MADAN LAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 908 · Decided: 06-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MADAN LAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 6, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Service Law-Selection process-Interview test-Validity of-Unsuc-
cessful candidate--Whether can challenge result of interview test on 
merits-Held, Ncr--Scope of interference--Extent of. 
Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules of 
1967-Rule lO(l)(b}-Selection process-Viva voce examination-Split up of 
marks on various sub-heads noi necessa~Tape recording of questions and 
answers given at oral interview-Not provided-Effect of. 
D 
Rule 9-Appointment-Post of Munsi!f-Words 'actual practice!-Cer-
tificate issued by the concerned District Judg~J & K Public Service Com-
mission not empowered in going behind the certificate. 
Rule 41-Appointments-Merit list and waiting list-Held, such list will 
E have a !if e of one year from date of publication or till it is exhausted, 
whichever is earlier. 
An advertisement notice issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Public 
Service Commission in 1993, invited applications for filling up posts of 
Munsiff in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Commission conducted 
p 
the written examination and thereafter 79 candidates mentioned in the 
notification were declared to have qualified for viva voce test. That in-
cluded the petitioners and the respondents. A viva voce test was conducted 
by four Members of the Commission and an Expert. The petitioners 
challenged the process of selection, while challenging the selection of the 
successful respondents. Petitioners alleged that viva voce test was so 
G manipulated that only preferred candidates were permitted to get into the 
select list, and therefore the selections should be made on the basis of the 
written test alone or to conduct fresh viva voce test after removing defects 
in it for assessing the merits of the candidates objective_ly, that when a 
candidate is orally interviewed, the members of the. Committee should 
H assign separate marks for the different faculties of the concerned can-
908 
( 
) 
- ' 
MADANLALv. STATEOFJ.ANDK. 
909 
didate namely, intelligence, general knowledge, etc. as laid down in rule A 
lO(l)(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment 
Rules of 1967; that the Expert, namely, the sitting Judge of the High Court 
was entitled to award only 60 marks for viva voce test while the remaining 
80 marks were permitted to be given by other members of the Commission 
and that affected the overall assessment of the candidates in the viva voce 
test which as a whole comprised of 140 marks; that there was nothing to 
show that any tape recording was done regarding the question put to 
candidates and the answers given by them at the viva voce test and that 
had vitiated the said test; that the petitioners fared very well in the written 
test as compared to the selected candidates and still at the viva voce test 
they were pushed down by assigning very low marks as compared to 
contesting respondents and th11s they were treated unfairly at the said viva 
voce test; that the viva voce test was co11ducted in an unfair manner only 
with a view to select candidates belonging to a particular community; that 
respondent Nos. 10 and 13 whose names were included in the impugned 
B 
c 
list of recommended candidates were not eligible to be appointed as D 
MunsitT as they failed to satisfy the eligibility requirement of rule 9 of the 
rules in as much as they had not put in 2 years of actual practice at the 
bar by the date he or she submitted application for such recruitment; that 
· the daughter of the Chairman of the Commission and daughter-in-law of 
another Member thereof was given a special favourable treatment by 
unduly inflating her marks in the viva voce test; that preparation of the E 
merit list of 16 candidates from general category and 4 candidates from 
reserved category was in any case bad and violative of rule 41 of the rules 
as the vacancies for which the advertisement was issued by the Commis-
sion were only 11 and requisition was sent by the Government for selection 
of suitable candidates through the Commission for those vacancies. 
F 
After petitioners moved this petition, stay of appointments of con-
cerned selected candidates was granted. 
The respondents comprising of selected candidates as well as the 
State submitted that there was nothing wrong with the selection process G 
so far as viva voce test was concerned. 
Dismissing the writ petition, this

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.