came to be affirmed by the Supreme Court, holding as under :
"We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J. and K. MANU/SC/0208/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/8040/2007 : (2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. MANU/SC/7287/2008 : (2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam MANU/SC/0077/2009: (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (supra)."Page 74 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020 C/LPA/388/2020 CAV JUDGMENT
55. For the foregoing reasons, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
56. In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ.) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J.) /MOINUDDIN/ A. B. VAGHELA Page 75 of 75 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 02 03:23:23 IST 2020