Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The aforesaid decision in Lila Dhar's case was approved by a Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through Bhagwati, J. as he then was in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985 (4) SCC 417). This aspect was also considered later by a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. UP. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad & Ors. (AIR 1986 SC 597). An identical contention concerning viva voce test conducted by the interview board which had not sub- divided the total marks into sub-heads was rejected in that case. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Division Bench observed that interview board was not under any obligation to sub-divide the marks under various heads. The Court noted that the basis of selection in that case was to assess the candidates academic attainments, technical experience, administrative experience and suitability for the -post of Principal. In the light of that-rule it was held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the interview board was not under any obligation to sub-divide the marks under vari- ous heads. Almost an identical position obtains in the present case. Consequently, it must be held that there was no obligation for the members of the Commission to give separate marks under various heads faculty-wise as mentioned in rule 10(1)(b). The first contention therefore fails and is rejected.