| Rule 9 of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Proba tioners (Class I and II Posts appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966, Prescribes a written examination for selection of candidates for the service followed by a personality test. |
| The qualities to be judged at the time of viva voce, stipulated in Part IV of Schedule II to the rules are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical exposition etc. |
| In their writ petitions before the High Court the re spondents, who were the unsuccessful candidates in the selections, impugned the personality test on the ground that the Selection Committee did not award separate marks for each of the _seven qualities required to be judged in the candidates at the test. |
| Following the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan & Anr. |
| vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. |
| the High Court allowed the petitions and directed the Service Commission to hold a fresh personality test. |
| On the question whether r. 9 read with Part IV of Sched ule 1I required the Selection Committee to award separate marks for the seven qualities: Allowing the States appeal, HELD: (1) It would not be correct to assume as a general proposition that in every case where the interviewing body is asked to take into consideration several specified quali ties. |
| they must be of equal value and separate marks should be allotted under each head. |
| Where the rules do not contain a clear direction, it would be reasonable to suppose that the intention is that there should be a block assessment on an integrated test. |
| [327 B] In the instant case the interviewing body was required to award a block mark on a total impression of the personal ity of each candidate giving due consideration t0 the seven qualities specified in Part IV. |
| Part IV of the Schedule never intended that separate marks should be allotted for the seven qualities stated therein. |
| [328 F] (2) Personality is commonly understood as an aggregate of traits that identifies a person and distinguishes him from others. |
| Quite often with some practical aim. |
| emphasis is laid on some of the attributes. |
| The end result may no be an assessment of the whole personality, but attributes are abstracted for study in an attempt to evaluate the man for the purpose in view. |
| [328 C] In the instant case the qualities are mentioned only as guide, as indicating the attributes to be kept in view in assessing the personality of the candidates. |
| It is hardly possible in the test contemplated to allocate separate marks for each of the various qualities specified because most of them overlap and are so intermixed that they cannot be separated. |
| The test carries a maximum mark of 200; it is a little absurd to suppose that the seven qualities to be judged at the interview are of equal value each carrying 28 4/7 marks. |
| [328 E] A. Periakaruppan & Am '. |
| vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. |
| [19711 2 SCR 430 distinguished and held inapplicable. |
| 324 R. Chitralekha and Anr. |
| vs State of Mysore & Ors. |
| ; , 382 referred to. |
|
|
