TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court limits marks allocation for interview and group discussion, deems excess arbitrary.</h1> <h3>MUNINDRA KUMAR AND ORS. Versus RAJIV GOVIL AND ORS</h3> The Court held that the allocation of marks for interview and group discussion by the U.P. State Electricity Board exceeded permissible limits, deeming it ... - Issues Involved:1. Reasonableness of the percentage of marks allocated for group discussion and interview.2. Validity of the selection process for Assistant Engineers by the U.P. State Electricity Board.3. Appropriate relief and directions in light of the findings.Summary:1. Reasonableness of the Percentage of Marks Allocated for Group Discussion and Interview:The U.P. State Electricity Board allocated 120 marks for the written test, 40 marks for the interview, and 40 marks for group discussion. This allocation was challenged on the grounds that it exceeded the permissible limit of 15% for interviews as established in Mohinder Sain Garg & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., JT 1990 4 SC 704. The Court noted that the Board admitted group discussion was part of the interview, making the total 40% of the marks for the interview, which was deemed arbitrary. The Court held that the marks for interview and group discussion should not exceed 10% and 5% of the total marks, respectively.2. Validity of the Selection Process:The High Court quashed the entire selection process on the grounds that the marks allocated for interview and group discussion were more than 20%, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with quashing the entire selection. It was noted that the appellants had joined their posts and were continuously working since December 1989. The Court emphasized that the conduct of the unsuccessful candidates, who challenged the rule after taking the chance, and the equities of those selected were relevant considerations.3. Appropriate Relief and Directions:The Court directed that in future, the marks for interview and group discussion should not exceed 10% and 5% of the total marks, respectively. The selection already made by the Board for the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) was not disturbed. The Court acknowledged the practical difficulties and potential futility in re-conducting the selection process, considering the appellants' current employment status and the remote chance of the writ petitioners being selected even if the process was redone.Conclusion:The appeals were partly allowed. The rule made by the U.P. State Electricity Board allocating 40 marks for interview and 40 marks for group discussion was quashed as arbitrary. Future selections were directed to adhere to the revised percentage limits. The existing selection of Assistant Engineers (Civil) was upheld, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
