Rachiah K. vs State of Karnataka and Kpsc

In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the criteria of the knowledge of Kannada language by translating English into kannada as prescribed by Rule 6 (a) of the Karnataka Munsiff (Recruitment) Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is arbitrary illegal and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner dehors his performance in the translation test hold or 25th April 1982 and such other reliefs as are found necessary in the circumstances of the case.

At the stage of preliminary hearing Sri B.B. Mandappa, learned II Addl. Government Advocate, was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, the learned II Additional Government Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

One of the contentions raised in the writ petition was that Rule 6 (b) of the Rules provided that the Director of Translation should assist the Commission in conducting and evaluation of the test regarding knowledge of Kannada language (ability to write and translate from English into Kannada) as provided by Rule 6 (a) thereof; whereas, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (2nd respondent) got the translation papers evaluated by a retired I.A.S. Officer which was opposed to the Rules; therefore the valuation of the translation papers, being opposed to the Rules was vitiated. By a specific order passed on 15-7-1982, Sri Mandappa, learned II Addl. Government Advocate was asked to take instructions on this point. Accordingly he has filed to-day a memo dt. 2-7-82 which reads as follows:

"This Hon''ble Court made an order on 15-7-1982 directing the II Addl. Government Advocate to ascertain whether the evaluation of the translation of English into Kannada has been done by the retered I.A.S. Officer, as alleged by the petitioner and make submission by to-day.

It is a fact that evaluation has been done by a retired. I.A.S. Officer.

In the case of the Kannada translation test proscribed for Munisiffs, it has been mentioned in the Rules themselves thai the Director of Translations was to assist the Commission in conducting and evaluating the paper. Hence, although the Director of Translations was asked to set the paper, the Commission felt that in this case, since the identity of the Examiner would be common knowledge, more than ordinary caution was desirable while evaluating the papers. They felt therefore, that the Director of Translations should be requested to evaluate the papers in the office of the commission itself. However, when the Secretary of the Commission contacted the Director on telephone regarding this, the Director stated that it would not be possible for him to evaluate the papers in the office of the Commission. A formal letter was also sent to the Director in this behalf. Since no reply was received for a long time and since in the meanwhile the Director had been transferred and no arrangements were made for posting of a permanent incumbent in his place and also because the matter way of some urgency, the Commission felt that it would be best to send the papers to somebody else for evaluation Subssequently, after a period of two or three weeks, a letter was received from the Director intermating his willingness to evaluate the papers in the office of the Commission itself. But, by that time, the Commission had already sent the papers for evaluation.

However, if, having regard to the mandate of the recruitment Rules providing that the commission may obtain assistance of the Director of Translation for evalution of Kannada translation, the Hon''ble Court-fees that it was incumbent on the part of the Commission to take the assistance of the Director of Translation alone in the matter of evaluation of the paper, the Commission would be willing to do the evaluation of the translation from English to Kannada afresh with the assistance of the Director of Translation.

Wherefore, the respondents pray that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders in the above writ petition in the light of what has been stated above in the interest of justice."

From the aforesaid memo, it is clear that the translation papers have been gotevaluated by the 2nd respondent through a retired I.A.S. Officer and not with the assistance of the Director of Translation as per the command contained in Rule 6(b) of the Rules. It is also further stated in the memo that the commission would be willing to do the evaluation of the translation papers from English into Kannada afresh with the assistance of the Director of Translation. In view of this memo. Sri Muralidhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, gives up the contention relating to the validity of Rule 6(a) of the Rules, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the correctness of the contentions relating to validity of Rule 6(a) of the Rules.

The only question that arises forconsideration is, whether having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 6(b) of the Rules it was open for the 2nd respondent to have the translation papers evaluated through a retired I.A.S. Officer. Rule 6(b) of the Rules, reads as follows:

"General knowledge, grasp of principles of Law and suitability for appointment as Munsiff.-Maximum marks for the test at (a) above shall be ten for the purpose of the test at (a) above the candidate will be asked to translate a passage from English into Kannada an the day of interview. The Director of Translation shall assist the commission in conducting and evaluation of the test at (a). Maximum marks for the test at (b) above shall be ten. A candidate who secures less than five marks in the test at (a) above shall not be eligible for selection." (Underlining (italics) ismine).

Of course, the Rule is not happily worded. It is more in the nature of a command to the Director of Translation than to the Commission. But in the context it appears and the object with which it is provided, it can only be read as directing the commission to take the assistance of the Director of Translation in conducting and evaluation of the test as provided by Rule 6(a) of the Rules In the absence of any rule providing the manner in which the test in question is required to be conducted and evaluated, it was clearly open for the recruiting authority to exercise its judgment and to follow its own mode which it thought to be appropriate and safe under the circumstances of the case to have the translation papers evaluated. Of course, it was not at all necessary for the Rule making authority to provide in the Rules as to whose assistance the commission should take in conducting and evaluation ofthe test mentioned in Rule 6(a) of the Rules. Having regard to the experience of the commission and also the fact that it was the responsibility of the commission to conduct the test mentioned in Rule 6(a) of the Rules, the matter as to whose assistance the commission should take in conducting and evaluation of the test in question, ought to have been left to the discretion of the commission, instead of naming in the Rules that the Director of Translation should assist the commission in conducting and evaluation of the test in question. When the Rule making authority in its wisdom provided that in the matter of conducting and evaluation of the paper pertaining to knowledge of Kannada language as per Rule 6 (a) of the Rules, the Commission should be assisted by the Director of Translation, the command of the Rule was required to be obeyed by the recruiting authority. Consequently, the answer papers relating to knowledge of Kannada language ought to have been got evaluated with the assistance of the Director of Translation. No option or discretion was left to the Commission in this regard. Of course having regard to the secrecy and safety that are required to be maintained in the matter of conducting and evaluation of the test, it is open for the 2nd respondent to decide as to how and in what manner the assistance of the Director of Translation is to be obtained in the matter of conducting and evaluation of the test as prescribed by Rule 6 (a) of the Rules. But it was not open for the K.P.S.C. to have the papers evaluated by a retired I.A.S. Officer without the assistance ofthe Director of Translation. Thus, the eligibility list prepared on the basis of the evaluation done by a retired I.A.S. Officer without the assistance of the Director of Translation is not valid and as such it cannot form a basis for viva voce and selection.

However, on verification from the K.P.S.C., Sri Mandappa learned II Additional Government Advocate, has submitted that no markings have been made on the answer papers by the evaluation officer and the marks are given only on the facing sheet, therefore it is possible to have the answer papers evaluated with the assistance of the Director of Translation by removing the existing facing sheets and replacing them by fresh facing sheets. This fact is not refuted by the petitioner and there is no reason to refuse to accept the aforesaid statement made by the learned II Addl Government Advocate. If that be so, there is no difficulty in getting the translation papers evaluated afresh with the assistance of the Director of Translation. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to direct the K.P.S.C. to hold a fresh examination.

Accordingly, it is held that having regard to the wordings contained in Rule 6 (b) of the Rules, it was not open for the K.P.S.C. to have the paper retating to knowledge of Kannada Language evaluated from a retired I.A.S. Officer without the assistance of the Director of Translation and it ought to have got them evaluated with the assistance of the Director of Translation.

In view of the submission made by Sri Mandappa learned II Addl. Government Advocate, the correctness of which is not disputed, that no marking is made on the answer papers of the candidates and therefore it is possible to have the papers evaluated afresh with the assistance of the. Director of Translation, I am of the view that it is not necessary to scrap the examination held by the K.P.S.C. and it is sufficient to direct the K.P.S.C. to remove the facing sheets of each of the answer papers of the candidates who have appeared for the examination in question and to replace the same by a fresh facing sheet and get the answer papers evaluated with the assistance of the Director of Translation and then prepare the eligibility 1''st and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.

In view of this, to avoid further doubt if any, it is made clear that the eligibility list so far prepared and the viva voce so far conducted on the basis of the eligibility list shall not be acted upon.

Sri Mandappa, learned II Additional Government Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents in six weeks.

Order on I.A.

22-7-82.

This is an application to modify the order dated 20th July 1982. By the said order the following directions were issued:

"7. ** ** **

It is the last portion of the direction i.e., "the viva voce so far conducted on the basis of the eligibility list shall not be acted upon" which the learned II Addl. Government Advocate wants to be modified. In addition to this, permission to continue the process of interviews is also sought for.

It is submitted that viva voce is an independent test, and the marks obtained in the test conducted as per Rule 6(a) of the Rules have no bearing onthe marks to be assigned in the viva voce to be held as per Rule 6(b) of the Rules; therefore it is submitted that the interviews so far conducted are not required to be annulled and further the Commission be permitted to continue the process of interviews. No doubt, R. 6 of the Rules relating to the purpose of viva voce consists of two partis, i.e. (i) to test the knowledge ofKannada language and (ii) to testthe general knowledge grasp of principles oflaw and suitability for appointment as Munsiff. The first part of the test is conducted by holding a written examination in which the candidate is asked to translate a passage from English into Kannada and the other test is by interview. The first one is covered by Rule 6(a) of the Rules and he second one is covered by Rule 6(b) of the Rules. For the test under Rule 6(a) maximum of 10 marks are fixed. Similarly, for the interview under Rule 6(b) maximum of 10 marks are fixed. It is further provided that a candidate who secures less than 5marks a that test held as per Rule 6(a) of he Rules shall not be eligible for selection. Therefore, it is clear that the macks in the interview can be assigned without reference to the marks obtained in the test held as per Rule 6(a) of the Rules. No doubt, a candidate securing less than 5 marks in the test held as per Rule 6(a) is not eligible for selection. Consequently no purpose whatsoever is served by interviewing such a candidate. Therefore it is not necessary to interview a candidate who has secured less than 5 marks in the test held under Rule 6(a) of the Rules. Therefore it follows that it is not necessary annul the interview of all the candidates so far held under Rule 6(b) of the Rules. If such of those candidates who secures 5 or more marks in the fresh evaluation to be made of the translation paper by the 2nd respondent with the assistance of the Director of Translation as directed in the order dated 20th July 1982, the interview of such candidates if it has already been held before the passing of the order, the same need not be annulled. This modification is also necessary to avoid repetition of the interview of the same candidates who qualify in the fresh evaluation of the translation paper and also to save public time and to avoid delay in selection; and at the same time it does not affect the relief granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the direction issued in the order dated 20th July 1982 that the viva voce so far conducted on the basis of the eligibility list shall not be acted upon is deleted and it shall not form part of the said order; and it is made clear that the interviews held upto and inclusive of 20th July 1982 will hold good only in respect of such of the candidates who secure 5 or more marks in the fresh evaluation to be made by the K.P.S.C. with the assistance of the Director of Translation of the test relating to knowledge of Kannada language held as per rule 6(a) of the Rules. The direction that the eligibility list so far prepared shall not be acted upon stands undisturbed.

The pray or tocontinue the process of interview refused, as such a course is not permissible in view of the direction issued in the order dated 20th July 1982.