2000 Supreme(SC) 1778

2000(7) Supreme 464
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & Umesh C. Banerjee, JJ.
Praveen Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15354 of 1996
Decided on 10-11-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma and Mrs. Rekha Palli, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 45 : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate and Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Jayshree Anand, (Addl. Advocate General) for Punjab, G. Sivabalamurugan and R. Dutta, Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Where Rules for selection prescribe written test and viva voce test earmarking separate marks for written test and viva voce test selection then appointment cannot be made solely on the basis of marks secured in viva voce test excluding marks secured in written examination.

Headnote:Service Law-Selection for appointment-Arbitrariness in-Punjab Public Service Commission-Selection for post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer-Rules prescribing for 450 marks for section comprising of 400 marks in written examination and 50 marks for viva voce-Selection and appointment made on basis of marks in viva voce test alone-Action of PSC suffers from vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness-Marks secured in written test cannot be avoided-Both written and viva voce test be taken into consideration for purpose of effecting appointment.

       While it is true that the administrative or quasi-judicial authority clothed with the power of selection and appointment ought to be left unfettered in adaptation of procedural aspect but that does not however mean and imply that the same would be made available to an employer at the cost of fair play, good conscience and equity. (Para 7)

       Though interview undoubtedly a significant factor in the matter of appointments. It plays a strategic role but it also allows creeping in of a lacuna rendering the appointments illegitimate. Obviously it is an important factor but ought not to be the sole guiding factor since reliance thereon only may lead to a "sabotage of the purity of the proceedings." (Para 8)

       The facts in the present context deal with Block Development Officers at the Panchayat level. Neither the job requires mature personality nor the recruitment should be on the basis of interview only, having regard to the nature and requirement of the concerned jobs. In any event, the Service Commission itself has recognised a written test as also viva voce test. The issue therefore pertains as to whether on a proper interpretation of the rules read with the instructions note, the written examination can be deemed to be a mere qualifying examination and the appointment can only be given through viva voce test - a plain reading of the same however would negate the question as posed. A close look at the qualification as prescribed and the information sheet, however, in our view would depict otherwise. The qualifications prescribes that the candidates will be required to qualify for the following written test at the time of recruitment and the qualification standard in the test has been fixed to be at 33% pass marks in each paper with 45% however in the aggregate (emphasised) and paragraph 4 of the Information sheet, as above, in no uncertain term records that no candidate shall be eligible to appear in the viva voce test unless he obtains 33% marks in each paper and 45% marks in the aggregate. Reading the two requirements as above, in our view question of having the written test written off in the matter of selection does not and cannot arise. Had it been the intent of the Service Commission, then and in that event question of there being a totality of marks would not have been included therein and together with specified marks for viva voce tests, would not have been there neither there would have any requirement of qualifying pass marks nor there would have any aggregate marks as noticed above. Further, in the event, the interview was the sole criteria and the written test being treated as qualifying test, the Public Service Commission ought to have clearly stated that upon completion of the written elimination test, selection would be made on the basis of the viva voce test only. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)

       When the Commission in clear and categorical language recorded that 450 marks would be the total marks for the examination and out of which only 50 marks are earmarked for viva voce test, the Commission desired that these 50 marks would be relevant and crucial and the other 400 marks would be rendered totally, superfluous and of no effect at all. The language used is rather plain and is not capable of the interpretation as is being presented before us during the course of hearing and as has been held by the High Court. Reliance on 50 marks only and thereby avoiding the other 400 marks cannot in our view having due regard to the language used, be said to be reasonable or devoid of any arbitrariness. The action of the respondent Commission thus is wholly unreasonable, unfair and not in accordance with the declared principles. The action suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness warranting intervention of this Court. On the wake of the above, the order of the High Court stands set aside and quashed. Consequently the appointments are also set aside. The Public Service Commission is directed to complete the process of selections in terms of the existing rules so that both the written and the viva voce test be taken into consideration for the purpose of effecting appointments. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)