Minimum viva-voce qualifying marks upheld for higher service recruitment where suitability and personality assessment were relevant.

Prescribing minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce for recruitment to higher administrative services was held valid because the test was designed to assess personality traits and suitability for senior responsibilities. The Court distinguished precedents where viva-voce was objectionable due to excessive weightage and becoming the ining factor, noting that those cases did not bar a minimum qualifying standard. It also reaffirmed that prior approval of minimum viva-voce standards in comparable recruitment supported the rule, and that a mere possibility of misuse does not make a valid selection criterion unconstitutional. The impugned service rules were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce test for recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative, Police and Forest Services under rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution was arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Analysis: The challenged rules required candidates for the specified higher services to secure a minimum of 33% marks in viva-voce, while the written examination carried a substantially larger weight. The Court held that the validity of such a requirement depended on the nature of the service and the need to assess personality traits and suitability for higher administrative responsibilities. It distinguished the earlier decisions relied upon against the rule, holding that those authorities dealt with the danger of the viva-voce becoming a determining factor because of an excessive allocation of marks, not with the permissibility of prescribing a minimum qualifying standard in viva-voce. The Court also relied on its earlier approval of minimum viva-voce standards in a similar recruitment context and reiterated that mere possibility of abuse does not invalidate a rule.

Conclusion: The prescription of minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce was not unconstitutional, and the impugned rules were valid.

---