Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.27 seconds)R. Chitralekha & Anr vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 29 January, 1964
20. Sixthly, learned Counsel for the non-selectees would contend that there were no norms, no questionnaire and no guidelines formulated for oral interview and the non-formulation of such norms, questionnaire and guidelines vitiates the selection process through oral interview. According to the learned Counsel for the non-selectees, without the norms, questionnaire and guidelines fixed to steer the oral interview, the oral interview could not be stated to have proved a standard, common and effective measure to make the proper selections. While examining this contention, we must once again remember the passage occurring in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Chitralekha v. State of Mysore , that,
In the ultimate analysis, whatever, method is adopted its success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of objectivity and devotion to duty. This criticism is more a reflection on the examiner than on the system itself.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 318 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
Glenn Stahl has pointed out in his book on public personal Administration that the viva voce test does suffer from certain disadvantages such as the difficulty of developing a valid and reliable oral test, the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test and public suspicion of the oral test as a channel for the exertion of Political influence and, as pointed out by this Court in Ajay Hasia's case A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487, also of other corrupt, nepotistic or extraneous considerations, but despite these acknowledged disadvantages, the viva voce test has been used increasingly in the public personnel testing and has become an important instrument whenever tests of personal attributes are considered essential. Glenn Stahl proceeds to add that no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised for measuring such personnel characteristics as initiative, ingenuity and ability to elicit co-operation, many of which are of prime importance. When properly employed, the oral test today deserves a place in the battery used by the technical examiner, "There can the before be no doubt that the viva voice test performs a very useful function in assessing personnel characteristics and traits and in fact, tests the man himself and is the before regarded as an important tool along with the written examination.
Liladhar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 3 December, 1964
Furthermore, it is stated by the respondents and there is no rebuttal of the same by the non-selectees that before the commencement of the oral test, there was a discussion as to how to evaluate the fitness of the candidates, who appear for the interview. The records relating to interview have been produced before us. The records bear out that before the commencement of the interview, there was a discussion by the members of the Commission on the method of interview and marking system; and with regard to each candidate marks have been awarded and only on the basis of the marks awarded, the list of approved candidates has been drawn up. It is stated by the respondents that the assessment of each candidate was made by the Honourable Judges of this Court, who participated in oral interview. As pointed out in Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan ,
the object of any process of selection for entry into public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient...public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services. But the question is how should the competitive examination be devised? The competitive examination may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be based exclusively on oral interview or it may be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given case. To quote the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J. In the very nature of things it would not be within the province or even the competence of the Court and the court would not venture into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, when the matters are more appropriately left" to the wisdom of the experts. It is not for the court to lay down whether interview test...should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test. Of course, the marks must be minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appointments where the only proper method of selection may be by a viva voce test. Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses, it may sometimes be necessary to allow a fairly high percentage of marks for the viva voce test. That is why rigid rules cannot be laid down in these matters and not by Courts. The expert bodies are generally the best judges. The Government aided by experts in the field may appropriately decide to have a written examination followed by a viva voce test.
A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971
In Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan , it was pointed that the Cases in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ajay Hasia v. Kalid Mujib Sehravardi , were cases of admission to Colleges and the provision for marks by interview test need not and cannot be the same for admission to colleges and entry into public services. In that context, it was observed.
Prabodh Verma And Others, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others. Etc on 27 July, 1984
In this behalf, learned Advocate General relies on a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh . However, learned Counsel for the non-selectees would bring to our notice, a pronouncement of the Bench of this Court in Mohamed Ali, M.N. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, etc. 1988 Writ L.R. 1, to say that failure to implead selected candidates is not a ground to deny relief to the petitioner. We have refrained from going into this aspect in detail, because on merits we have found that the non-selectees have no case.