P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the impugned selection is challenged in the petition on several grounds only three grounds were pressed for my consideration during the course of hearing. P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the impugned selection is challenged in the petition on several grounds only three grounds were pressed for my consideration during the course of hearing. Those grounds are as follows : (2) The selection is vitiated on account of substantive and procedural unfairness arbitrariness and unreasonableness as well as non-application of mind and casualness; more particularly the proceedings of the Selection Committee are vitiated because: (a) no norms or guidelines were laid down for judging the performance of the candidate at the interview and for evaluating his service record; (b) the relative weightage to be given to the performance at the interview and the assessment based on service record was not decided upon; (c) no rational and equitable formula for assessment and quantification of marks was adopted; (d) the relevant and adequate material relating to each candidate was not available for making a just assessment; (e) at the interview which lasted for hardly three or four minutes no relevant questions were put which might have a bearing on judging the suitability of the candidate on the basis of the viva voce test; (f) all the members of the Selection Committee did not individually apply their minds to the selection of candidates on the basis of any known or pre-determined standard and they merely toed the line of the Chairman (Inspector General of Police) as is apparent inter alia from the fact that the Chairmans assessment sheet constitutes the sole authentic record regarding the assessment of each candidate and every selected candidate is found to have received the same grading from all the members; (g) alternatively the time (two to three minutes) spent by the members for arriving at a consensus if any after each candidate was interviewed was too short to enable them to reach a fair judgment bearing in mind all the relevant aspects and viewing the question on an identical basis and from a uniform angle; (h) the minutes of the Selection Committee which record the final decision based on the assessment made during the proceedings of the Selection Committee are factually incorrect and in some cases they do not tally with the actual assessments; (i) the final selection is arbitrarily made because even out of those who secured the same grading only a few were picked up and chosen and others were left out for reasons which are not manifest on the record of the case; (j) whereas qualified experienced and meritorious Head Constables who have successfully undergone the Head Constables training course and are confirmed and have put in long years of service in the cadre of Head Constables have not been selected Head Constables with much lesser experience and inferior service record who have not done the training course and are not confirmed have been selected; on the basis of the record produced by the authorities during the course of the hearing of the petition no explanation much less satisfactory explanation is discernible for such manifestly arbitrary selections. (His Lordship held that in connection with the case of 45 Constables who had not successfully undergone the Head Constables Training course under Rule 121 having regard to the ground on which their selection was found to be defective there was no option but to set aside and quash the selection of those Constables because they were found to be ineligible. The selection in their case was ab initio void.) ( 2 ) BEFORE I proceed to consider the question it would be profitable to refer to some judicial decisions which have a direct bearing on the point under consideration. ( 3 ) THE validity of the admissions made to the Regional Engineering College Srinagar in the academic year 1979-80 was brought in question. The College was sponsored by the Government of India. It was established and its administration and management were carried on by a Society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Registration of Societies Act 1898 The Society had framed certain rules regulating its administration. Rule 15 (iv) conferred power on the Board of Governors to make by laws for admission of students to various courses. Pursuant to Rule 15 (iv) the Board of Governors laid down the procedure for admission to students to different courses. For the purpose of the present petition suffice it to say that the procedure for admission to certain categories of students was on the basis of comparative merit as determined under the following scheme: 1 Marks for written test 100 2 Marks for viva voce Examination 50 making up in the aggregate 150 separate marks were assigned under four different heads for the viva voce examination. The petitioners in that case challenged the validity of the admissions on the ground that the Society acted arbitrarily in the matter of granting of admissions first by ignoring the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination; secondly by relying on viva voce examination as a test for determining comparative merit of the candidates thirdly by allocating as many as 50 marks for the viva voce examination as against 100 marks allocated for the written test and lastly by holding superficial interviews lasting only 2 or 3 minutes on an average and asking questions which had no relevance to assessment of the suitability of the candidates with reference to the four factors required to be considered at the viva voce examination. The first ground of challenge was rejected. On the second ground of challenge. the holding was that it could not be said that the oral interview test is so defective that selecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral interview in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. However the following further observations were made while dealing with the said challenge:" The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits the oral interview test must at the present stage be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression. Its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would however like to point out that in the matter of admission of Colleges or even in the matter of public employment the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and moreover grant care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity calibre and qualification" (Underlining supplied)AS regards the third ground of challenge it was held that the allocation of 50 out of 150 marks for the viva voce test was arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as it came to 32 1/2% of the total number of marks taken into account for the purposes of making the selection and it was observed as follows:". . . . having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing in the country particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test cannot be accepted by the Court as free from the vice of arbitrariness There can be no court that allocating 33. 1/3 of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable. . . . . and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained. . . . 1/3 of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable. . . . . and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained. . . . We are of the view that under the existing circumstances allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to struck down as constitutionally invalid. "on the facts of the case it was pointed out that it was a rather disturb ing feature that a large number of successful candidates succeeded in obtaining admission to the College by virtue of very high marks obtained by them at the viva voce examination which tilted the balance in their favour though the marks secured by them at the qualifying examination were much less than those obtained by the petitioners and even in the written test they had fared much worse than the petitioners As regards the last ground of challenge the holding was that if the interview did not take more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average and the questions asked had no bearing on the factors required to be taken into account the oral interview test would be vitiated because it would be impossible in such an interview to assess the merit of a candidate with reference to these factors. On the facts of the case it was found that the inter view of each candidate did not last for more than two or three minutes on an average and hardly any questions were asked having bearing on the relevant factors. The selections made on the basis of such oral interview test were held to be vitiated as arbitrary. As regards the grant of relief however the Supreme Court was of the view that although the selections were vitiated on the two grounds mentioned above no relief could be granted in the exercise of discretion of the Court since it would cause immense hardship to those students in whose case the validity of the selection could not otherwise be questioned and who had nearly completed three semesters and it would not be possible to restore the petitioners to the position as if they were admitted for the academic year 1979-80 which had long since run out. Besides in that case the respondents had agreed before the Court that the best fifty students out of those who had failed to secure admission would be granted admission for the academic year 1981-82 and that the seats allocated to them would be in addition to the normal intake of students in the College and an order was made accordingly. Having regard to all these factors the writ petitions were dismissed but the Supreme Court cautioned the authorities that for the future academic years selections should be made on the basis of the observations made in the judgment lest they might run the risk of being struck down. ( 4 ) IN ARTI V. STATE OF JAMMU and KHASHMIR A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1009 the challenge was to the admission of a number of candidates to the M. B. B. S. course in the Government Medical College Srinagar for the academic year 1980-81. The basis for selection was three fold; (i) merit in the qualifying examination (35 marks) (ii) objective test (35 marks) and (iii) viva voce examination (30 marks) The viva voce examination was held by the Selection Committee which determined the inter se merit on the strength of: (a) physical fitness (b) personality (c) aptitude (d) general knowledge and (e) general intelligence. There was also a distribution of seats into three distinct divisions. As many as 660 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for the viva voce examination at its sittings held for four days. A selection list was then finalized taking into account the reservations made for various categories and classes and the names of 75 candidates were announced for admission. The petitioners who were not selected challenged the selection inter alia on two grounds: first the allocation to the viva voce test of 30 per cent of the total marks was patently unreasonable and arbitrary and secondly having regard to the number of candidates interviewed and the time applied to conducting the interview no more than two minutes or so could have been given on the average to the oral interview of each candidate which demonstrated that the selection process was conducted in a perfunctory manner and there was no real application of the mind to the selection of candidates. As regards the first challenge the Supreme Court referred to the decisions in A. PEERIAKARUPPAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 2303 NISHI MAGHU V. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1975 AND AJAY HASIA V. KHALID MUJIB (SUPRA) and observed that the State Government would have done well to apply its mind seriously to the evaluation of ratio between the three criteria adopted for admission. However it expressed its reluctance to interfere on the said ground because a clear pronouncement that an allocation of more than 15% of the total marks to the viva voce examination would result in constitutional invalidity had been made in Ajay Hasias case (supra) after the selection process in the casein hand had already been completed. The State Government was however cautioned that there is need to revise the marks ratio because of the very real risk future selections will face on this score. As regards the second challenge the Supreme Court observed that it was the case of the State Government itself that the time spent on interviewing each candidate was approximately only four minutes However it was held that there was no adequate material for striking down the selection on the said ground. The Supreme Court however sounded the following note of caution. "but here again the State Government would do well to note the observations made i by this Court in Ajay Hasia ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) (supra) in this matter and to ensure that Selection Committees take care to devote sufficient time to the oral interview of individual candidates having regard to the several relevant consider ations which must enter into their judgment respecting each candidate. "in view of the aforesaid findings all admissions were not quashed on the above two grounds raised on behalf of the petitioners. However the petitioners partially succeeded in that case inasmuch as the admissions granted in the quota reserved for rectifying regional imbalances were quashed. ( 5 ) IN LILA DHAR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1777 the challenge was to the selection for the posts of Munsiffs in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. This decision has a direct bearing on. the method and procedure to be adopted for recruitment to public services. ( 5 ) IN LILA DHAR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1777 the challenge was to the selection for the posts of Munsiffs in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. This decision has a direct bearing on. the method and procedure to be adopted for recruitment to public services. The decision also explains the true ratio of the decision in Periakaruppans case (supra) and Ajay Hasia s case (supra ). It would therefore be necessary to consider this decision in some details. ( 6 ) THE recruitment to the posts of Munsif was governed by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules and the selection was made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission after holding a competitive examination. The competitive examination consisted of a written test carrying 300 marks and the viva voce test carrying 100 Marks The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board consisting of a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and the Chairman and a Member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and an expert. The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules prescribed the criteria to be considered and the matters to be tested in the viva voce examination. The prescribed criteria required that at the interview the suitability of the candidate should be tested with reference to his record at the school College and University and his character personality address and physique. The questions to be put to a candidate might be of a general nature and not necessarily academic or legal. The candidate could also be questioned to test his general knowledge including knowledge of current affairs and present day problems. The marks obtained at the oral interview were required to be added to the marks obtained in the written test by each candidate. ( 7 ) THE selection was challenged mainly on two grounds; first the allocation of 25 per cent of the total marks for the viva voce test which introduced an irredeemable element of arbitrariness so as to offend Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution vitiated the entire selection and secondly the assignment of marks at the interview test in a single lot instead of sub-dividing and awarding marks separately under various heads for the various matters tested in the interview also introduced arbitrariness and unfairness. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court observed that the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service was to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job. Selection based on merit tested impartially and objectively is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. Therefore open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services. Having made these preliminary observations and after quoting extracts from certain studies and reports the Supreme Court proceeded to make the following further observations at page 1779:"it is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidates knowledge and intellectual ability an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidates initiative alertness resourcefulness dependableness co-operativeness capacity for clear and logical presentation effectiveness in discussion effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others adaptability judgment ability to make decision ability to lead intellectual and moral integrity. Some of those qualities may be evaluated perhaps with some degree of error by an interview test much depending on the constitution of the interview Board. "at page 1789 the Supreme Court made the following further observations which are also greatly pertinent :"thus the written examination assesses the mans intellect and the interview test the man himself and the twain shall meet for a proper selection. If both written examination and interview test are to be essential futures of proper selection the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. In the case of admission to a college for instance where the candidates personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. On the other hand in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. The importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. On the other hand in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. There are of course many services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshhold of development and who show signs of great promise and the discerning may in an interview test catch a glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise some weight has to be given though not much too great weight to the interview test. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service the minimum qualifications prescribed the age group from which the selection is to be made the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is matter for research. It is not for the Courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives. " ( 9 ) AGAINST the aforesaid background the Supreme Court proceeded to consider the precise challenge under the first head levelled against the selection impugned before it. It found that the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules were made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission. Both the High Court and the Public Service Commission were independent bodies outside executive control occupying special positions and enjoying special status under the Constitution. Both were well acquainted with the particular needs of their State and the people. Under those circumstances if the rules stipulated assignment of seventy-five per cent of the marks for the written examination and twenty-five per cent for the interview test it would not be possible for the Court to say that twenty-five per cent for the interview test was on the high side. Under those circumstances if the rules stipulated assignment of seventy-five per cent of the marks for the written examination and twenty-five per cent for the interview test it would not be possible for the Court to say that twenty-five per cent for the interview test was on the high side. It was also pointed out that the constitution of the Selection Committee which consisted of high level personages was a relevant factor which was required to be borne in mind together with the fact that the candidates who offered themselves for selection were not raw graduates freshly out of College but were persons who had already received a certain amount of professional training. A note was also taken of the fact that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were not made available to the members of the interview Board either before or at the time of the interview. In the light of these various considerations it was found that the selection could not be struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview test. ( 10 ) AS regards the second ground of challenge it was pointed out that the rules did not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test. The criteria for the interview test had been laid down by the Rules. Under these circumstances it was for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. The award of marks under different heads might lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body might give a more accurate picture of the candidates personality. In this connection it was further observed at page 1781: It is for the interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service. On the other hand the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body might give a more accurate picture of the candidates personality. In this connection it was further observed at page 1781: It is for the interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless as we said it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive 98 ( 11 ) THE decisions in Periakaruppans case and Ajay Hasias case were distinguished on the ground that they were cases of admission to colleges and that those cases could not afford true guidance in the matter of selection for public services. It was observed that the provision for marks for interview test need not and cannot be the same for admission to colleges and entry into public services. Dealing particularly with Pariakaruppans case it was pointed out that the instructions to the Selection Committee provided that marks were to be awarded at the interview on the basis of five distinct tests and it was for that reason that the failure to allocate marks under each head or distinct test was held to be an illegality Similarly while particularly dealing with Ajay Hasins case it was pointed out that the observations made in the decision rendered in that case to the effect that even in the matter of public employment the oral interview test should not be relied upon as an exclusive test were not intended to lay down any wide general rule that the same principle that applied in the matter of admission to colleges also applied in the matter of recruitment to public services. In this connection the following pertinent observations were made at page 1782:"the observation relating to public employment was per incuriam since the matter did not fall for the consideration of the Court in that case. Nor do we think that the Court intended any wide construction of test observation. As already observed by us the weight to be given to the interview test should depend on the requirement of the service to which recruitment is made the source material available for recruitment the composition of the interview Board and several like factors. Nor do we think that the Court intended any wide construction of test observation. As already observed by us the weight to be given to the interview test should depend on the requirement of the service to which recruitment is made the source material available for recruitment the composition of the interview Board and several like factors. "in view of the fact that none of the two challenges levelled on behalf of the petitioner were found to have any merit the writ petition was dismissed. ( 12 ) IN DR. B. M. RANA V. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 16 G. L. R. 1039 the challenge was to the appointment to the posts of Registrar at a teaching hospital rule by title Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad No rules were framed by the recruiting authority in the matter of appointment to such posts. The selection was made by the Staff Selection Committee which consisted of the Municipal Commissioner Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Revenue and Law) Deputy Municipal Commissioner (General) Municipal Chief Auditor Superintendent L. G. Hospital and Superintendent Saraspur Hospital. The appointment of the selected candidate in the post of Registrar in Medicine was sought to be justified on the ground that he had worked for one term as Houseman at one of the Municipal Hospitals where he had cordial relations with other members of the staff and that weightage was therefore given to the said experience acquired by him. M. P. Thakkar J. (as he then was) posed the question whether it was sufficient in order to meet the demands of and to live in peaceful co-existence with the commandments enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 that the matter of making appointments to such posts is entrusted to a Committee ? Having posed the question the learned Judge proceeded to answer the same in the following words. "if this much (and no more) is deemed sufficient the purposeful protection afforded by these Articles will be emptied of their vital content and equality of opportunity in regard to employment or appointment to public offices will be reduced to a purposeless platitude. Having posed the question the learned Judge proceeded to answer the same in the following words. "if this much (and no more) is deemed sufficient the purposeful protection afforded by these Articles will be emptied of their vital content and equality of opportunity in regard to employment or appointment to public offices will be reduced to a purposeless platitude. It is of the essence of the constitutional guarantee that (i) appointments are made solely with an eye on selecting the best equipped and Z st suitable personnel and (2) that complete objectivity and impartiality is maintained in the matter of selections so that equal opportunity clause is not only observed in letter and spirit in practice but also appears to have been so observed in order that the appointments inspite the confidence on the people as also of the contestants in the field. This dual test can be satisfied provided the Selection Committee has some norms or guidelines (whether imposed or self-prescribed) staring them in their eyes. A principle oriented approach would in the end-result convince one that norms or guidelines are very much essential from the following stand-points: (1) The criteria are well defined and well known to all the members of the Selection Committee so that all of them measure with the same yardstick and not with different weights and measures. (2) The same criteria is applied in the case of all candidates so that all are selected or discarded by same standards. (3) The same criteria is uniformly applied from year to year unless a deliberate modification is made in the light of new developments and/or past experience. (4) The criteria are capable of being ascertained if occasion so demands. (5) Members of Selection Committee are rendered immune from external pulls and pressures as also from inner sub-conscious pulls pressures and predelictions. (6) Selectors inform themselves and there is a guarantee that only relevant factors enter into the decision and all irrelevant factors are excluded. (7) Same extent of weightage within known parameters is accorded to every individual criterion uniformly inter se amongst contestants from year to year. (6) Selectors inform themselves and there is a guarantee that only relevant factors enter into the decision and all irrelevant factors are excluded. (7) Same extent of weightage within known parameters is accorded to every individual criterion uniformly inter se amongst contestants from year to year. "appointments made without regard to these salutary principles can scarcely inspire confidence that the equality principle has been faithfully observed for in the absence of these norms how can any one posit that extraneous considerations like influence pull likes dislikes favouritism nepotism casteism communalism arbitrariness and caprice have not operated on the minds of the selectors. It may be reiterated that not only the equality principle should in fact operate it must also appear to have operated and unless there are guidelines is there any gua rantee that the selector is not carried away by any of the aforesaid non-germane considerations or even by bias arising from impressionableness ? For instance one who is well dressed. or has better deportment or a winning smile or more aesthetic features or better outward manners or one who shares the same interests adores the same author hero or saint as does the selector may score against one who is not fortunate in these matters though he may be more gifted better equipped for the work and more suitable than the former. Unless some rules are framed or some guidelines are laid down there would be inherent dangers in the situation arising from the following circumstances :- (1) It would not be known why the claims of doctors who secured higher marks are over ridden by those who have secured lesser marks and the former would feel frustrated. become bitter towards the administration and the society and their outlook towards life would become coloured by scepticism and loss of faith in all institutions. (2) The administration which might have acted in good faith for the best interest of all concerned would be exposed to the charge of yielding to disclosed or undisclosed extraneous influences or considerations. (3) There is no guarantee that the same policy is uniformly followed from year to year. No visible accord is established with the past practice. (4) There is no assurance that the same criterion is uniformly and equally applied to all branches and vis-a-vis each candidate in respect of each branch. (3) There is no guarantee that the same policy is uniformly followed from year to year. No visible accord is established with the past practice. (4) There is no assurance that the same criterion is uniformly and equally applied to all branches and vis-a-vis each candidate in respect of each branch. (5) It cannot be demonstrated that the best or most suitable candidates were selected solely on merits on the same criteria uniformly applied in past as well as present. The emergent conclusion is that it is essential that there are known norms or principles impressed on the mental screen of each selector and the selections are made broadly in conformity therewith. If there are none the selections would be ore readily open to scrutiny in order to ascertain whether or not Arts. 14 and 16 have been honoured. ( 13 ) APPLYING those principles the Court found that the appointment of one of the respondents (Registrar in Medicine) was required to be quashed and set aside. However while granting relief it was directed that the said respondent should be allowed to continue for a period of six months from the date of his appointment. As regards fresh selection to be made in his place the Staff Selection Committee was directed to first prescribe for themselves rules containing general norms or guidelines for making appointment and each member of the Committee was directed to inform himself of those principles and to make them public. It was observed that it was not for the Court to in terms lay down the guidelines or to prescribe the formula for fixing the norms for appointments. However it was pointed out that the aspect relating to the performance at the final M. B. B. S. Examination in the relevant subjects was required to be accorded supreme importance and that if some weightage was required to be given to those who had worked as Houseman at the concerned Municipal Hospitals the nature extent and parameters of the weightage were required to be clearly defined. ( 14 ) IN DR. J. C. PARIKH V. SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY 23 G. L. R. 544 the challenge in a writ petition before me sitting singly was to the selection of a candidate for appointment as Reader in Education in the respondent - University. ( 14 ) IN DR. J. C. PARIKH V. SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY 23 G. L. R. 544 the challenge in a writ petition before me sitting singly was to the selection of a candidate for appointment as Reader in Education in the respondent - University. The relevant statutory provision enacted inter alia that no person could be appointed as a Reader except on the recommendation of a Committee of Selection constituted for the purpose and that the appointing authority namely the Syndicate was to make appointment out of the persons if any so recommended. The qualifications for being eligible for the post of Reader were prescribed in an ordinance. Applications were invited and each candidate was required to furnish complete information regarding the educational qualification and to send copies of mark-sheets of all the examinations in which he had appeared. The applications were also to be accompanied by testimonials etc. and a list of research publications. The Selection Committee consisted of seven persons including the Vice Chancellors Dean of the Faculty of Education and Principal of the college of Education. At the meetings of the Selection Committee only six members were present and one was absent. The Selection Committee first laid down norms and guidelines prescribing certain number of marks for each norm. Broadly stated the various norms and division of marks under each head were as follows"50 marks : (i) total length of service (ii) qualifications (iii) publications (iv) teaching load-experience and (v) co-ordination co-operation and regularity. (10 marks for each sub-head.)20 marks: Group discussion. 30 marks: Personal Interview. "the topic for group discussion was fixed in advance. The Selection Committee after taking into consideration the need of the department the performance of the candidates at the group interview for group discussion and after interviewing the candidates individually as per the guidelines selected one of the candidates who had obtained the highest marks. The selection was challenged on several grounds all of which were rejected. However in the said decision I had the occasion to make the following observations at page 552 which may be profitably extracted:"before parting with the matter it requires to be observed that in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of a Selection Committee. Especially when the selection is for an academic post at the University level the Court is slow to interfere. Especially when the selection is for an academic post at the University level the Court is slow to interfere. The Court is concerned in such matters with the broad question namely whether the selection is arbitrary or malafide. If the Court is satisfied (1) that the selected candidate was duly qualified or where the qualification has an academic bearing or content such as research work etc. that the competent authority was duly satisfied on the relevant material about the qualification (2) that relevant norms were prescribed in advance and that there was material before the Selection Committee for the satisfaction of the norms and that a rational and equitable formula relating to quantification and assessment of marks was adopted and (3) that the procedure of selection was otherwise fair and proceedings of the Selection Committee were not biased or vitiated by malafides the Court would be reluctant to interfere. In the instant case I find that these tests are satisfied. The difficulty if any has arisen on account of the Selection Committee having laid down norms in details in order to be fair. Even if there was some error or defect in the process or reaching decision on the satisfaction of one or two out of several norms laid down by the Selection Committee the selection in such a case would not be held to be per se vitiated. The Court will have to take into consideration the overall effect of all the proceedings and to judge whether the error or defect is of such a nature as to vitiate the selection on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. " ( 15 ) ONE more decision requires to be referred to as it has some bearing in the present case. In PARVEZ QUADIR V. UNION OF INDIA A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 446 the challenge was to the initial recruitment to the Indian Forest Service from amongst the gazetted officers of the Forest Service of each State. One of the challenges was that the adjudgment of suitability on the basis of the confidential entries and other records is arbitrary. While dealing with the said challenge the following observations were made at page 454:"it is true that the adjudgment of suitability of such officers eligible for selection has to be made according to some norms. In order to achieve this and various methods can be adopted. While dealing with the said challenge the following observations were made at page 454:"it is true that the adjudgment of suitability of such officers eligible for selection has to be made according to some norms. In order to achieve this and various methods can be adopted. There can be a method of selection by competitive examination another by examination-cum-viva-voce yet a third by viva-voce alone or the fourth by the examination of official record=with a viva voce and the fifth by purely on the scrutiny of the official record. It is not for this Court to lay down which of the methods has to be adopted for adjudging suitability as long as the norms which have been adopted are correlated and relevant to the adjudgment of the suitability of the officers to be recruited to the Indian Forest Service. It cannot be said that some other method should have been adopted and the method adopted by the rules or regulations for selection is improper. . It is the duty of the Special Selection Board to prepare a list from amongst the State Forest Officers and such a list can only be prepared in order of seniority if the respective records of each of such officers is considered and the comparative merit assessed. The past performance of an officer being one of the criteria for making selection the only way to adjudge their suitability is by perusal of confidential records. It is true that confidential records do not sometimes give a true picture due to the vagaries of the recording officer. The human fallibility and want of objectivity in the superior officer are factors which cannot be eliminated altogether. For that matter one can ask what method is perfect ? For this reason certain safeguards have been provided in order to make them as objective as possible. If there is an adverse entry against any officer that officer is given an opportunity to explain. After the explanation is given the superior officer as well as the Government ultimately decide whether that remark by the recording officer was justified or not and if it is not justified the Government can always order its deletion. If there is an adverse entry against any officer that officer is given an opportunity to explain. After the explanation is given the superior officer as well as the Government ultimately decide whether that remark by the recording officer was justified or not and if it is not justified the Government can always order its deletion. Sometimes vagary may enter into the service confidential and it cannot be postulated that all superior officers who have been empowered to finalise such entries will suffer from any of those traits because the action of the officer concerned may not have any immediate impact upon him and consequently his sense of objectivity will not be dimmed or strained. In our view often enough the entries in confidential records are themselves an insignia of the capacity and capability of the maker as a superior officer as well as a commentary on the quality of the officer against whom that confidential remark is being noted. But those who are charged with the duty to oversee that these entries are fair just and objective quite often do intervene and rectify any entry on representation being made against it at the proper time. In these circumstances we do not think that the method of selection based on past performance as disclosed by the confidential record is not the proper method for adjudging suitability of the officer concerned. " ( 16 ) FROM these various decisions certain principles seem to emerge which would appear to be of general application. Those principles can be summarised as follows:in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of a Selection Committee. However the selection procedure adopted by the Committee is open to judicial scrutiny. If it is found that the mode or method of selection was arbitrary irrational unreasonable irrelevant biased or vitiated by malafides or contrary to the rules and regulations the Court will have the power indeed duty to quash the selections because of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. If it is found that the mode or method of selection was arbitrary irrational unreasonable irrelevant biased or vitiated by malafides or contrary to the rules and regulations the Court will have the power indeed duty to quash the selections because of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. In this connection a few of the factors or considerations which must enter into account if and when the selections are challenged are : (a) whether the selected candidate is shown to have possessed the requisite eligibility qualifications; (b) whether the adjudgement of the suitability of the competing candidates is shown to have been made according to some rational and relevant norms which were prescribed in advance and made known to all the members of the Selection Committee; (c) whether there was relevant material before the Selection Committee on the basis of which it could have arrived at a fair decision as to the satisfaction of the norms in the case of the selected candidates; (d) whether the norms were uniformly applied in case of all the competing candidates; (e) whether a rational and relevant formula relating to the quantification and assessment of marks was adopted or whether the method of marking was chosen with an oblique motive; and (f) whether the procedure of selection was otherwise fair and proceedings of the Selection Committee were not biased or vitiated by mala fides. Various methods can be adopted at a selection to secure the best and most suitable person for the job and there cannot be any straitjacket formula regarding the same. There can be a method of selection by a competitive examination another by such examination-cum-viva-voce yet another is some cases by viva voce alone or upon the examination of official record with a viva-voce test and even purely on the scrutiny of the official record. There can be many permutations and combinations depending upon the requirement of the service the source of recruitment the class of candidates from whom the selection is to be made and such or similar factors. Ordinarily where recruitment to public service is regulated by rules validly made under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution it would not be for the Court to assume the function of deciding as to which of these tests should have been adopted. Ordinarily where recruitment to public service is regulated by rules validly made under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution it would not be for the Court to assume the function of deciding as to which of these tests should have been adopted. In the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality interview test may be the most suitable way subject to the basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. In the case of some other services where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise some weight may have to be given though not great weight to the interview test. Besides there cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given to the different tests. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service the minimum qualifications prescribed the age group from which the selection is to be made the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. Furthermore when the rules do not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads prescribed for a single test it would be for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. In a case where the interview test is prescribed as the sole or one of the modes of selection if the interview is shown to have lasted for a very brief period say two or three minutes per candidate on an average and it is shown that the questions asked were formal questions such as relating to the parentage and residence of the candidate and hardly any question is shown to have been asked which has any relevance to the assessment of the suitability of the candidate the oral interview lest would run the real risk on being vitiated because it would be impossible in such an interview to assess the merit of the candidate with reference to the relevant factors. On the whole no selection would be set aside if it is shown that the selected candidate was duly qualified that the relevant norms were prescribed in advance which were known to all the members of the Selection Committee that there was material before the Selection Committee for the satisfaction of the norms and that the procedure of selection was otherwise fair and the proceedings of the Selection Committee were not biased and vitiated by mala fide. ( 17 ) NOW in the present case we find that the Selection Committee which consisted of high ranking Police Officers including the Inspector General of Police who was the Chairman was required to interview 620 candidates. The interviews lasted for nine days and all the members save one participated in the proceedings all throughout. The Committee had decided in advance to categorise the candidates into seven categories on the basis of record of service and performance at the interview. The highest category was to comprise of candidates with exceptional record and performance at the interview and the lowest of the candidates who were below the average or poor and who were unable to impress the Committee at the time of the interview. In categorising each candidate his personality turnout and bearing were taken into account by the Committee. Each member of the Committee was given a list of candidates along with the relevant data pertaining to the candidates such as age total length of service length of service in the cadre of Head Constable educational qualifications awards and punishments. In addition the members of the Committee had access to the service record of each candidate. After considering the overall service record including the sheet-remarks rewards given and punishments inflicted on him and after considering the performance at the interview and upon the consensus of all the members present each candidate was placed in one of the seven categories. The respective grading accordingly given to each candidate was recorded by each member in his own copy of the list of candidates immediately after the interview was over. After the Committee completed the task of interviewing all the candidates all the four members of the Committee including the Chairman who had participated in the proceedings placed their signatures below the list of candidates supplied to the Chairman wherein also the grading assigned by consensus to each candidate was mentioned. After the Committee completed the task of interviewing all the candidates all the four members of the Committee including the Chairman who had participated in the proceedings placed their signatures below the list of candidates supplied to the Chairman wherein also the grading assigned by consensus to each candidate was mentioned. The Chairmans file was accordingly treated as the final merit-list and on the basis of the grading therein given to the interviewed candidates 109 candidates were selected. Those selected out of the highest category namely A++ were placed the highest in the list of selected candidates those in category A+ were placed next and so on and so forth. The lowest category from which the candidates belonging to the general category (non-reserved category) were selected was B+ and the lowest category so far as the reserved candidates (S. T. and S. C.) were concerned was B. This is the only record of the proceedings of the Selection Committee. Even the affidavit of P. B. Malia one of the members of the Committee does not reveal anything more. The affidavit of the second respondent who was not a member of the Selection Committee and who has made the affidavit on the basis of the record cannot take the matter any further. ( 18 ) NOW a few of the important things which stand out prominently and which have gone uncontroverted on behalf of the respondent are as follows : (1)At the interviews held on 30/12/1980 30 candidates including the petitioners were interviewed between 10-30 A. M. and 1-30 P. M. The interview did not last for more than 3 to 4 minutes per candidate and the time lag between the interview of each candidate was not more than 2 to 3 minutes. (2) No precise norms or guidelines wire laid down to judge the suitability of the candidate when tested at the oral interviews by reference to factors such as for example his intelligences knowledgeability aptitude capacity for clear and logical thinking and taking quick decision in moments of crisis quality of leadership etc. (3) The questions addressed were of a very general nature such as what was the name of the candidate where he was working and for how long and in which branch. (3) The questions addressed were of a very general nature such as what was the name of the candidate where he was working and for how long and in which branch. This information was already available from the list of candidates supplied to the members as well as from the Service sheet/record No questions were however put which could have brought out the candidates personal characteristics and traits such as his intellect know ledge initiative alertness resourcefulness effectiveness in meeting and dealing with situations requiring prompt action adaptability judgment ability to take decision ability to lead integrity etc. At the highest what was taken into consideration was his personality turn out and bearing. (4) Although the method of selection was a combination of twin tests namely examination of official record and viva voce and performance of each candidate was judged on the basis of both the relative weightage to be given to each of the two tests was not decided upon. (5) So far as service record is concerned the material furnished in the list of candidates showed the number of awards and the number of punishments and the category of awards and the category of punishments awarded to each candidate. No precise standard or guideline was laid down with regard to the weightage or the relative weightage to be attached to the different awards and punishments and to the weightage to be attached to both taken together as against the other data furnished by the service record in adjudging the Suitability of each candidate. (6) The Selection Committee assessed each candidate upon application of the twin tests and categorised or graded him within a span of not more than two to three minutes on the basis of consensus. (7) Candidates who had passed the refresher course and who were confirmed were not selected whereas candidates who had not undergone such course and who had not yet been confirmed were selected candidates with wider experience in the cadre of Head Constables were left out whereas those with shorter experience were picked up. (7) Candidates who had passed the refresher course and who were confirmed were not selected whereas candidates who had not undergone such course and who had not yet been confirmed were selected candidates with wider experience in the cadre of Head Constables were left out whereas those with shorter experience were picked up. (8) Candidates who were placed in the same category were given unequal treatment inasmuch as all those who fell within the same category were not selected and there is no material to infer that the elimination of a few as against the selection of the rest from out of the same class was made on any rational formula and not by following the method of pick and choose for example as many as 26 candidates who were assigned category B which was the lowest category to which the selection from amongst the general category (non-reserved) candidates was confined were not selected although as many as 15 candidates who were identically situate were selected. (9) The ultimate record of the proceedings on the Committee namely the minutes which set out line final selections shows that the selections were made without regard to the categorization or grading on the candidates and that the assessment made at the conclusion of the interview on each candidate was not truly reflected in the final record for example, (i) A candidate who was graded as falling in category A+ was not selected; (ii) Two candidates who were graded as talking in category A were not selected (iii) A candidate who was graded as A++ was shown in the minutes as falling in category A+ and a candidate who was graded as B+ was shown in the minutes as covered by category B++. It might be pointed out that there is no dispute about the factual data furnished in the last two items set out above. ( 19 ) THESE are some of the glaring defects deficiencies and discrepancies in the process of selection which in my opinion have vitiated the selections and laid them open to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness unreasonableness irrelevance and non-application of mind The selections herein as earlier pointed out were to be made on the strength of the assessment of the suitability of the candidates on the basis on their service record and performance at the interview. The performance at the interview was one of the tests evolved apparently because it must have been found that on the basis on the service record alone it would not be possible to adjudge the suitability of the candidates. Under such circumstances it was essential to have evolved in advance some rational and relevant normals and to make them known to all the members of the Selection Committee so that the performance of each candidate at the interview could be tested upon the uniform application of such norms Besides time sufficient enough to adjudge the suitability of the interviewed candidate by reference to such norms was required to be devoted and relevant questions which bring Worth answers indicating whether or not the norms were satisfied were required to be addressed to the interviewed candidates. In the instant case we mind however that no precise norms or guidelines were laid down to adjudge the suitability of the candidate when tested at the oral interview that the interview did not last for more than three to four minutes on an average and that the questions asked had no bearing on the factors required to be taken into account. Be it noted that in Ajay Hasias case it was held that in the interview did not take more than three or four minutes on all average and that the questions asked had no bearing on the factors required to be taken into account the interview test would be bad. Even in Artis case it was observed that it was essential to ensure that the Selection Committee takes care to devote sufficient time to the oral interview on individual candidate having regard to the several relevant considerations which must enter into its Judgment respecting each candidate. There is nothing in Liladhars ease which detracts from the applicability of these observations to cases on recruitment to public services. This is the first infirmity in the selection process which was affected the interview test. ( 20 ) THIS is not all. Further infirmity in the selection procedure is introduced by the fact that although the method of selection was a combination on twin tests the relative weightage to be given to each test is not shown to have been decided upon. Under such circumstances. ( 20 ) THIS is not all. Further infirmity in the selection procedure is introduced by the fact that although the method of selection was a combination on twin tests the relative weightage to be given to each test is not shown to have been decided upon. Under such circumstances. the possibility cannot be altogether ruled out that the completing candidates night have been differently judged by different members on the several occasions which the Committee interviewed them and that in one case an outstanding performance at the interview and in another an outstanding performance revealed from the service record might have disproportionately weighed with the Selection Committee. It is true that rules do not require any such standard or norm being fixed. Absence of any such provisions in the rules cannot absolve the Selection Committee from evolving the proper measure with regard to relative: weightage to be given to the twin tests. He it noted in this connection that the infirmity here is not comparable os similar to the omission upon which one of the contentions in Liladhars case was based. The grievance in that case was that although suitability on a candidate was to be adjudged at the interview test by reference to different heads marks were allotted in a single lot instead of sub-diving and awarding marks separately under various heads. The said grievance was found to be without substance on the ground that when the rules did not provide for allocation on marks under different heads prescribed for a single test it would be for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allot marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. It would thus appeal that Liladhars case is clearly distinguishable on two grounds. First the questions there was not of evolving a standard to judge the relative importance of two distinct tests and to evaluate the performance on the basis of the relative weightage to be attached to each test; the question was whether a standard was required to be evolved to judge the performance qua each out of several heads prescribed for a single test. Second in that case unlike here even for the single test different norms or different heads were prescribed by reference to which the suitability was to be adjudged. Second in that case unlike here even for the single test different norms or different heads were prescribed by reference to which the suitability was to be adjudged. In the instant case there is failure to prescribe such heads not only for one test but for both the tests. These two distinguishing features are sufficient to take the present case out of the rule relating to marks enunciated in Liladhars case and the requirement of adoption of a standard for adjudging the relative performance at the two distinct tests cannot be ruled out on the basis of the observations made in Liladhars case. This is another infirmity in the selection process which must be regarded as having affected both the tests. ( 21 ) AS regards the test on assessment of performance on the basis of service record the same infirmity which is found to have affected the interview test is present namely no precise standard or guideline was laid down for Judging the suitability on the basis of such record. The service record would consist of goods points as well as bad points. As the material furnished in the list of candidates given to each member on the Selection Committee shows the service record of practically every candidate revealed that at one time or the other he had earned a reward and he was also visited with penalty. Besides the rewards themselves were of two types monetary and good service ticket. Similarly punishments were of two categories; minor and major. A look at the original service record of such candidate must have furnished further material disclosing both positive and negative factors. The service record would ordinarily contain adverse entries as well as laudatory references and also an overall assessment of the personality character and capability of each candidate. Unless a precise norm standard of guideline was laid down prescribing the relevant considerations which must enter into the judgment of the Selection Committee respecting each candidate and as far as practicable the relative weightage to be attached to each of these relevant but conflicting factors which coalesce into each other was determined it is difficult to appreciate how a fair adjudgment of the suitability of each candidate could have been made upon the application of a uniform formula or standard. This is yet another infirmity in the selection process. This is yet another infirmity in the selection process. ( 22 ) THE circumstance that inspite of the above defects the Selection Committee adjudged the suitability of the candidates and graded them into one on the seven categories within a short span of not more than two to three minutes at the conclusion of the oral interview introduces yet another infirmity. It is impossible under the aforementioned circumstances to rule out the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness from the selection process and one has only to look at the result to derive sustenance for the above conclusion. The candidates who had passed the refresher course and who were confirmed were not selected where as candidates who had not undergone such course and who were yet to be confirmed came to be selected; candidates with much wider experience in the cadre on Head Constable were left out whereas those with shorter experience were picked up. When the selection was challenged as arbitrary and the material on record revealed the aforesaid state of affairs it was incumbent upon the authorities to have explained how such consequences ensued. ( 23 ) LAST but not the least is the grave infirmity which has crept in at the final selection stage which has completely vitiated the selections. The minutes of the Selection Committee read along with the grading given to each candidate as per the merit list signed by all the members of the Selection Committee show that so far as the general (non-reserved) candidates are concerned the lowest category to which the selection was confined was B+. From candidates falling within the said category only 16 candidates were selected (2 more were kept on the reserved list) and 26 candidates were not selected. What was the basis for picking and chosing those few and not selecting the rest although they were grouped together and fell within the same category is not known. This vice alone without anything more would be sufficient to vitiate the selection at least of those who fell in category B+. It is also difficult to appreciate as to how a candidate who was graded as A+ and two candidates who were graded as A were left out at the stage of final selection when all but one of the selected candidates were chosen from amongst those who fell within category A+ to category B+. It is also difficult to appreciate as to how a candidate who was graded as A+ and two candidates who were graded as A were left out at the stage of final selection when all but one of the selected candidates were chosen from amongst those who fell within category A+ to category B+. Besides the grading as shown to have been given to some of the candidates in the minutes does not accord with the grading given to them in the merit list prepared at the conclusion of the interviews by the Selection Committee. This is apparent from the fact that a candidate who was graded as A++ in the merit list was shown in the minutes as having been placed in category A+ and a candidate who was graded as B+ at the interview was ranked as B++ in the minutes. In these circumstances one fails to comprehend how and on what basis the final selections were made. ( 24 ) NO explanation is coming forth even an attempt in that direction has not been made as regards these va rious infirmities in the selection process which have vitiated the Selection. The proceedings of the Selection Committee are shown to have suffered from the vice of arbitrariness irrationality non application of mind casualness and informality of a high order to take the most charitable view of the matter. The picture presented by the record and proceedings of the Selection Committee convinces me that the Selection are vitiated when tested on the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ( 25 ) THE question of grant of ultimate relief to the petitioners on the basis of their success on this ground of challenge however requires consideration of some other factors to which I shall advert subsequently. Besides the question of giving suitable directions if any to the first and second respondents for regulating the procedure for selection of Head Constables for the Sub-Inspectors course with the end in view of granting promotions to them under Rule 2 (ii) will also require consideration. I shall advert to these aspects when I ultimately consider the question of grant of relief. I shall advert to these aspects when I ultimately consider the question of grant of relief. ( 26 ) BEFORE I take up the question with regard to the grant of relief I should like to mention that a common ground of defence was urged on behalf of the respondents in reply to all the aforesaid three grounds of challenge. The plea of the respondents was that none of the petitioners had raised any of the aforesaid objections at the time of their interview by the Selection Committee and that they having failed to raise the said objections or any of them at the appropriate time and they having submitted themselves for interview without demur must be taken to have waived their right to object to the selections on those grounds. The plea of waiver in the aforesaid terms is specifically raised in para. 3 and 7 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the second respondent. ( 27 ) NOW there are several difficulties in the way of acceptance of this plea. In the first place the respondents have not established on the materials before me the necessary facts on which a plea of waiver can be founded. In fact the material on record clearly indicates that the plea of waiver has no place in a case like the present. Waiver is a troublesome term in law. The generally accepted connotation is that to constitute waiver there must he an intentional relinquishment of a known right or the voluntary relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing legal right or conduct such as warrants in inference of the relinquishment of a known right or privilege. Waiver differs from estoppel in the sense that it is contractual and is an agreement to release or not to assert a right. Estoppel on the other hand is a rule of evidence (see DAWSONS BANK LTD. V. NIPPON MANKWA KALUSHIKI KAISHA A. I. R. 1935 P. C. 79 AT PAGE 82 X AND BASHESHAR NATH V. I. T. COMMISSIONER A. I. R. 1959 S. C. 149 AT PAGE 172 ). On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case what is the known legal right which the petitioners intentionally relinquished or agreed to release ? No express agreement establishing waiver is pleaded or is shown to exist and therefore the consideration of the question of waiver from that aspect need not detain me. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case what is the known legal right which the petitioners intentionally relinquished or agreed to release ? No express agreement establishing waiver is pleaded or is shown to exist and therefore the consideration of the question of waiver from that aspect need not detain me. The only question which requires consideration is whether there was any conduct on the part of the petitioners which warrants an inference of the relinquishment of a known right or privilege. The conduct which gives rise to the inference of waiver upon which reliance is placed consists of the petitioners appearance before the Selection Committee and the it subjecting them selves to the process of selection without raising any of the aforesaid three grounds of challenge. Are those two circumstances without anything more really capable of justifying the plea of waiver ? Do they prove that there was an intentional and voluntary relinquishment or abandonment of a known legal right or privilege ? The answer cannot but be in the negative There is no material on record to show for example that the petitioners knew (1) that 620 Head Constables were called for interview and also the name of each of the candidates called for interview (2) that quite a few or some of the candidates had not successfully undergone the Head Constables training course and that they were therefore not eligible to be appointed by promotion even to the posts of Head Constable and (3) that the proceedings of the Selection Committee which were admittedly held in camera and the record of which was not accessible to the petitioners till the petition was instituted and had reached hearing suffered from the several infirmities which have been pointed out above. Until these and such or similar facts are established and there are reasonable grounds to infer that there was an intentional and voluntary relinquishment on the part of the petitioners of the right to raise objection against such infirmities how can the plea of waiver succeed ? The mere conduct of the petitioners in appearing at the interview and subjecting themselves to the process of selection without anything more cannot reasonably lead to such an inference so far as at least the grounds of challenge on which they have succeeded are concerned. The mere conduct of the petitioners in appearing at the interview and subjecting themselves to the process of selection without anything more cannot reasonably lead to such an inference so far as at least the grounds of challenge on which they have succeeded are concerned. The plea therefore must be rejected on the short ground that the necessary foundation for sustaining it has not been laid although the onus was on the respondents. In the next place it is settled law that it is not open to a citizen or any other person who benefits by reason of Article 14 to waive any breach of the obligation on the part of the State The Article is founded on a sound public policy recognised and valued in all civilised States. It is an admonition addressed to the State and does not directly purport to confer any right on any person. The benefit resulting from the admonition is indirect though necessary and inevitable consequence of the mandate. In the face of such an unequivocal admonition administered by the Constitution to the State as a matter of public policy with a view to implement its object of ensuring the equality of status and opportunity to every citizen no person can by any act or conduct relieve the State of the solemn obligation imposed on it by the Constitution. A citizen cannot certainly give up or waive a breach of the fundamental right that is indirectly conferred on him by Article 14 (see BASHESHAR NATH V. I. T. COMMISSIONER (SUPRA) ). Article 16 is a projection of Article 14 in the field of public employment. It also contains a mandate that there shall be equality of opportunity for 811 citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State and that no citizen shall on the grounds only of religion race caste sex descent place of birth residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. This absolute mandate is relaxed only to a limited and specified extent in the next following sub-articles. This absolute mandate is relaxed only to a limited and specified extent in the next following sub-articles. Therefore if there is proven arbitrariness unfairness or unreasonableness in the selection procedure in regard to public employment the challenge cannot ordinarily be shut out on the ground of waiver because the waiver would imply the giving up or waiving up a breach of a fundamental right. In the last place Rules 70 and 121 of the Police Manual are not enacted for the benefit of an individual. They are provisions conceived in public interest and as a measure of public policy. There cannot be a waiver of the breach of such Rules because the waiver would be against public policy and an agreement which seeks to waive an illegality arising out of a breach of such rules would be void on the ground of public policy. ( 28 ) FOR the foregoing reasons it is not possible to uphold the plea of waiver raised on behalf of the respondents to meet the grounds of challenge levelled by the petitioners. ( 29 ) THE stage has now reached to consider as to what reliefs should be granted to the petitioners and what directions if any should be issued to the first and second respondents in view of the findings recorded above. ( 30 ) IT was strenuously urged on behalf of the respondents other than the first and second respondent (selected candidates) that although the impugned selections are held to be invalid and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside on the grounds aforementioned the Court should merely declare the law on the present occasion for the guidance of the authorities in future and that the Court should decline to grant the relief of quashing the selections. In this connection it was urged: (1) that out of 45 selected candidates who attended the course and who have not successfully undergone the Head Constables training course under Rule 121 one has put in six years service as Head Constable two have put in four years service as such three have worked for three years as such whereas 28 and 11 have been discharging duties as Head Constables for two years and one year respectively; (2) that they were not aware that it was a mandatory requirement of law that they should successfully undergo the said course before they become eligible to be appointed as Head Constables on a regular basis (3) that the impugned selections were made as far back as in December 1980 and they were notified on 14/04/1981 (4) that so far as the remaining selected candidates are concerned there is no bar against their eligibility and that the defects in the selection procedure found above were not of their own making; (5) that 107 selected candidates had actually joined the Police Training College pursuant to the selection and they have completed the course and as many as 106 out of them have been declared successful at the examination held at the end of the course; (6) that considerable time energy and money have been invested in imparting the training at the College to the successful candidates all of whom are justly aspiring to be appointed as probationary Police Sub-Inspectors and (7) that the grant of relief at this belated stage would create considerable hardship and frustration amongst the successful candidates for no fault on their part. Considerable reliance was placed on behalf of these respondents on the decisions in AJAY HASIAS CASE (SUPRA) AND ARTI V. STATE OF JAMMU and KASHMIR (SUPRA) in both of which be Court declined to quash the selections although it was found that the selections were vitiated on account of the arbitrary procedure for selection adopted by the authorities empowered to grant admissions to the College in question. ( 31 ) AS many as 62 out of 107 selected candidates who attended the course at the Police Training College and who have successfully undergone the Head Constables training course and all of whom are respondents herein have filed identical undertaking on affidavit stating that they would not object to any or all of the below mentioned steps or any steps incidental thereto being taken pursuant to the orders of the Court or otherwise if their selection is not quashed; (1) Holding of fresh interviews of the candidates who were not selected at the impugned selection in accordance with law and in the light of the observations herein contained. (2) Special arrangements being made for imparting training and holding examination of those on the candidates who succeed at such fresh interviews in addition to or substitution of the regular training imparted under Rule 164 from year to year. (3) The candidates who succeed at the examination at the end of such course being treated as having been successful at the same test and at the same time as the successful candidates of 1980 batch whose result was declared on 28/04/1982 (4) The candidates who were selected at the impugned selection and who successfully completed the course by passing the examination being continued as probationer Police Sub-Inspectors till the candidates who are freshly selected as above and who succeed at the examination at the end of the course complete their period of probation of eighteen months. (5) The services rendered during the period of probation by the respondents giving the undertaking being not allowed to adversely affect the rights of such subsequently selected candidates in any respect i. e. for seniority promotion pay and even otherwise. (6) A combined list of successful candidates of both the lots being prepared and names being arranged in the said combined list as if all the candidates have passed at the same time and regular appointments to the post of Police Sub-Inspector being made according to the placement of the successful candidates on such combined list in accordance with the rules. The respondents who have given the aforesaid undertaking have stated that they have given the same voluntarily and having fully understood its contents and objects. The respondents who have given the aforesaid undertaking have stated that they have given the same voluntarily and having fully understood its contents and objects. ( 32 ) ALL the petitioners have also given an undertaking on affidavit stating that they have seen the undertaking given as aforesaid by the concerned respondents and that they would not object if the undertaking of those respondents is accepted and relief is suitably moulded or granted on the basis of such undertaking. ( 33 ) THE question of granting ultimate relief must be viewed in the light of the facts and circumstances stated above. ( 34 ) TURNING next to the question of grant of relief in regard to the 62 candidates whose selection is held to be invalid only on the basis of ground No. 2 urged on behalf of the petitioners I am inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of those candidates that their selection should not be quashed especially in view of the respective undertakings given by those candidates and the petitioners. The selection of those candidates is liable to be set aside not on account of any ineligibility or failure or fault on their part but in view of the infirmities which have crept in the selection process. Those candidates have invested considerable time labour and attention in taking training at the Police Training College. Public money has also been invested in imparting training to them. As many as 106 out of them have successfully completed the training and have been declared successful at the result notified in April 1982. All of them are justly aspiring to be appointed as probationary Police Sub-Inspectors. To put the clock back in their case after such length of time would generate frustration amongst them. Accordingly while holding that the selection of those 62 candidates (all of whom are identifiable in view of the fact that each one of them has filed the undertaking above mentioned in this proceeding) is vitiated for the reasons stated hereinabove I decline in the exercise of my judicial discretion to set aside their selection. The refusal of the grant of relief however is subject to certain conditions which I propose to impose and which are detailed hereunder. The refusal of the grant of relief however is subject to certain conditions which I propose to impose and which are detailed hereunder. Accordingly their rights and benefits pursuant to the refusal of the grant of relief will be regulated in accordance with the following directions :those out of the 62 candidates who were declared successful at the result notified in April 1982 will be appointed as Police Sub-Inspectors (unarmed) on probation within a period of two weeks from today and their appointment as such will be regulated by the provisions of Rules 116 and 117 of the Police Manual subject to the following modifications: (a) The probationary period of such candidates will be extended so as to be co-extensive with the usual probationary period of the newly selected 45 candidates at the fresh selection directed to be held under the foregoing directions. (b) The services rendered by these candidates during the period of probation will not be allowed to adversely affect the rights of the subsequently selected 45 candidates in any manner whatever that is to say they will not be allowed to steal a march over those 45 subsequently selected candidates in matters such as pay allowances seniority promotion etc. For all practical purposes they and the 45 subsequently selected candidates will be treated as on par and as having been appointed on probation on the same day. (c) For the purpose of making regular appointment to the posts of Police Sub-Inspector at the end of the probation period a combined list of the probationary candidates belonging to both the batches (the original batch of 1980 and the batch of 45 freshly selected candidates pursuant to the direction herein issued) will be prepared and in the said combined list the names of the probationary officers will be arranged as if all of them had passed at the same time and obtained appointment as probationary Police Sub-Inspector on the same day. Regular appointments will be made from such list on the basis of the placement of the candidates on such combined list in accordance with the extent rules contained in the Police Manual. ( 35 ) AND now the epilogue. The result of this petition clearly manifests that all is not well with the selection procedure followed in regard to the recruitment from one of the sources for the posts of Unarmed Police Sub-Inspector. ( 35 ) AND now the epilogue. The result of this petition clearly manifests that all is not well with the selection procedure followed in regard to the recruitment from one of the sources for the posts of Unarmed Police Sub-Inspector. 25% of the quota in the cadre of Unarmed Police Sub-Inspector is required to be filled in through the said source which provides an avenue of promotion to the members of the Police Force in the immediately next below cadre of Unarmed Head Constables. The Court expects the first respondent (State Government) to take suitable measures forthwith to insulate the selection procedure in light of the observations made in the course of this judgment. It hardly needs to be said that though this time the Court in the exercise of its judicial discretion has saved the invalid selection of a substantial number of candidates the same indulgence may not be shown in future and that unless a suitable method which meets the test of Articles 14 and 16 is devised there is very real risk of all future selection being quashed and set aside causing considerable hardship and frustration amongst the members of the Police Force besides creating unsurmountable administrative difficulties. It will be advisable for the State Government therefore to devote its time and attention to the following matters with the utmost expedition and to lay down suitable guidelines in regard to them in consultation if any with the second respondent: (1) Prior ascertainment of the precise number of vacancies required to be filled in from such source of recruitment on every occasion. (2) Prescription of the area or zone of choice or selection for the purpose of filling up vacancies from such source; the area or zone of choice may ordinarily be confined to candidates equal in number to seven or eight times the number of vacancies to be filled in from the said source. (3) Issuance of proper guidelines to the Police Officers at different levels who are entrusted with the duty of making recommendations of suitable candidates for being interviewed by the Selection Committee in regard to the factors which must be taken into consideration while making such recommendations. (3) Issuance of proper guidelines to the Police Officers at different levels who are entrusted with the duty of making recommendations of suitable candidates for being interviewed by the Selection Committee in regard to the factors which must be taken into consideration while making such recommendations. (4) Prescription of the tests to be adopted by the Selection Committee; in this context having regard to the trend of recent judicial decisions it may be considered whether the selection should be by competitive examination or by competitive examination-cum-viva-voce or by competitive examination cum-viva voce-cum-examination of the service record or as at present by viva voce coupled with the examination of the service record or purely on the scrutiny of service record. (5) Issuance of instructions in case the service record is to enter into consideration that no adverse report in the service-sheet shall be acted upon to deny promotional opportunity unless it has been communicated to the concerned candidate and an opportunity has been given to him to improve upon his work or conduct or to make a representation to explain the circumstances leading to the adverse report and to seek deletion thereof. (6) Prescription of the norms or standards for judging suitability whichever be the method of selection and the comparative weightage to be given to the different tests and relevant factors and considerations. (7) Laying down of a rational and equitable formula relating to quantification and assessment of marks or grading to be assigned to each candidate appearing before the Selection Committee. (8) The precise procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee and the maintenance of complete and faithful record of the proceedings of the Selection Committee with the end in view of ensuring that the guidelines norms or standards have been scrupulously followed. (9) Issuance of instruction that each member of the Selection Committee should maintain a separate record of his assessment and that except under exceptional circumstances all members must attend meetings all throughout. These are some of the matters which must immediately engage the attention of the first respondent so that future selections are not brought into question on the ground of arbitrary unfair or unreasonable methods adopted at the selection. ( 36 ) RULE made absolute in the aforesaid terms and to the aforesaid extent. Rule made partly absolute. .