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

742
2. Though the petitioner himself has no direct nexus with the cause of action which is now espoused
in this petition, the petition has been admitted as, probably, an exercise in the interest of public and,
therefore, we are, without going into the details of the locus standing of the petitioner, disposing of this
petitioner on merits. It is also necessary to add that one Mr. M.K.Patil has been added as an intervener
in this petition on an application made by him purportedly on behalf of 50 persons who had appeared
in the examinations conducted by the MPSC in the years 1985 and 1986 but who failed according to
them because of the high percentage of marks allotted in the Viva voce test. The application was
made for being joined as an intervener. We are not sure whether the application is maintainable under
the rules of the Appellate side of this Court. At best those candidates could have been joined as
respondents in this petition. Mr. M.K.Patil has appeared before us in person. He cannot be taken to
be the representative of all the candidates who appeared for the examinations conducted in the years
1985 and 1986 because no order under Order 1 Rule 10 of the cope of Civil Procedure has been
passed in the Civil Application, which he presented. However, the Division bench which was earlier
seized of this matter noticed that the list of the 50 candidates who failed in the examinations conducted
in the years 1985 and 1986 signed by those candidates was furnished before them by the fourth
respondent. This is only to point out that the fourth respondent cannot claim any relief in this petition
in favour of himself apart from resisting, if anything, the claim on behalf of the petitioner. However,
keeping aside this technical aspect, we have heard the grievance of the fourth respondent, as will be
noticed in the course of this judgment.
Maharashtra PSC
3. In Ashok Kumar’s case (supra), the system of the Haryana Public Service Commissioner
which allotted 22% of the total marks of an examination for the viva voce test was challenged. After
examining the rule of equality which is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and after noticing that
any arbitrary action results in the infraction of that rule, which was laid down, among other 8 things, in
Ajay Hasia V. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 487, the Supreme Court held that the allocation
of 22.2% of the total marks for the viva voce test in the case of the general candidates was excessive
and amounted to an arbitrariness which would suffer the vice of the contravention of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Though the Supreme Court noted that normally it would not itself venture into the
examination of the propriety of allotting a particular percentage of marks for the viva voce test, it
noticed that an expert body called the Kothari Committee had gone into this question and had made
certain recommendations which ultimately resulted in the Union Public Service Commission itself allotting
12.2% of the total marks for the Viva voce test. This was found as a sufficiently safe percentage to be