Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the selection process for the Rajasthan Judicial Service, where the petitioner, Lila Dhar, challenged the allocation of 25% marks for the viva voce examination, claiming it introduced arbitrariness and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The competitive examination included a written test and a viva voce, with the petitioner scoring 189 marks overall but not being selected, while the last selected candidate scored 190 marks. The petitioner contended that the high percentage of marks for the interview test was unjustified and that marks should have been awarded under various heads during the interview. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the selection aimed to secure the best candidates and that the allocation of marks was determined by the Governor in consultation with the High Court and Public Service Commission, which were well-acquainted with the needs of the state. The court noted that the viva voce was essential for assessing personal qualities that written tests could not measure. It concluded that the selection process was not arbitrary and that courts should not interfere unless there was proven oblique motive, which was not present in this case. The court upheld the validity of the selection process and dismissed the petition without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Service Selection - Allocation of Marks - Allocation of 25% marks for viva voce examination - The allocation was not arbitrary and did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court held that the selection process aimed to secure the best candidates and the weightage given to the viva voce was justified based on the requirements of the service and the expertise of the selection body (Paras 324-330).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allocation of 25% marks for the viva voce examination was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the allocation of 25% marks for the viva voce examination was not arbitrary and did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the importance of the viva voce in assessing personal qualities and upheld the validity of the selection process.
Law Points
- Public service selection
- viva voce examination
- allocation of marks
- Articles 14 and 16
- judicial review of selection process
