Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)Vikram Singh And Anr vs Subordinate Services Selection Bard, ... on 15 November, 1990
Likewise, referring to another judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Singh & Another Vs.
Subordinate Services Selection Board Haryana & Others,
reported in (1991) 1 SCC 686, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the said judgment is based upon
number of earlier judgments of the apex Court and all
those judgments were considered by the Supreme Court,
more specifically the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar
Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417.
The apex Court, in that judgment, categorically observed
that where there is a composite test consisting of a written
examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of
candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks
obtained in the written examination, should not exceed
twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to
be filled. If a viva voce test is to be carried out in a
thorough and scientific manner, as it must be in order to
arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the
personality of a candidate, the interview must take
anything between 10 to 30 minutes. In the
circumstances, it would be impossible to carry out a
satisfactory viva voce test if a large unmanageable number
of candidates are to be interviewed. The interviews would
then tend to be casual, superficial and sloppy and the
assessment made at such interviews would not correctly
effect the true measure of the personality of the candidate.
8
Moreover, such a course would widen the area of
arbitrariness, for even a candidate who is very much lower
down in the list on the basis of marks obtained in the
written examination, can come within the range of
selection, if he is awarded unduly high marks at the viva
voce examination.
Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985
In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav,
(supra), the apex Court categorically laid down that even
where both written examination and viva voce test are
prescribed, ultimate selection should not be based upon
the viva voce test only. This proposition of law was
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of
the fact that in the event of interviewing large number of
candidates, more often the exercise is formal and it is not
possible to assess the suitability of the candidates within
10 to 30 minutes. In the present case also, large number
of candidates were interviewed and, admittedly, the
duration of interview was in between 10 to 30 minutes. In
this view of the matter, the criteria adopted by the
Commission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, is arbitrary and illegal. The contention of the
respondents cannot be accepted that the criteria is not
under challenge in this writ petition because the
14
respondent has not published the criteria in the
advertisement and, straight away, it is followed at the time
of the selection process. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
be denied his claim only on the ground that he has secured
less marks in the viva voce test than respondent No.3. In
this view of the matter, the denial of the claim of the
petitioner for selection is totally arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, so
also, claim of the petitioner is on the better footing then
respondent No.3 because, admittedly he has secured
higher marks in the written examination, therefore, he is
more suitable than respondent No.3.
Mohinder Sain Garg Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 November, 1990
Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of
the Court towards the judgment in the case of Mohinder
Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1991) 1 SCC
662, in which it has been held that in the case of
composite process of selection comprising of written
examination and interview of the candidates fresh from
7
schools and colleges for public employment, allocation of
more than 15 per cent of the total marks for viva voce test
would be unreasonable and excessive and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006
Per contra, learned counsel for the Commission
vehement argued that as per the judgment in the case of
K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala & Others, reported in
(2006) 6 SCC 395, it is held that Public Service
Commission or any other recruitment authority is justified
to prepare the criteria for adjudging the suitability of the
candidates. In this case, as per the respondents, both the
petitioner and respondent No.3 secured 840 marks out of
1460 marks but the petitioner though older than
respondent No.3 has secured less marks in interview i.e.,
87 marks out of 160 marks, therefore, on the basis of
higher marks obtained in the interview, name of
respondent No.3 who was at S.No.471 in the merit list
was recommended for appointment although he is younger
than the petitioner. In this view of the matter, as per
learned counsel for the respondents, the criteria adopted is
not new and has been made applicable by the respondent
Commission since long back which is in existence,
therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right for
including his name above the name of respondent No.3
because the criteria adopted by the respondents is justified
and aimed at securing the object of selecting more
competent administrative officer.
1