The appeals challenge a Division Bench decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that set aside a Single Judge's order striking down selections for Sub-Inspectors of Police. (!)

Selections involved physical measurement, outdoor test, written test (100 marks), and viva voce (25 marks, or 20%). A list of about 110 candidates was published on 26.11.1992, subject to verification; some were excluded for not meeting physical standards. [1000075210001]

Writ petitioners (appellants) challenged the selections; Single Judge narrowed issues to (i) viva voce marks (25/125 total, 20%) being excessive, and (ii) certain candidates with lower written marks receiving disproportionately higher viva marks. Single Judge struck down the process. [1000075210002]

Division Bench reversed Single Judge, holding 25 marks for viva voce not arbitrary, as judicial precedents allow variation based on service needs, and higher percentages have been upheld. Writ petitions dismissed. [1000075210003]

No universal rule exists for allocating marks between written exam and viva voce; allocation must not be arbitrary or prone to abuse, varying by service requirements, qualifications, age group, and selection body. [1000075210005]

Courts should not interfere unless exaggerated weight is given with oblique motives; expert determination governs weightage. [1000075210005]

Isolated instances of candidates with lower written marks receiving higher viva marks (variations under 10 marks) do not prove systemic vice, arbitrariness, or malice absent specific allegations or evidence. No presumption that high written performers must excel in viva voce. [1000075210007]

Courts cannot strike down selections based on negligible instances, alter the method (e.g., dispense with viva voce for some candidates), or direct selections bypassing the process. [1000075210007]

Single Judge erred in superficial analysis and assumptions; Division Bench correctly sustained the process. Appeals dismissed without costs. [1000075210007][1000075210008] (!)