LexKOSHAL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. versus STATE OF J. & K. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
'
••
' •
•
KOSHAL KUMAR GUPfA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF J. & K. AND ORS.
April 6, 1984
[D. A. DESAI, A. p; SEN AND V. BALA,KRIS!lNA BRAD!, JJ.]
Educational Institutions-Admission to Engineering Col!eges-A_dmission
to-Viva-Voce tes1-All.1trn~1Jt of 15 marks-Wheiher arbitrary.
l;>lalogue
between members of_ Selecdon COmmittee and candidate recorded on-tape.
_recor~r-Procedu.re_.;.Wheth'er fair a/id reasonable.
· •
The Third Respoodant-Principal of the College by a public adver'
tiscment invited applications for admission to the _ Bac_helor Degree
EngineeriOg Course in the Regional Eog-ioeeriog College in fhe State. The
candidates seeking admission were requi('ed to appear at a joint entrance
examination, thos_e who. qu;1.lified had to ·appear at a viva·-vOce
test~ aa·d
the sele.ction was to be based on· the combined performance in the
written and vivaMvoce-examinatiOn.
r
The petitjoners who-applied and were admitted to the written test
and- on being
qualified~ were cal
1led for viVa-Vbce test;
In their writ ·
petitions they challenged the m1ni:ier, the. method and the number
of
mar)s:s assigned for the vlva-voce test.
It was conteQded that the rescr ..
vation of IS marks for the viva-vOce. test conferred __ arbitrary, unguided
and ·uocannalised power on those conducting the viva-voce tCst and tha.t
tbC reservation of JS ma_rks would have
th~ pernicious_ tendency of
affecting merit disclosed by the marks obtai 1ed at the \vritten examination.
The writ puHtion was contested on behalf of ._respondents l ,2 and
3 by sub:nitting that in order to avoid a1y ch1rge_o~ arbitrariness being
·levelled against the Selection Committee, 15 marks assi8aed for viva·'9'oce
test were· further split-Up urider four heads, viz. (i) Science-5 marks, (ii).
General Knowledge·4 marks, (iii) -Curricular Activilies--3 marks and·
{i~)
Personality tCst-·3 marks, and that the Selection Committee prep1red
cards on each of which a quest.ion was typed referable fO Physics,
Chemistry, Mathematics and General K.nowledge and they were kept in
4 different boXes.
Wh_eri the Candidate entere<;l the room for interview,
·he
wa~'· requited to pick-up at random one card from eaC:h ,of the four
boxes, eaCh.box containing 150 cards and answer the· question. A tape4
recorder was kept on the table in front·of the members of tho SolMion
Committee and the candidaie appearilig for the interview, aad the two 4
way dialogue was recorded in full. Mark• were aHigned undor each head
of 1iva-voce test dapendiog UPJJ th;, m'!:rit or ·th;, anJwer.
fheral.fter, ..
tho merit list was prepared on the basis of tho total marks ·obtainod at
A
B
c
D
E
·F
G
H·
•
40S.
SUPRE$ COURT REPORTS
tt984j 3 s.c.R. ·
-1"'
.A
t be written and viva·Voce tests.
B
D
DismissiOg the Writ Petitions & Transferred cases,
•
HELD :Merit.ha& been 'asqerlairied ·by the.most scientific mCihod tha
can be applied for selecting candidates on merit leaving n6 room for_ any
· arbitrar§ choice. 'Ibe viva;voce test that was conducted was fair, free
from the charS'e of arbitrariness, reasonable and just.
[410 F]
In the instant case, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have· practically set at
naught some of the drawbacks and deficiencies- point.ed out in Ajay' Basia
etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehra,ard1 & others etc. [1981] 2 SCR · 79•· in the
manner . of holding of
oral interview and the marks- assigned at it.
The
respondents in order to avoid any charge of arbitiiirjness ·reduced tbe
marks assigned to ·the · Viva-voce test, prepared the questions 1o advance
kept them ready in the boxes and 'tbe candidatJ bad to .pick-up bis own
<i,ueslion . nod answer it.
The record .'Of the answer was m~int'llined in
the candidate~ own voice. [41'Q Q-411 E]
·
ORiGINAJ, JURISDICTION : Writ Petiti~ri No. 8964 of 1982.
~
. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Irtdia)
WITH
Transfer Cases Nos. 13-15 of 1984.
Anil Dev Singh, Subhash Sharma and S.K. Sabharwa/ for the
.•
E
petitioners.
G.L. Sangh1 and Altaf Ahmed'for the respondents.
K.R.R. Pillai 'for the Petitioner· in Transfor Cases Nos.
13-15 of84.
F ·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
H
DESA~ J.
At' the conclu.sion of the hearing of the .writ. peti-
tion and the transferred cases on Jan.24, 1984, the Court pronoun-
ced the order dismissing· the writ p,etition. agd the transferred
cases, reserving that the reasons will follow later on. Here arc
the reasons.
To put.into' focus the ·cExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.