Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) written examination in such legal and allied subjects, including procedure, as may be included in the syllabus prescribed under Rule 18;

(b) an examination to test the knowledge of the candidates in Hindi and Urdu; and

(c) an interview to assess the all round student carrier of the candidates and their personality, address and general suitability.

19. List of candidates approved by the Commission.--The Commission shall prepare a List of candidates who have taken examination for recruitment to the service in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission arrange them in order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service :

NOTE

(i) The marks obtained in viva voce will be added to the marks obtained in the written papers and the candidates place with depend on the aggregate of both.

(ii) The Commission reserve the right to refuse to call for viva voce any candidate who has not obtained such marks in the papers as to justify such refusal."

(U.P.G. Pt. 1-A dated 3.6.72 Page 1742)

21. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that in case two candidates obtain equal marks in aggregate (i.e. Total aggregate of both written and interview), then the candidate who has obtained higher marks in written test has to be preferred. According to the Counsel for petitioner, from the above referred provisions, inference is inescapable (See Para 13), such a contention fallacious and without foundation. Apart from the fact that this question has also been considered by a Division Bench and the controversy has been rest at by holding that a candidate, who has obtained higher marks in viva voce will be preferred in category of equal aggregate marks obtained by the candidates.

22. Learned Counsel for Commission referred to the decision of Avinash Narain Pandey v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors., (1996) 2 UPLBEC 1249 (DB), wherein the Division Bench referring to earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Km. Manju Trivedi v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 1247 (S/B) of 1992, decided on 19.1.1994 (Lucknow Bench), this Court observed thus :

'In Paragraph 6 of its counter-affidavit, the Commission has stated that earlier when two or more candidates secured equal marks in the aggregate, It used to give higher place in the merit List to a candidate, who secured more marks in the interview, but after the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Vijay Khare v. State of U.P. (supra) it abandoned its earlier policy and has accordingly arranged the names on the basis of marks obtained by them in the written test. Be that as it may, the fact, remains that the Commission has declared the result of the examination of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the petitioner on 25.11.1994 on the basis of the law laid down by the learned Single Judge, which had already been overruled by the Division Bench in April, 1994. Therefore, the order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and selection the respondent No. 3. Surendra Nath Tripathi, cannot be sustained. As the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have obtained equal marks in the aggregate, their names have to be placed in the merit List on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the interview."

Provided that in making their recommendation the Commission shall satisfy themselves that the candidate has obtained such an aggregate of marks in the written test that he is qualified by his ability for appointment to the service."

24. Expression 'general suitability' has been used under Rule 15 (c) only with reference to an interview to assess the all round career of the candidates and their personality, address and general suitability. This expression 'general suitability' finds place under Rule 19 while referring to a situation, where two candidates obtained equal marks in aggregate. This is indicative of the fact that 'general suitability' of candidate for service it to be assessed and evaluated on the basis of interview and not written examination. However, there is a salient feature in the present case. Earlier proviso, categorically required that in case of candidates, obtaining equal marks, one who obtained higher marks in written test was to be preferred. But there has been amendment in 1972 and the language of the proviso for preferring higher marks in written test and now in case of candidates, who have obtained equal aggregate marks in written and Interview than a candidate, who obtains higher marks in interview is to be preferred by giving rank than the other candidates.