Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The learned Single Judge also negatived the contention that the prescribing of 50% as the cut-off mark for the personal interview was unreasonable or arbitrary. As regards not specifying the minimum qualifying marks for the interview in the advertisement itself, the learned Single Judge referred to the judgment in Siya Ram v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 566 in which the Supreme Court held that the determination of what should be the minimum qualification should be left to the experts and courts should not interfere unless exaggerated weight was given to the interview for proven or obvious motives. On the facts of the case before the court in Mahesh Kumar, the learned Single Judge found that the decision to assign minimum 50% marks for the interview was arrived at "in a thorough and scientific manner". The learned Single Judge also opined that "since, different marks were assigned for different facets of interview, not fixing minimum marks for the interview could also lead to disastrous results inasmuch as the candidates not having any manners and knowledge of duties involved in security service for which the total marks were only 23 would have become entitled for selection. With these detailed yardsticks as have been resolved by the respondents it is difficult to infer that oral interview in the present facts is not very satisfactory test for the job of SAG-II in Rajya Sabha."