Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Question D: Whether the marks awarded for the interview are in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?

48. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that allocating 50 marks for interview as against 100 marks for written test, so that the marks allocated for the oral interview came to 33 1/3 per cent W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 of the total number of marks considered for making the selection, was excessive. The Apex Court held that 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, considering the deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism which were very much on the increase. The Court observed that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the 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 per cent of the total marks taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. The Apex Court was of the view that, under the then existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15 percent of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid.

W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774

49. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot strike down the selections made on the ground that the evaluation of the merits of the candidates in the viva voce examination might be arbitrary. The Court pointed out that it cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives.

50. In Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 662], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that allocation of more than 15% for viva voce would be unreasonable and held that the allocation of 25% marks was arbitrary and excessive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering selection to subordinate service from among candidates fresh from schools/colleges, where there was a composite process of written exam and viva voce. In the case at hand, no written exam is involved for the selection. The maximum mark allocated for the interview is only 20% and it cannot be said to be excessive in the selection process for appointment as Assistant Professor. W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774

52. It is apposite in this context to extract the following paragraph from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. [(2000) 7 SCC 719];

"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, selections 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 W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for interview in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. The courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for interview does not arise. Therefore, we think it an exercise in futility to discuss these cases -- Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. [(1971) 1 SCC 38] and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] -- relied upon by Mr Goswami, which deal with admission to educational institutions/schools and also cases where prescribed method of recruitment was written test followed by an interview -- Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88] ; D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India [(1993) 3 SCC 663 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 991 : (1993) 25 ATC 206] and Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 165 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 937 :