Five of the respondents in the four different appeals who were not selected, M. Farida, P. V. Mohan, B. R. Kulkarni, L. V. Dharmayat and M. R. Devappa had applied for the posts of gazetted · probationers, class II, two of them, Farida and Mohan, were also applicants for the class I post. They filed writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court, Farida and Mohan jointly, and each of thei three others separately, challenging the selections made. Their common grievance was that the personality test held by the Commission was invalid as the selection committee did not award separate marks for each of the seven qualities which were required to be judged in the candidates at the test. Admittedly, the selection committee did not allot separate marks for each of the specified qualities, but awarded a block mark to each candidate in assessing hiB personality with reference to those qualities. The argument for the writ petitioners in the High Court was that the personality test as required under the Rules was an objective test based upon seven factors or criteria, and, therefore, it was essential that separate marks were allotted in respect of each such factor or criterion. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of the Mysoro High Court, D. G. Viswanath v. Chief Secretary, Government ol Mysore,(') and the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.(2 ) which appears to affirm the view expressed in Viswanath' s case. On behalf of the State of Karnataka it was contended that the seven qualities referred to in Part IV of schedule II were merely different facets of the integrated personality of a candidate which could not easily be demarcated from one another, and, therefore, awarding a block mark on an appraisal of the personality of the candidate as a whole was the correct method. Tho High Court found that there was "considerable force in the contention of the learned Government advocate", but felt that in view of the decision in Periakaruppan's case the writ petitions must succeed, and by a common judgment allowed the petitions directing the State of Kamataka and the commission to hold a fresh personality test. These appeals arise out of these four writ petitions.
