Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Narender Singh, in this writ petition, impugns the order dated 24.05.2016, whereby OA No.1028/2013 has been partially allowed.

2. For the sake of completeness, we would like to reproduce the reliefs sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which read:

"a) Quash the condition to have 25% minimum marks in interview/personality test for general candidates as being illegal and arbitrary.
b) Declare fixing/allotting 100 marks out of total 500 marks, being 20% of total marks of the examination, for interview as excessive, unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, irrational, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash the result of interviews and the select list prepared on the basis thereof.
e) Declare the awarding of 10 marks out of 100 marks in interview as an arbitrary exercise of discretion by the respondent No.2
f) Declare the whole exercise of holding interview as not being in conformity with the concept and purpose of interview and personality test and also for not holding personality test as envisaged in the interview letter dated 11.1.2013 as unconstitutional and illegal and thus bad in law.
"14. This Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 held that allocation of 22.2% marks for the viva voce test was excessive and unreasonably high, tending to leave room for arbitrariness. (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368, Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 662, P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2007) 9 SCC 497 and Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. (2000) 7 SCC 719.

15. In Satpal v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp (1) SCC 206 this Court disapproved allocation of 85% of total marks for interview observing that such fixation was conducive to arbitrary selection. While deciding the said case the Court placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722, wherein the Court had held that 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. Thus, it is evident that the courts had always frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview even when the selection has been on the basis of written test as well as on interview.

12. There is another aspect which we must allude to. The petitioner was called for the interview on 11th January, 2013. He appeared for the interview on 21st February, 2013. The results of the interview were declared on 1st March, 2013, and the petitioner came to know that he had only secured 10 out of 100 marks in the interview and was not selected. It was only thereafter on 21st March, 2013 that the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1028/2013 challenging the allocation of 20% weightage of total marks to the interview as excessive and arbitrary. He did not raise any challenge to allocation of 20% to the interview during the entire selection process and only raised the contention after the selection process was completed and he found himself unsuccessful. The Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. (2015) 11 SCC 493, has observed:-