LILA DHAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 19-08-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
320 
LILA DHAR 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
August 19, 1981 
[0. Cf!INNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.) 
Seiection to a Public Service-Idea/ mode-By written examination or by 
oral test (viva voce), or by a 
comb;nation of both explained-Rajasthan Judicial 
Service Rules, Schedule III prescribing the criteria to be considered and the 
matters to be tested in the viva voce examination~Allocation of 25% of the total 
marks for the viva voce exarnination, whether arbitrary so as to offend Articles 14 
and 16 of the Constitution. 
Pursuant to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules made by the Governor of 
Rajasthan in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and 
the High Court of Rajasthan. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission held a 
competitive examination for recruitn1ent of Munsifs. The competitive e:icamina-
tion consisted of a written examination with two papers in law carrying 100 
marks each and two papers, one in Hindi and the other iri English, each carrying 
SO marks and a viva voce examination carrying 10() marks. The viva voce 
examination was conducted by a Board consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. D. 
Kudal, Judge, Rajasthan High Court, Shri Hari Dutt Gupta, C'.hairman, Rajas· 
than Public Service Commission, Adaviappa, Member, Rajasthan Public Service 
Commission and an expert. The expert Member was either Dr. I.C. Saxena, or 
Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by rotation. Out of the 39 candidates (respond-
ents 3 to 41) who were selected for appointment, one belonged to the scheduled 
caste and the rest bi!longed to the general category. The last of the candidates 
belonging to the general category who was selected for appointment obtained a 
total of 190 marks in the examination, 135 in the written examination and 55 in 
the viva voce. The petitioner who obtained a total of 189 mar ks, 159 in the 
written test and 30 in the viva voce was not selected for appointment. Hence 
the writ petition, by the petitioner contending: (a) the allocation of so high 
percentage of marks for the interview test introduced an irredeemabJe e1ement 
of arbitrariness so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (b) award-
ing of marks in the interview test in a single lot instead of sub-dividing and 
awarding marks seperately under various heads for the various matters tested in 
the interview was bad in law. 
Djsmissing the writ petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. The object of any process of selection for entry into a public 
service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding 
patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and 
objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. 
[324 C-D] 
) 
; 
j 
LILADHAR v. RAJASTHAN 
321 
1:2. 
While a written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and 
.\ 
intellectual ability, an interview test ic; valuable to assess a candidate's overall 
intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain 
distinct advantages over the interview test there are yet no written test: which 
can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness resourcefulness, dependableness, 
co-operativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in 
discussion, effectivenec;s in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judge-
ment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. 
8 
Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, 
by an interview test, much depending on the con<1titution of the interview Board. 
Thus the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview 
test the man himself and "the twain sh.:ill meet" for a prc
1per selection. 
' 
[325 C-E, Ji6 F] 
2. As regards the weight to be attached re,.pectively to the written test and 
C 
the oral test, there cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to 
be given. ft must vary from service to service according to rhe requirements of 
the service, the minimum qualifications, pre;;cribed, the age group fron1 which 
the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview 
test is proposed to be entru<ited and a host of other factors. It is a 1natter for 
determination by experts and for research. It is not for courts to pronounce 
upon it unless exagg!!rated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique 
D 
motives. [326 F, 327 C·D] 
Pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.