Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

670
question of additional criteria sprang up at the time of preparation of the final list and was not the
criteria earlier so that it could be included in the advertisement itself or in the instructions to the candidates.
15. So far as holding of a written test for purposes of screening and finding out eligible candidates
to be called for interview is concerned this Court has held that such a procedure is permissible. The
decision of this Court in the case of selection of Civil Judges on which reliance is placed in which
addition of marks of written test has been held as valid is on a different footing. For the selection of
Civil Judges there were no rules and the advertisement was with the concurrence of the High Court
and the Government and therefore virtually it amounted to the rules for selection and it is in that context
that as it was clearly indicated in the advertisement that the marks obtained in the written test will be
added up for purposes of selection it was held valid. So far as the two Supreme Court cases on which
reliance has been placed by the learned Deputy Advocate General, i.e. Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of
Jammu & Kashmir (AIR 1984 SC 873) and Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1981 SC 1977),
their Lordships were considering the propriety of holding a written examination but the question as to
whether that was prescribed in the rule or not was not before their Lordships. In T.N.Manjula Devi v.
State of Karnataka (1980 LAB.I.C.759), which is a case from Karnataka High Court, their Lordships
were considering rules wherein a specific rule provided:
“6. Subject to these rules the Selection Committee shall, for making selection, adopt such
procedure as it may consider appropriate.”
Madhya Pradesh PSC
and it is because of this it appears that holding of a written test was found justified although no
specific question appears to have been raised in that decision. It is, therefore, clear that none of the
decisions referred to and relied on by the learned Deputy Advocate General is a case where a rule
which is statutory only provided for interview and still the additional criteria of written examination by
the Public Service Commission was held to be valid. On the contrary, in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v.
Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 541) their Lordships specifically ruled that when the rule did not
provide for a particular method of assessing marks for preparing the merit list it was not permissible as
it was not in accordance with the rules. Their Lordships observed:
“Mr. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 13 does not
envisage obtaining minimum marks at the viva voce test even though it contemplates
obtaining minimum marks at the written test so as to be eligible for being called for viva
voce test. It was further urged that Rule 14 specified the manner in which merit list is to