The interpretation of the qualifying marks and interview eligibility criteria under Rule 8 and the limitations on the number of candidates to be summoned for interview under Rule 9 were central to the court's decision.

The petitioner participated in the selection process under the S.T. Category for selection of the candidates for J&K Combined Services (Mains) Examination as per SRO 161 of 1995 conducted by the Public Service Commission for selecting the candidates for interview.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner had successfully qualified the preliminary test and, thereafter, was competing in the Mains Examination consisting of written subject papers. In the written examination he obtained 1066 marks in all, whereas in General English paper he obtained 59 marks out of 300. It is not in dispute that in terms of the rules the paper of General English was compulsory as well as qualifying. The Commission in exercise of the powers vested in it under Rule 8 Clauses (iii) & (iv) of Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 1973, had prescribed 66 marks (22% of the total marks allocated) as the qualifying marks for passing the said paper. The candidates who were to be declared qualified in the mains examination were to be summoned for interview in the order of their merit in the ratio of 1:3, i.e., three candidates against one post. The petitioner having failed in the compulsory subject for having not obtained the qualifying marks fixed by the Commission was not called for interview, whereas the other successful candidates were summoned for interview and, accordingly, the selection process was completed by making recommendations to the Government for appointment of the selected candidates. The petitioner being aggrieved of his non-summoning for interview has filed the instant writ petition.

3. The contention of Mr. Raina, learned senior counsel is that since the petitioner had failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in General English paper, therefore, he possessed no right to be called for interview. He relies upon Clauses (iii) & (iv) of Rule 8, which read as follows:

"(iii) The Main Examination will consist of a written examination and an interview test. The written examination will consist of papers of conventional essay type (out of which one paper will be of qualifying nature only) in the subjects set out in Appendix-IX & the detailed syllabus in Appendix-IB.

(iv) Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in written part of the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in any or all the papers at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview.

The interview test is intended to judge the mental calibre of a candidate. In broad terms, this is really an assessment of not only his intellectual qualities but also social traits and his interest in current affairs. Some of the qualities to be judged are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation. Clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership, intellectual and moral integrity.

Provided that a candidate who fails to secure such minimum number of marks as are fixed by the Commission in their discretion in more than one subject shall not be eligible to be called for interest."

The contention of Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioner is that in terms of the proviso appended to Clause (iv) of Rule 8, the petitioner was eligible for being called for interview and, as such, has wrongly been ousted from the competition, which has infringed his fundamental right. The selection process, therefore, is bad in law.

4. Thus, in terms of Clause (iii) of Rule 8, one paper out of the papers prescribed was to be qualifying in nature, which according to the Commission was of General English. In terms of first part of Clause (iv), the Commission was entitled to fix the qualifying marks for any or all the papers at its discretion, which a candidate to be summoned for interview must obtain. The Commission fixed 66 marks (22% of total marks allocated) for General English paper. Admittedly, the petitioner had not secured the marks fixed in the General English paper, so was not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document