FACTS
This case deals with the validity and legitimacy of the recruitment process given and practiced by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as HPSC) and Haryana Civil Services (hereinafter referred to as HPC) and other allied services.
The competitive examinations were conducted in 2 stages where the first stage was the written examination and the second stage was a viva voce (interview). The preliminary issue arose when several candidates were not selected due to low marks in the interview despite scoring high marks in the written exam.
On the contrary, the candidates who scored high marks in the interview and low marks in the written examination were selected.
The total marks for the whole examination were 750 marks and interview alone comprised of 250 marks for ex-servicemen candidates, which is 33.3% of the full score. This distribution of marks was challenged as arbitrary and excessive. The total marks of interview were 250 marks out of 1125 marks for general candidates, which is 22.2% of the total score.
It is a leading case of ‘Personal Bias’ as 3 candidates who appeared in the examination had connections and personal relationships with 2 of the board members of HPSC.
The laws used and interpreted in this case are-
1. Article 14. Equality before law 1.
2. Article 16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment 2.
BACKGROUND
The aggrieved candidate first approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HC’). The division bench of HC quashed the selection list and they cited bias, arbitrariness and that there was a clear violation of natural justice and there’s lack of transparency in the viva voce procedure.
After this HPSC appealed before the Supreme Court of India 9hereinafter referred to as ‘SC’) through a special leave petition provided under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The case was lead by Y.V. Chandrachud C.J and P.N. Bhagwati, Amarendra Nath Sen and Balakrishna Eradi JJ.
• The SC finally passed a verdict upholding the order of the HC that viva voce is an essential part of the recruitment process of examinations of services like HPSC, HCS and other allied services.
• It is necessary for assessing the personality traits, communication skills and leadership qualities of the candidate, which are very crucial to be considered during the selection process. Nevertheless assigning 33.3% marks of the whole examination solely to the viva voce is disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive.
• The written part of the examination is the part which tested the objective merit of the candidate. The court emphasized that the selection procedure is not upholding Article 14, which is Right to Equality, and Article 16, which is Right to equal opportunity in public employment.
• In the final decision, the SC directed the re-selection of the candidates where this time, by making sure that the interview must be given reasonable mark weightage and it does not override the written merit.
• The SC also directed that the committee members must abstain themselves from the interview panel (if they are a part of it) if their relatives are appearing for the examination to avoid conflict of interest, bias and nepotism. This will ensure equality.
• Also, the SC found the difference between the percentage gap between the interview marks for Ex- Servicemen candidates (33.3%) and general candidates (22.2%) disproportionately high when it was compared to other similar commissions’ standard practices, for instance, UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) only allocates 12.2% of the total marks to the interview stage.
ANALYSIS
In this case’s judgement, The SC has cited landmark precedents for the better analysis of the issue. The SC cited-
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India3: In this case, the court established the principle that administrative bodies must avoid any likelihood and chances of bias.
2. D.K. Khanna v. Union of India4: In this case, the court enforced the need for impartiality in the selection process and impartiality in the selection of members for the committee if the relatives of the committee members are involved.
3. M. Arifuddin v. D.D. Chitale5: In this case, the court emphasized that personal and close relationships and ties with the candidates would hamper the quality of selection process.
4. Surinder Nath Goyal v. State of Punjab6: In this case, the court emphasized on the fact that the relationships within the selection committee members would compromise the structural integrity within the selection process.
5. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib7: In this case, the court held that the excessive allocation of marks to viva voce and interview processes in examinations which are highly subjective, is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
6. Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan8: In this case, the court conferred about the appropriate distribution of proportion of marks for written examinations and interviews based on the nature of service.
It can be decided through the aforementioned precedents, the judgement of the HC and the facts of the case that there must be a balance between the marks that are allotted to the written examinations and interviews, especially when the selection process includes both.
The subjectivity of the interview shall not override the objectivity of the written examination as then, it will result into arbitrariness and it will sabotage the merit based evaluation.
The viva voce and interviews shall have limited influence and weightage in the selection process to preserve the subjectivity of the written examinations. The SC, in this matter, indirectly emphasized that the 12.2% benchmark for the interview marks in the UPSC selection model is good and standard.
The court used judicial restraint, it did not completely strike off the selection process, rather imposed restrictions and suggested improvements for the betterment of the process. The apex court stated that the members shall abstain if any of their relatives were present. However, an essential fact is that the Court actually applied the Doctrine of Necessity. The Court noted that if a member of a Constitutional body (like the HPSC) has a relative appearing, the entire Commission doesn’t become disqualified from functioning, rather, only the specific member must recuse themselves from the interview of that particular candidate
The Court cited various precedents to prove the point and to maintain consistency in the administrative law, re-emphasizing the need of transparency and proportionality in the selection process to avoid any kind of bias in the selection process.
The Court upheld the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The SC’s decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana became a precedent setting and noteworthy case in Indian administrative law regarding personal bias. It brought attention upon the risk of depending too much on viva voce, even though it emphasised that it is constitutional in public service hiring. The SC reaffirmed that giving the viva voce too much weightage in marking (33.3% and 22.2%) hampers the impartial nature and equity of selection during them comparison of traits of subjective nature, like personality, communication and leadership skills against merit.
The judgement also stood with the the core principles of natural justice and ensured fairness of the procedure by giving guidelines to remove bias. It addressed the ambiguity directly and decided that notwithstanding the need to respect and follow administrative discretion, selection process must stay transparent, reasonable and fair to affirm adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Regardless of its shortcomings, the SC’s decision to hold back from declaring the entire process invalid shows judicial restraint and an opportunity for workable solutions over broad invalidations.
The judgement does, however, leave lacunae. It did not outline a maximum or minimum marking criteria for viva voce or recommend structural changes, for instance, mandatory transparency in the interview process or uniform state level guidelines. The lack of legally binding standards, especially at the state level, still leaves room for inconsistent hiring practices.
However, the judgement has had a significant and lasting effect and has affected the improvements in selection procedures at different public service commissions by enhancing the role of equity in public employment and it upheld the laws of natural justice and the spirit of the constitution.
*****
Footnotes
1. INDIA CONST. art 14.
2. INDIA CONST. art 16.
3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.
4. D.K. Khanna v. Union of India, AIR 1973 HP 30.
5. M. Arifuddin v. D.D. Chitale, 1972 SCC OnLine AP 110.
6. Surinder Nath Goyal v. State of Punjab, 1977 SCC OnLine P&H 396.
7. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, 1980 SCC OnLine SC 313
8. Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 SCC OnLine SC 328.