http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

PETITIONER:

MUNINDRA KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

RAJIV GOVIL AND ORS ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1991

BENCH:

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

BENCH:

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:

1991 AIR 1607 1991 SCR (2) 812

1991 SCC (3) 368 JT 1991 (2) 537

1991 SCALE (1)935

ACT:

Constitution of India, 1950: ARticle 14-Selection for

the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. State

Electricity Board-Allocation of 40 marks for interview and

40 marks for group discussion-As against 120 marks for

Written Examination-Whether arbitrary-Whether violative of.

Civil Service: U.P. State Electricity Board-Assistant

Engineers (Civil)-Section-Allocation of marks-As against 120

marks for Written Test, 40 marks for interview and 40 marks

for group discussion-Whether arbitrary-Selection made on

such basis-Whether vitiated-Method of Group discussion along

with interview-Desirability and legality of-Ideal marks to

be allocated for interview and group discussion-Stipulated.

HEADNOTE:

For filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers

(Civil), the U.P. State Electricity Board issued an

advertisement calling for applications. As per the Scheme

of Examination, 120 marks were allocated for Written Test

and 40 marks each were allocated for Interview and group

discussion. By following the said procedure the Board

selected the successful candidates and appointed them.

Three unsuccessful candidates filed Writ Petitions

before the High Court. They contended that the marks

allocated for Interview and group discussion were on the

higher side and as such the entire selection stood vitiated

and was liable to be quashed.

Accepting the contentions, the High Court quashed the

entire selection. Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the

appellants who were selected and appointed as Assistant

Engineers (Civil) preferred the present appeals, by special

leave.

Allowing the appeals in part his Court,

HELD: 1. The rule made by the U.P. State Electricity

Board keeping 40 marks for Interview and 40 marks for group

discussions is

813

arbitrary and is quashed. In future the marks for interview

and group discussion shall not be kept exceeding 10% and 5/5

respectively of the total marks. However, the election

already made by the Board for the posts of Assistant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7

Engineers (Civil) shall not be disturbed. [820A-B]

2. It cannot be held that the method of group

discussion along with interview for selection of Assistant

Engineers by the Board is in any manner wrong, illegal or

unconstitutional. It is in vogue in the Board since 1979

and it lies in the wisdom of the Board to keep the method of

group discussion as an aid to interview for selection of

Assistant Engineers in future or not. [818A]

3. Group discussion is a mode of selection in aid of

interview in order to assess the personality of the

candidate and determine his/her suitability to the job in

hand. In the case of an interview or oral viva voce it is

restricted to a single candidate at a time while in the case

of group discussion it takes place among a group of

candidates themselves. Generally, candidates of same age

level, similar educational qualifications, experience and

environmental background are grouped together and asked to

discuss a subject. The purpose of group discussion is to

assess the qualities, mental alertness, manner of asserting

oneself, showing regard for opinion of others, ability to

discuss a subject without losing temper and his initiative,

tact and self confidence when confronted with a problem

facing a large number of people. In group discussion the

examiner observes the candidates from behind and makes his

own assessment and as such the allotment of marks for group

discussion cannot be equated with the marks allotted for

interview. In the interview every candidate gets a chance

and the members of the interviewing board can in a better

manner judge the intelligence, ability and personality of

the candidate to determine his suitability for the job. The

marks for group discussion cannot be kept at an equal

pedestal with the interview. However, the group discussion

as one of the methods for assessing the suitability of a

candidate for the post of Assistant Engineer has not been

kept by any other State Electricity Board in India except

the Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Electricity Boards.

Taking into account all aspect of the matter and the

procedure adopted at various examination, it is fit and

proper that 15 per cent marks in all are to be kept for

interview, and if the rule making authorities want to keep

group discussion also as one of the modes of selection then

marks for interview and group discussion should not exceed

10 per cent and 5 per cent respectively of the total marks.

[817B-G]

Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., JT

1990 4 SC 704, relied on.

814

4. It is no doubt correct that the Respondents cannot

be stopped from challenging the rule which is arbitrary and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but in moulding

the relief, their conduct in filing the Writ Petition before

the High Court after taking chance and fully knowing the

percentage of marks kept for interview and group discussion,

and the equities of those who have been selected are the

relevant considerations. The appellants have joined the

post on 28th December, 1989 and after completing the

training they are discharging their duties at different

places. Some of them had left their earlier jobs and have

also become averaged. It is not proper in the interest of

justice to set aside the selection of the appellants.

[818G-H; 819A-B]

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2433 to

2435 of 1991 etc. etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.1990 of the

Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 10643, 10342 and 10706 of

1989.

S.S. Ray, P.P. Rao, S.N. Bhat, Narendra Singh Malik,

Sunil Gupta, Harish N. Salve and Pradeep Misra for the

Appellants.

U.R. Lalit, R.C. Verma, Virendra Mishra, Gopal

Subramaniam and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Respondnets.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted.

We are confronted in these appeals with the question as

to what percentage of marks awarded for group discussion and

interview for selection of Assistant Engineers by the U.P.

State Electricity Board, is reasonable.

The U.P. State Electricity Board invited applications

for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) by

issuing an advertisement in April, 1989. 120 marks were

allocated for the written test, 40 marks for interview and

40 marks for group discussion. Written test was conducted

by the Board on 9th July, 1989 and then interviews and group

discussion were held in October and November, 1989. The

result of the successful candidates in order of merit was

published in daily newspaper on 27th November, 1989. The

very next day the Board also issued individual letters to

the successful candidates calling

815

upon them to join on 26th December, 1989 at Electricity

Training Institute' Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, The appellants

before us joined the institute in December, 1989 and

thereafter they were sent to various places for training and

they started drawing salaries in the prescribed pay-scale

and since then they are continuously working on the

respective posts.

The three unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions

in the Lucknow bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabd inter alia on the ground that the marks for

interview and group discussion had been allocated on the

higher side and against the decisions of this Court and as

such the entire selection stood vitiated and was liable to

be quashed. The High Court by Judgment dated 28th March,

1990 allowed the writ petitions by a common Judgment on the

ground that the marks allocated for interview and group

discussion were more than 20 per cent and hence the whole

selection was liable to be quashed. Aggrieved against the

Judgment of the High Court, the appellants have come in

appeal to this Court by grant of special leave.

As a result of the written examination held on 9th

July, 1989 as many as 386 candidates were called for group

discussion/interview. Later on 49 more candidates were

called for group discussion and interview. A list of 46

candidates who were declared successful was published by the

Board. Out of these 46 candidates, 25 belong to the general

category. The Board in its counter affidavit filed before

the High Court admitted that group discussion was part of

interview. If that position is accepted then it shows that

120 marks were allocated for written test and 80 marks for

interview 940 for interview and 40 for group discussion) and

thus it comes to 40 per cent of the total marks for

interview. This court had already dealt with the question

of percentage of marks to be allotted for interview for

selection to the public posts in the latest decision

Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., JT 1990

4 SC 704 where the maximum percentage has been laid down as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7

15 per cent of the total marks. All the earlier cases were

noted in this case and the question is no longer res

integra. In view of these circumstances the High Court was

right in holding that the marks allocated for interview and

group discussion were arbitrary. The High Court after

holding the percentage of marks as arbitrary also quashed

the entire selection. This Court while entertaining the

special leave petition on 23rd April, 1990 stayed the

operation of the Judgment of the High Court and allowed the

appellants to continue in employment and as such the

appellants are continuing in service. We had heard the

arguments and at the time of reserving the judgment on

816

8th February, 1991 had given the following direction.

"We direct Learned counsel for the Board to furnish

the service rules for the recruitment/selection of

the Assistant Engineers of all the Electricity

Boards of the various States in India. The Board

shall also furnish the Rules, if any, of any other

public sector undertaking where recruitment are

made of Assistant Engineers or of equivalent

technical personnel, where group discussions is

one of the conditions of recruitment. In case

group discussion is there, then all the details

with regard to the percentage of marks kept for

group discussion and other details including

subjects given for group discussion should be

furnished to this Court.

All the above material should be furnished

within three weeks with an affidavit of the

Secretary of the U.P. State Electricity Board."

Pursuant to the above direction of this Court, the

Secretary, U.P. State Electricity Board submitted an

affidavit stating that the Board addressed communications

to 16 Electricity Boards in the country and also to other

public sector undertakings. In response to the said

communication, the information received by him has been

furnished before this Court. According to the said

information 14 Electricity Boards have sent their replies

stating that there was no provision of group discussion in

their rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant

Engineers. Only one i.e. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity

Board has informed that there was a provision for

interview/group discussion in their rules but the marks

provided were 100 for written examination and 10 for

interview/group discussion. As regards the public sector

undertakings, there is no provision for group discussion in

Coal India Ltd., Oil & Natural Gas Commission, National

Hydro Electric Power Corporation, National Thermal Power

Corporation and Tehri Hydro Power Development Corporation.

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has informed thaqt their rules

provide for group discussion and the marks allotted are 50

for the written examination, 35 for interview and 15 for

group discussion. HMT Ltd. has informed that in their rules

100 marks are allotted for written examination and 100 for

interview/group discussion. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

has informed that there is no provision for written

examination and 10 for interview/grew discussion. As

regards the public sector undertakings, there is no

provision for group discussion in Coal India Ltd. Oil &

Natural Gas Commission National Hydro Electric Power

Corporation, National Thermal Power Corporation and Tehri

Hydro Power Development Corporation. Hindustan Aeronautics

Limited has informed that their rules provide for group

discussion and the marks allotted are 50 for written

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7

examination, 35 for interview and 15 for group discussion.

HMT Ltd. has informed that in their rules 100 marks are

allotted for written examination and 100 for interview/group

discussion. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. has informed that

there is no provision for written examination in their rules

and they have made a provision for 60 per cent marks for

interview and 40 per cent for group discussion. The above

information shows that so far as Electricity are concerned.

group discussion

817

as a method of recruitment for the post of Assistant

Engineers is in vogue in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity

Board and the U.P. State Electricity Board and not in any

other State in India. So far as Andhra Pradesh State

Electricity Board is concerned, it has provided 100 marks

for written examination and only 10 for interview/group

discussion cumulatively. Even in case of recruitment for

Indian Administration Service and other administrative posts

for various departments in the States Group discussion is

not kept as a method of selection.

W4e would now deal with the group discussion as a mode

of selection in aid of interview. The group discussion test

was first introduced in the western countries for selection

of personnel for their armed forces and finding it

successful, they introduced it in the service selection

boards in India. Gradually the utility and success of this

method of testing made it popular among other organisations

in our country in public sector and private undertakings

and enterprises. It is a mode of selection in aid of

interview in order to assess the personality o the candidate

and determine his/her suitability to the job in hand. In the

case of an interview or oral viva voce it is restricted to a

single candidate at a time while in the case of group

discussion it takes place among a group of candidates

themselves,. Generally, candidates of same age level,

similar educational qualifications, experience and

environmental background are grouped together and asked to

discuss a subject. A group usually consists of 5-10

candidates. The candidates in a group are given full freedom

to express their views on a subjct given for discussion. In

the group discussion the candidate are not told as to who

speak first or last and how much time each candidate will

take in such discussion. The examiner gives two or three

topics and asks the group to choose any one of them and then

proceed to discuss them. The examiner acts only as a silent

observer in the background. The examiner may stay behind a

partition from where he can watch candidates and listen to

them but cannot be seen or heard by the group. As the

members of the group are engaged in a free and frank

discussion of the topic the examiner notes down the

important personality characteristics of the different

speakers. It is observed by the examiner as to how each

candidate interacts and reacts when behaving as a member of

th team.

The aim of group discussion is to encourage members of a

group to express their ideas on a given subject at a short

notice with a view to find a solution of the problem. The

U.P. State Electricity Board has submitted that interview

test and group discussion are in vogue for more than a

decade as a method of selection for the post of Assistant

818

Engineers. In our view it cannot be held that the method of

group discussion alongwith interview for selection of

Assistant Engineers by the Board is in any manner wrong,

illegal or unconstitutional. It is in vogue in the Board

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7

since 1979 and it lies in the wisdom of the Board to keep te

method of group discussion as an aid to interview for

selection of Assitant Engineers in future or not.

The question now which calls for our consideration is as

to what percentage of marks may be considered as reasonable

for group discussion. The purpose of group discussion is to

assess the qualities mental alertness, manner of asserting

oneself, showing regard for opinion of others, ability to

discuss a subject without losing temper and his initiative,

that and self confidence when confronted with a problem

facing a large number of people. However, the group

discussion as one of the methods for assessing the

suitability of a candidate for the post of Assitant Engineer

has not been kept by any other State Electricity Boards in

India except Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. In group

discussion the examiner observes the candidates from behind

and makes his own assessment and as such the allotment of

marks for group discussion cannot be equated with the marks

allotted for interview. In the interview every candidate

gets a chance and the members of the interviewing board can

in a better manner judge the intelligence, ability and

personality of the candidate to determine his suitability

for the job. The marks for group discussion cannot be kept

at an equal pedestal with the interview. Thus in our view as

already held in Mohinder Sain Garg's case (supra) 15 per

cent marks in all are to be kept for interview, and if the

rule making authorities want to keep group discussion also

as one of the modes of selection them marks for interview

and group discussion should not exceed 10 per cent 5 per

cent respectively of the total marks.

The next question which arises for consideration is as

to what direction would be just and proper in the

circumstances of this case. We do not agree with the High

Court to quash the entire selection made by the Board for

the posts of Assistant Engineers (civil). It may be noted

that Rajeev Govil, Vivek Aggarwal and Gyanendra Srivastava

who remained unsuccessful had filed the writ petitions after

taking chance and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept

for interview and group discussion. It is no doubt correct

that they cannot be stopped from challenging the rule which

is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution, but in modulating the relief, their conduct

and the equities of those who have been selected are the

relevant considerations. The appellants have jointed the

post on 28th

819

December, 1989 and after completing the training are

discharging their duties at different places. It has been

submitted on their behalf that some of them had left their

earlier jobs and have also become overage. Thus we do not

consider it proper in the interest of justice to set aside

the selections of the appellants. We have seen the marksheet

of 295 candidates of the general category who had actually

attended the interview and group discussion. So far as the

respondents in general category are concerned, they have

secured the marks in the following manner:

------------------------------------------------------------

NAME WRITTEN TEST GROUP INTERVIEW TOTAL

DISCUSSION

------------------------------------------------------------

Rajeev Govil 85 5 29 119

Vivek Aggarwal 87.5 12 28 127.5

Gyanendra Bah-

adur Srivastava 81 17 18 116

The last candidate out of the 25 selected candidates in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7

general category has secured 134.5 marks. Out of the 25

candidates selected in the general category, 5 candidates

have secured lesser marks than Rajeev Govil in written test,

9 candidates below Vivek Aggarwal and 2 below Gyanendra

Bahadur Srivastava. A persual of the marksheet also shows

that 50 candidates are such who have not been selected

instead of having secured 87.5 marks or above in written

test, 79 candidates who have secured more than 81 marks in

the written test. Even if we were inclined to give a further

chance of interview and group discussion by keeping 10 per

cent and 5 per cent marks respectively for interview and

group discussion, in all fairness it would be necessary to

give chance to all such candidates who have secured higher

marks in the written test in comparison to the respondents-

writ petitioners. We have already taken the view that we do

not consider it just and proper to set aside the selections

already made. In these circumstances even if we were

inclined to give direction to the Board to create three more

posts and give chance to all the candidates securing equal

or higher marks in the written examination than the writ

petitioners, there was a remote chance of the writ

petitioners being selected..In our view such exercise would

be in futility, taking in view the chance of success of the

writ petitioners.

820

In the result, we allow these appeals in part and quash

the rule made by U.P. State Electricity Board keeping 40

marks for interview and 40 marks for group discussion being

arbitrary. We direct that in future the marks for interview

and group discussion shall not be kept exceeding 10% and 5%

of the total marks, respectively. The selection already made

by the Board for the post of Assistant Engineers (civil)

shall not be disturbed. In the facts and circumstances of

the case parties shall bear their own costs.

G.N. Appeals partly allowed.

821