Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
MUNINDRA KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJIV GOVIL AND ORS ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1991
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1607 1991 SCR (2) 812
1991 SCC (3) 368 JT 1991 (2) 537
1991 SCALE (1)935
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: ARticle 14-Selection for
the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. State
Electricity Board-Allocation of 40 marks for interview and
40 marks for group discussion-As against 120 marks for
Written Examination-Whether arbitrary-Whether violative of.
Civil Service: U.P. State Electricity Board-Assistant
Engineers (Civil)-Section-Allocation of marks-As against 120
marks for Written Test, 40 marks for interview and 40 marks
for group discussion-Whether arbitrary-Selection made on
such basis-Whether vitiated-Method of Group discussion along
with interview-Desirability and legality of-Ideal marks to
be allocated for interview and group discussion-Stipulated.
HEADNOTE:
For filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers
(Civil), the U.P. State Electricity Board issued an
advertisement calling for applications. As per the Scheme
of Examination, 120 marks were allocated for Written Test
and 40 marks each were allocated for Interview and group
discussion. By following the said procedure the Board
selected the successful candidates and appointed them.
Three unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions
before the High Court. They contended that the marks
allocated for Interview and group discussion were on the
higher side and as such the entire selection stood vitiated
and was liable to be quashed.
Accepting the contentions, the High Court quashed the
entire selection. Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the
appellants who were selected and appointed as Assistant
Engineers (Civil) preferred the present appeals, by special
leave.
Allowing the appeals in part his Court,
HELD: 1. The rule made by the U.P. State Electricity
Board keeping 40 marks for Interview and 40 marks for group
discussions is
813
arbitrary and is quashed. In future the marks for interview
and group discussion shall not be kept exceeding 10% and 5/5
respectively of the total marks. However, the election
already made by the Board for the posts of Assistant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
Engineers (Civil) shall not be disturbed. [820A-B]
2. It cannot be held that the method of group
discussion along with interview for selection of Assistant
Engineers by the Board is in any manner wrong, illegal or
unconstitutional. It is in vogue in the Board since 1979
and it lies in the wisdom of the Board to keep the method of
group discussion as an aid to interview for selection of
Assistant Engineers in future or not. [818A]
3. Group discussion is a mode of selection in aid of
interview in order to assess the personality of the
candidate and determine his/her suitability to the job in
hand. In the case of an interview or oral viva voce it is
restricted to a single candidate at a time while in the case
of group discussion it takes place among a group of
candidates themselves. Generally, candidates of same age
level, similar educational qualifications, experience and
environmental background are grouped together and asked to
discuss a subject. The purpose of group discussion is to
assess the qualities, mental alertness, manner of asserting
oneself, showing regard for opinion of others, ability to
discuss a subject without losing temper and his initiative,
tact and self confidence when confronted with a problem
facing a large number of people. In group discussion the
examiner observes the candidates from behind and makes his
own assessment and as such the allotment of marks for group
discussion cannot be equated with the marks allotted for
interview. In the interview every candidate gets a chance
and the members of the interviewing board can in a better
manner judge the intelligence, ability and personality of
the candidate to determine his suitability for the job. The
marks for group discussion cannot be kept at an equal
pedestal with the interview. However, the group discussion
as one of the methods for assessing the suitability of a
candidate for the post of Assistant Engineer has not been
kept by any other State Electricity Board in India except
the Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Electricity Boards.
Taking into account all aspect of the matter and the
procedure adopted at various examination, it is fit and
proper that 15 per cent marks in all are to be kept for
interview, and if the rule making authorities want to keep
group discussion also as one of the modes of selection then
marks for interview and group discussion should not exceed
10 per cent and 5 per cent respectively of the total marks.
[817B-G]
Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., JT
1990 4 SC 704, relied on.
814
4. It is no doubt correct that the Respondents cannot
be stopped from challenging the rule which is arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but in moulding
the relief, their conduct in filing the Writ Petition before
the High Court after taking chance and fully knowing the
percentage of marks kept for interview and group discussion,
and the equities of those who have been selected are the
relevant considerations. The appellants have joined the
post on 28th December, 1989 and after completing the
training they are discharging their duties at different
places. Some of them had left their earlier jobs and have
also become averaged. It is not proper in the interest of
justice to set aside the selection of the appellants.
[818G-H; 819A-B]
JUDGMENT:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2433 to
2435 of 1991 etc. etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.1990 of the
Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 10643, 10342 and 10706 of
1989.
S.S. Ray, P.P. Rao, S.N. Bhat, Narendra Singh Malik,
Sunil Gupta, Harish N. Salve and Pradeep Misra for the
Appellants.
U.R. Lalit, R.C. Verma, Virendra Mishra, Gopal
Subramaniam and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondnets.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.
We are confronted in these appeals with the question as
to what percentage of marks awarded for group discussion and
interview for selection of Assistant Engineers by the U.P.
State Electricity Board, is reasonable.
The U.P. State Electricity Board invited applications
for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) by
issuing an advertisement in April, 1989. 120 marks were
allocated for the written test, 40 marks for interview and
40 marks for group discussion. Written test was conducted
by the Board on 9th July, 1989 and then interviews and group
discussion were held in October and November, 1989. The
result of the successful candidates in order of merit was
published in daily newspaper on 27th November, 1989. The
very next day the Board also issued individual letters to
the successful candidates calling
815
upon them to join on 26th December, 1989 at Electricity
Training Institute’ Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, The appellants
before us joined the institute in December, 1989 and
thereafter they were sent to various places for training and
they started drawing salaries in the prescribed pay-scale
and since then they are continuously working on the
respective posts.
The three unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions
in the Lucknow bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabd inter alia on the ground that the marks for
interview and group discussion had been allocated on the
higher side and against the decisions of this Court and as
such the entire selection stood vitiated and was liable to
be quashed. The High Court by Judgment dated 28th March,
1990 allowed the writ petitions by a common Judgment on the
ground that the marks allocated for interview and group
discussion were more than 20 per cent and hence the whole
selection was liable to be quashed. Aggrieved against the
Judgment of the High Court, the appellants have come in
appeal to this Court by grant of special leave.
As a result of the written examination held on 9th
July, 1989 as many as 386 candidates were called for group
discussion/interview. Later on 49 more candidates were
called for group discussion and interview. A list of 46
candidates who were declared successful was published by the
Board. Out of these 46 candidates, 25 belong to the general
category. The Board in its counter affidavit filed before
the High Court admitted that group discussion was part of
interview. If that position is accepted then it shows that
120 marks were allocated for written test and 80 marks for
interview 940 for interview and 40 for group discussion) and
thus it comes to 40 per cent of the total marks for
interview. This court had already dealt with the question
of percentage of marks to be allotted for interview for
selection to the public posts in the latest decision
Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., JT 1990
4 SC 704 where the maximum percentage has been laid down as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
15 per cent of the total marks. All the earlier cases were
noted in this case and the question is no longer res
integra. In view of these circumstances the High Court was
right in holding that the marks allocated for interview and
group discussion were arbitrary. The High Court after
holding the percentage of marks as arbitrary also quashed
the entire selection. This Court while entertaining the
special leave petition on 23rd April, 1990 stayed the
operation of the Judgment of the High Court and allowed the
appellants to continue in employment and as such the
appellants are continuing in service. We had heard the
arguments and at the time of reserving the judgment on
816
8th February, 1991 had given the following direction.
"We direct Learned counsel for the Board to furnish
the service rules for the recruitment/selection of
the Assistant Engineers of all the Electricity
Boards of the various States in India. The Board
shall also furnish the Rules, if any, of any other
public sector undertaking where recruitment are
made of Assistant Engineers or of equivalent
technical personnel, where group discussions is
one of the conditions of recruitment. In case
group discussion is there, then all the details
with regard to the percentage of marks kept for
group discussion and other details including
subjects given for group discussion should be
furnished to this Court.
All the above material should be furnished
within three weeks with an affidavit of the
Secretary of the U.P. State Electricity Board."
Pursuant to the above direction of this Court, the
Secretary, U.P. State Electricity Board submitted an
affidavit stating that the Board addressed communications
to 16 Electricity Boards in the country and also to other
public sector undertakings. In response to the said
communication, the information received by him has been
furnished before this Court. According to the said
information 14 Electricity Boards have sent their replies
stating that there was no provision of group discussion in
their rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Engineers. Only one i.e. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity
Board has informed that there was a provision for
interview/group discussion in their rules but the marks
provided were 100 for written examination and 10 for
interview/group discussion. As regards the public sector
undertakings, there is no provision for group discussion in
Coal India Ltd., Oil & Natural Gas Commission, National
Hydro Electric Power Corporation, National Thermal Power
Corporation and Tehri Hydro Power Development Corporation.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has informed thaqt their rules
provide for group discussion and the marks allotted are 50
for the written examination, 35 for interview and 15 for
group discussion. HMT Ltd. has informed that in their rules
100 marks are allotted for written examination and 100 for
interview/group discussion. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.
has informed that there is no provision for written
examination and 10 for interview/grew discussion. As
regards the public sector undertakings, there is no
provision for group discussion in Coal India Ltd. Oil &
Natural Gas Commission National Hydro Electric Power
Corporation, National Thermal Power Corporation and Tehri
Hydro Power Development Corporation. Hindustan Aeronautics
Limited has informed that their rules provide for group
discussion and the marks allotted are 50 for written
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
examination, 35 for interview and 15 for group discussion.
HMT Ltd. has informed that in their rules 100 marks are
allotted for written examination and 100 for interview/group
discussion. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. has informed that
there is no provision for written examination in their rules
and they have made a provision for 60 per cent marks for
interview and 40 per cent for group discussion. The above
information shows that so far as Electricity are concerned.
group discussion
817
as a method of recruitment for the post of Assistant
Engineers is in vogue in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity
Board and the U.P. State Electricity Board and not in any
other State in India. So far as Andhra Pradesh State
Electricity Board is concerned, it has provided 100 marks
for written examination and only 10 for interview/group
discussion cumulatively. Even in case of recruitment for
Indian Administration Service and other administrative posts
for various departments in the States Group discussion is
not kept as a method of selection.
W4e would now deal with the group discussion as a mode
of selection in aid of interview. The group discussion test
was first introduced in the western countries for selection
of personnel for their armed forces and finding it
successful, they introduced it in the service selection
boards in India. Gradually the utility and success of this
method of testing made it popular among other organisations
in our country in public sector and private undertakings
and enterprises. It is a mode of selection in aid of
interview in order to assess the personality o the candidate
and determine his/her suitability to the job in hand. In the
case of an interview or oral viva voce it is restricted to a
single candidate at a time while in the case of group
discussion it takes place among a group of candidates
themselves,. Generally, candidates of same age level,
similar educational qualifications, experience and
environmental background are grouped together and asked to
discuss a subject. A group usually consists of 5-10
candidates. The candidates in a group are given full freedom
to express their views on a subjct given for discussion. In
the group discussion the candidate are not told as to who
speak first or last and how much time each candidate will
take in such discussion. The examiner gives two or three
topics and asks the group to choose any one of them and then
proceed to discuss them. The examiner acts only as a silent
observer in the background. The examiner may stay behind a
partition from where he can watch candidates and listen to
them but cannot be seen or heard by the group. As the
members of the group are engaged in a free and frank
discussion of the topic the examiner notes down the
important personality characteristics of the different
speakers. It is observed by the examiner as to how each
candidate interacts and reacts when behaving as a member of
th team.
The aim of group discussion is to encourage members of a
group to express their ideas on a given subject at a short
notice with a view to find a solution of the problem. The
U.P. State Electricity Board has submitted that interview
test and group discussion are in vogue for more than a
decade as a method of selection for the post of Assistant
818
Engineers. In our view it cannot be held that the method of
group discussion alongwith interview for selection of
Assistant Engineers by the Board is in any manner wrong,
illegal or unconstitutional. It is in vogue in the Board
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
since 1979 and it lies in the wisdom of the Board to keep te
method of group discussion as an aid to interview for
selection of Assitant Engineers in future or not.
The question now which calls for our consideration is as
to what percentage of marks may be considered as reasonable
for group discussion. The purpose of group discussion is to
assess the qualities mental alertness, manner of asserting
oneself, showing regard for opinion of others, ability to
discuss a subject without losing temper and his initiative,
that and self confidence when confronted with a problem
facing a large number of people. However, the group
discussion as one of the methods for assessing the
suitability of a candidate for the post of Assitant Engineer
has not been kept by any other State Electricity Boards in
India except Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. In group
discussion the examiner observes the candidates from behind
and makes his own assessment and as such the allotment of
marks for group discussion cannot be equated with the marks
allotted for interview. In the interview every candidate
gets a chance and the members of the interviewing board can
in a better manner judge the intelligence, ability and
personality of the candidate to determine his suitability
for the job. The marks for group discussion cannot be kept
at an equal pedestal with the interview. Thus in our view as
already held in Mohinder Sain Garg’s case (supra) 15 per
cent marks in all are to be kept for interview, and if the
rule making authorities want to keep group discussion also
as one of the modes of selection them marks for interview
and group discussion should not exceed 10 per cent 5 per
cent respectively of the total marks.
The next question which arises for consideration is as
to what direction would be just and proper in the
circumstances of this case. We do not agree with the High
Court to quash the entire selection made by the Board for
the posts of Assistant Engineers (civil). It may be noted
that Rajeev Govil, Vivek Aggarwal and Gyanendra Srivastava
who remained unsuccessful had filed the writ petitions after
taking chance and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept
for interview and group discussion. It is no doubt correct
that they cannot be stopped from challenging the rule which
is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution, but in modulating the relief, their conduct
and the equities of those who have been selected are the
relevant considerations. The appellants have jointed the
post on 28th
819
December, 1989 and after completing the training are
discharging their duties at different places. It has been
submitted on their behalf that some of them had left their
earlier jobs and have also become overage. Thus we do not
consider it proper in the interest of justice to set aside
the selections of the appellants. We have seen the marksheet
of 295 candidates of the general category who had actually
attended the interview and group discussion. So far as the
respondents in general category are concerned, they have
secured the marks in the following manner:
------------------------------------------------------------
NAME WRITTEN TEST GROUP INTERVIEW TOTAL
DISCUSSION
------------------------------------------------------------
Rajeev Govil 85 5 29 119
Vivek Aggarwal 87.5 12 28 127.5
Gyanendra Bah-
adur Srivastava 81 17 18 116
The last candidate out of the 25 selected candidates in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
general category has secured 134.5 marks. Out of the 25
candidates selected in the general category, 5 candidates
have secured lesser marks than Rajeev Govil in written test,
9 candidates below Vivek Aggarwal and 2 below Gyanendra
Bahadur Srivastava. A persual of the marksheet also shows
that 50 candidates are such who have not been selected
instead of having secured 87.5 marks or above in written
test, 79 candidates who have secured more than 81 marks in
the written test. Even if we were inclined to give a further
chance of interview and group discussion by keeping 10 per
cent and 5 per cent marks respectively for interview and
group discussion, in all fairness it would be necessary to
give chance to all such candidates who have secured higher
marks in the written test in comparison to the respondents-
writ petitioners. We have already taken the view that we do
not consider it just and proper to set aside the selections
already made. In these circumstances even if we were
inclined to give direction to the Board to create three more
posts and give chance to all the candidates securing equal
or higher marks in the written examination than the writ
petitioners, there was a remote chance of the writ
petitioners being selected..In our view such exercise would
be in futility, taking in view the chance of success of the
writ petitioners.
820
In the result, we allow these appeals in part and quash
the rule made by U.P. State Electricity Board keeping 40
marks for interview and 40 marks for group discussion being
arbitrary. We direct that in future the marks for interview
and group discussion shall not be kept exceeding 10% and 5%
of the total marks, respectively. The selection already made
by the Board for the post of Assistant Engineers (civil)
shall not be disturbed. In the facts and circumstances of
the case parties shall bear their own costs.
G.N. Appeals partly allowed.
821