residence and
without any relevance to the subject for which marks were
allocated, whether arbitrary-Allocation of 1/3 of the total
marks required ... marks for the
oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the
written test, is not free from the vice of arbitrariness.
The allocation
total of 900 marks for the generality of students and a
total of 600 marks for ex servicemen was arbitrary and
excessive ... patently arbitrary
or the risk of arbitrariness is so high that a reasonable
person would regard arbitrariness as inevitable, that the
assessment of marks
marks were kept for interview as against the total marks of 250
(150 marks for written test + 100 marks for interview) which is totally
arbitrary ... stated that 100 marks were kept for interview as against the total marks of
250 (150 marks for written test + 100 marks for interview
Allocation of 40 marks for interview and
40 marks for group discussion-As against 120 marks for
Written Examination-Whether arbitrary-Whether violative of.
Civil ... Allocation of marks-As against 120
marks for Written Test, 40 marks for interview and 40 marks
for group discussion-Whether arbitrary-Selection made
allocation of marks under various heads,
reduced the percentage of marks for interview from 25% to
15% and increased percentage of marks for length ... procedure was arbitrary and resulted in arbitrary
selection. This Court held that the interview board was not
obliged to subdivide the marks and selection could
confusing, arbitrary and
without any reasonable basis. It was alleged that arbitrary marks were awarded
to certain candidates in the name of scaling system ... applied. 18 marks were given
notionally to a candidate who secured zero marks so as to indicate the variation
in marks secured by the candidates
nation-Viva voce--Value and importance of--Fixing 25 of
total marks Whether arbitrary and excessive--Calling for a
large number of candidates--Whether vitiates ... also contended that keeping 100 marks for interview, that is
25 per cent of the total marks, gave arbitrary powers to the
Selection Committee
marks (Vivek Jain), 68 marks (Manish Bansai), 72 marks (Rakesh Sharma), 73 marks (Devki-nandan Sharma), 74 marks (Sangeeta Gupta), 71 marks (Anil Kumar Sharma ... marks (Manju Jain), 28 marks (Nitu Sonkar) and 55 marks (Ruchi Gupta). For that reason the names of the petitioners did not figure
otherwise obtained the minimum
qualifying marks out of 18 marks. He further held that even if marks were
to be given for the certificates, they ... marks, then the cut-off marks
ought to have been assessed out of 18 marks, and the marks for the
certificates ought to have been
petitioner. After examining the same, we found arbitrary marking in respect of several questions, such as questions
