STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER versus M. FARIDA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 323 · Decided: 23-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
323 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
M. FARIDA AND OTHERS 
August 23, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL 
ALI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Kamat aka Recmitment of Gazetted Probationers 
(Class l and ll Posts 
appointment by competitive Examination) Rules 1966-Rule 9 read witlz Part IV 
of Schedule Tl-Scope of-Awarding block marks in interview-If violative of 
the rule. 
A 
B 
Rule 9 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and 
C 
IL Posts appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966, Prescribes a 
written examination for selection of candidates for the service followed by a 
personality test. 
The qualities to be fudged at the time of viva voce, stipulated 
in Part IV of Schedule II to the rules, are mental alertness, critical powers 
of assimilation, clear and logic;:;! exposition etc. 
In their writ petitions before the High Court the respondents, who were the 
unsuccessful candidates in the selections, impugned the personality test on the 
ground that the Selection Committee did not award separate marks for each 
.D 
of the _seven qualities required to be judged in tb.e candidates at the test. 
Following,the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan & Anr. v. State of 
Tamil Nadu & Ors. the High Court allowed the petitions and directed the 
Service Commission to hold a fresh personality test. 
On the question whether r. 9 read with Part IV of Schedule II required the 
Selection Committee to award separate marks fo1· the seven qualities : 
Allowing the State's appeal, 
HELD : (I ) It would not be correct to assume as a general proposition 
that in every case where the interviewing body is asked to take into consideration 
several specified qualities, they must be of equal value and separate marks 
should be allotted under each bead. Where the rules do not contain a cfear 
direction, it would be reasonable to suppose that the intention is that there 
should be a block assessment on an integrated test. [327 BJ 
E 
In the instant case the interviewing body was required to a ward a bloek 
F 
mark on a total impression of the personality of each candidate giving due 
consideration to the seven qualities specified in Part IV. 
Part IV of the Schedule 
never intended that separate marks should be allotted for the seven qualities 
stated therein. [328 Fl 
(2) Personality is commonly understood as an aggregate of traits that identi-
fies a person and distinguishes him fr.om others. 
Quite often with some prac-
tical aim, emphasis is laid on some of the attributes. The end result may nn 
G 
be an assessment of the whole personality, but attributes are abstracted for 
study in an attempt to evaluate the man for the purpose in view. [328 CJ 
In the instant case the qualities are mentioned only as guide, as indicating 
the attributes to be kept in view in assessing the personality of the candidates. 
It is hardly possible in the test contemplated to allocate separate marks for each 
of the various qualities specified because most of them overlap and are so 
intermixed that they cannot be separated. 
The test carries a maximum mark 
of 2.00; it is a I ittle absurd to suppose that the seven qualities to be 
judged 
at the interview are of equal value each carrying 28-4/7 marks. 
[328 El 
A. Periakaruppa11 & Anr. v. Stdtc of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [1971] 2 SCR 430 
distinguished and held inapplicable. 
H 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1977] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore & Or3. [1964] 6 S.C.R. 3fi8, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
G 
H 
382 referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1261-1264 
of 1975. 
(From the Judgment and Order dated l/2.7.i975 of the Karna-
taka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1202, 1607, 1608 and 2739/7'-
respectively) . 
V. P. Raman, Addl. Sol. Genl. (in CA. 1261/75) and B. R. G. f;.. 
Achar (In CAs. 1261-1264/75) for the Appellants. 
D. V. Patel (In CA. 1261/75), S. S. Khanduja & S. IC Jain tor 
Respondents 1-2 in CA. 1261/75 and Respondent No. 1 in CA~. 
1263-1264/75. 
V. P. Raman, Addi. Sol. General and Girish Chandra for Inter-
vener in CA 1261/75. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GUPTA, J.-These are four appeals brought on 
certificates 
of 
fitness granted by the High Court of Karnataka. 
The question which 
according to the High Court needs to be decided by this Court was 
framed as follows : 
"whether in the personality test of candidates for selec-
tion to public appointments, the selecting a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.