JUDGMENT K. Sukumaran, J. 1. Appointment to a public post is a serious matter. It cannot be dealt with in a casual or whimsical manner. Such was the approach in the appointment to a post in the Kerala State Film Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') is the complaint of the writ petitioner. The legality and constitutionality of the action is challenged in the writ petition. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that the impugned action has deprived him of his legal and constitutional rights. He has sought curial correction by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. According to the petitioner, the Corporation is an authority coming within Art.12 of the Constitution and is, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The Corporation not having conformed to the constitutional requirements binding on it, particularly Art.14 and 16, is, according to the petitioner, to be commanded by this court to strictly adhere to those constitutional provisions. 3. Initially there were three respondents in the writ petition, they being respectively, the State of Kerala, the Chairman of the Corporation and the person appointed under the impugned order. The pleadings in the case are fairly obese. They consist of the Original Petition with the supporting affidavit filed on 17th March 1978, the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent dated 11th September 1980, the reply affidavit of the petitioner filed on 18th October 1980, the additional counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent filed on 27th October 1981, C. M. P. Nos. 23513 and 23514 of 1981, the former for amendment of the writ petition and the latter for impleading the Corporation as an additional respondent, both filed on 1st December 1981, the additional counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent filed on 15th December 1981, an affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Government explaining the absence of relevant files, the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent filed on 9th June, 1982 and a memo filed on 9th June, 1982 by the Government Pleader producing a Government Order. 4. Arguments in the case were heard, for the first time on 30th October, 1981 and 4th November, 1981. It was then felt that the pleadings of the petitioner and of the 2nd respondent regarding the nature and status of the Corporation were not adequate. 4. Arguments in the case were heard, for the first time on 30th October, 1981 and 4th November, 1981. It was then felt that the pleadings of the petitioner and of the 2nd respondent regarding the nature and status of the Corporation were not adequate. I, therefore, directed by my order dated 16th November, 1981 to file additional pleadings with further particulars on that point. The C.M.Ps. referred to above, and the additional affidavit of the 2nd respondent dated 15th December, 1981 were filed thereafter. In the course of the hearing, it was also noticed that there were contradictory and unsatisfactory statements in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent. In answer to my query, counsel for the Corporation informed me that the files relating to the interview and appointments were not available. It was then felt that at least some of the relevant facts would be discernible from the Government files leading to Ext. P-6 Government letter dated 23rd January, 1978. (The Government had apparently but unjustifiably adopted an attitude of utter unconcern in the litigation. Despite its being the 1st respondent in the petition and the fact that its action under Ext. P-6 had been challenged, no counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the Government.) In the then prevailing circumstances, I directed the Government to produce the files relating to Ext. P-6 letter. These directions are contained in the order dated 16th November, 1981. 5. At the hearing of the case on 8th February, 1982 it was represented by the Government Pleader that the relevant files had been destroyed and that they could not be produced. Thereupon I passed an order on that day, the relevant extract of which reads: "This writ petition is of the year 1978. The Government had due notice of the pendency of the writ petition. It was duty-bound to plate before this Court relevant files, having regard to the requirements of certiorari jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. It had been prima facie noticed that some of the averments in the counter affidavit were not correct or true. A perusal of the file was absolutely necessary in such circumstances. It was in this view of the matter that a direction had been given to the Government to produce necessary files. Non-availability of the file under these circumstances is a matter to be taken serious note of. A perusal of the file was absolutely necessary in such circumstances. It was in this view of the matter that a direction had been given to the Government to produce necessary files. Non-availability of the file under these circumstances is a matter to be taken serious note of. However, before considering the question, as a first step which was to be taken in the matter, I feel it is necessary to direct the Government to file an affidavit explaining its incapacity as expressed now in the matter of the production of the relevant files." It was in pursuance of this direction that the Government filed its affidavit dated 11th March, 1982 pointing out that the relevant files had been destroyed on the basis of a Government Order relating to destruction of records, G.O. (Ms.) 60/81, dated 15th July, 1981. The affidavit of the Government did not satisfactorily explain the position. The Advocate General was appraised of the situation. On his request, the hearing of the case was adjourned, so as to have the view of the Government in relation to the production of relevant files required in connection with the writ petitions before this court. On 6th April 1982, it was represented on behalf of the Government that steps were being taken to supersede the G. O. (Ms.) 40/81/PD, on 31st May 1982, Government was directed to report further development in the matter and the 2nd respondent was directed to produce the necessary relevant files. Thereafter further and final arguments were heard. The Government Pleader filed a memo producing copy of the Government Order G. O. (Ms.) 23/82/P and ARD, dated 22nd April, 1982 which modified G. O. (Ms.) 40/81/PD. The 3rd respondent's counter affidavit was also filed on that day. 6. The facts relevant to the case and as emerging from the pleadings may be briefly narrated. 7. The Corporation came into existence on 16th July 1975, with its registration under the Companies Act, 1956. As the requirement of the staff needed for the Corporation was not ascertainable or assessable, no rules or regulations were formulated at that time. The then Chairman being a technical man was deciding the requirements of the technical personnel required for doing the skeleton work of the Corporation at that time. There was no set pattern for the selection of staff in the Corporation. The Government gave directive in this behalf. The then Chairman being a technical man was deciding the requirements of the technical personnel required for doing the skeleton work of the Corporation at that time. There was no set pattern for the selection of staff in the Corporation. The Government gave directive in this behalf. The Staff Selection Committee was constituted by the Board of Directors of the Company on the basis of the directions of the Government. In pursuance of the directions of the Government a resolution was adopted by the Company on 10th October, 1975. This resolution is produced as Ext. R-1, dated 10th October, 1975. The Staff Selection Committee constituted thereunder is to consist of the Chairman, Managing Director and the Special Secretary, Public Department. Its functions were delineated as approving the staff pattern and the terms and conditions of the appointments already made and to review the cases referred to it wherever found necessary in future. A further provision is: "The Managing Director is authorised to effect appointments in the case of posts carrying pay scales the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 750 and the Chairman in the case of posts the maximum of which does not exceed Rs. 1,000." Understandably enough, it took some time for the Corporation to go into effective functioning. During 1976 and 1977 it had only the documentary film production. The editing work connected therewith was carried on contract basis, as the film editing machine had not been installed. By the middle of 1977, the Corporation had acquired its own film editing facilities. Orders were then received by the Corporation for the production of 'half a dozen films from the Government and from some public sector undertakings'. 8. The petitioner had, on 16th December, 1976 submitted an application to the Chairman of the Corporation for the appointment to the post of Film Editor. A reply thereto was given on 20th December, 1976. It was signed by the Administrative Officer. The petitioner was informed that it was too early to consider the appointment of a Film Editor. The building in the studio site had yet to be started. The last paragraph of the letter reads: "However you are welcome to visit the Office of the Corporation and most the Chairman whenever you happen to go over to Trivandrum in the near future." (emphasis supplied) 9. The petitioner pursued his attempts by making another application (Ext. The building in the studio site had yet to be started. The last paragraph of the letter reads: "However you are welcome to visit the Office of the Corporation and most the Chairman whenever you happen to go over to Trivandrum in the near future." (emphasis supplied) 9. The petitioner pursued his attempts by making another application (Ext. P-2) on 20th January, 1977. He pointed out that he was a Diploma holder in Film Editing, awarded by the Film and Television Institute of India, Poona. He recounted his experiences in the work after the acquisition of his Diploma. That he had edited a Malayalam feature film 'Ekakini' which won the Kerala State Film Award for the best film produced in Kerala and also the award for best Film Editing of 1975, had been highlighted in the application. This application is seen to have been submitted in person to the Chairman on 20th January, 1977. As there was no response or progress in the matter he sent a reminder recapitulating the assurance the Chairman had given him, when he met the Chairman in person on 20th January, 1977. It is stated that the Chairman had assured him that his application 'would be considered as soon as possible'. 10. The petitioner was thereafter intimated by the communication Ext. P-4 (which does not contain any date) from the Chairman of the Corporation by which Ext. P-3 letter of the petitioner was acknowledged. The text of the communication is as follows: "We had one vacancy for the post of Film Editor and this has been offered to an Editor who was working with us on ad hoc basis. In case the Corporation maintains its present momentum of work, I am sure that there will be more vacancies for technical posts in future 11. The petitioner was aggrieved by this action and attitude on the part of the 2nd respondent. He submitted a representation on 17th July, 1977 to the Chief Minister of Kerala. He got a reply from the Chief Minister's Office, that his representation had been forwarded to the Special Secretary, General Administration Department and that the petitioner could correspond with the Special Secretary thereafter. The petitioner renewed his request for redress of his grievance by communications dated 12th September 1977, 10th October 1977, 14th November, 1977 and 20th December, 1977 addressed to the Special Secretary. The petitioner renewed his request for redress of his grievance by communications dated 12th September 1977, 10th October 1977, 14th November, 1977 and 20th December, 1977 addressed to the Special Secretary. No reply was received by him to any of these communications. On 23rd January, 1978, the petitioner sought a reply, in a stiffer tone. He stated therein that he would approach a court of law for obtaining appropriate remedies, if he did not get any reply to his representations. This apparently awakened the Secretariat from its turpitude and spurred it to action. On 28th January 1978, Ext. P-6 communication was sent to the petitioner, wherein reference was made to the six representations sent by him starting from 7th July, 1977 and ending with Ext. P-5 on 23rd January, 1978. It is desirable that the text of this communication is extracted in full: "With reference to the above, I am directed to inform you that the matter has been enquired into. The appointment of staff is within the powers of the Staff Selection Committee of the Kerala State Film Development Corporation. According to the delegation of powers to the Chairman/Managing Director, the appointment of staff is to be made subject to the approval of the Staff Selection Committee. Your application was also considered while selection was made to the post of Film Editor and the Staff Selection Committee and the Board of Directors had approved the appointment." (emphasis supplied) 12. The hopes of the petitioner to obtain justice from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were dashed by them. This petition was filed under the above auspices on 17th March, 1978. 13. In the first counter affidavit of the second respondent it was claimed that it had the applications of two persons at about the time it decided to make an appointment to the post of Film Editor, by the middle of 1977. According to the counter affidavit, the respective qualifications had been evaluated. In Para.6 of that affidavit, while dealing with the qualifications and experience of the petitioner, the following statement occurred: "He had been interviewed by the Chairman". The next paragraph is also given the number 6. It deals with the qualifications and experience of the 3rd respondent. According to the counter affidavit, the respective qualifications had been evaluated. In Para.6 of that affidavit, while dealing with the qualifications and experience of the petitioner, the following statement occurred: "He had been interviewed by the Chairman". The next paragraph is also given the number 6. It deals with the qualifications and experience of the 3rd respondent. It concluded by stating: "The vacancy for the post of the Film Editor was filled in on 29th June, 1977 with the prior approval of the Staff Selection Committee constituted by the Board of Directors. In this circumstance the petitioner was given a reply as evidenced by Ext. P-4." (emphasis supplied) It was later asserted in Para.8 that the appointment of the 3rd respondent was made by a selection on the basis of his experience and achievements in his professional field. In Para.9, the following averments occur: "As stated earlier, the petitioner's application was duly considered by the Corporation and the Chairman of the Corporation had formed opinion about the petitioner's professional competency in relation to the requirements of the Corporation when the petitioner called on him. Therefore there was no necessity to interview him on a second time." (emphasis supplied) Later, an attempt was made to justify the appointment; according to the Corporation, it had to be done in the exigencies of service. The early stages of its existence, and its dealing with complex technical work, and the fact that vacancies for technical posts would arise in accordance with the progress of work, were other factors relied on in-justification of the selection. It was claimed: "The management would have to resort to direct recruitment of adequately experienced technical staff in accordance with the rules of the undertaking in the public interest." 14. These averments had been denied by the petitioner in his reply affidavit referred to above. In Para.3 of the reply affidavit, the petitioner took strong objection to the averments in the counter affidavit relating to the 'interview' of the petitioner and asserted that they were contrary to facts. He stated: "The fact remains that the petitioner had never been called for an interview." 15. In Para.3 of the reply affidavit, the petitioner took strong objection to the averments in the counter affidavit relating to the 'interview' of the petitioner and asserted that they were contrary to facts. He stated: "The fact remains that the petitioner had never been called for an interview." 15. He gave an interesting description as to what had happened in what the Corporation termed to be the 'first interview': "The petitioner just called on the Chairman without any notice whatsoever and during the meeting apart from mere pleasantries he conveyed his sympathetic attitude towards the petitioner. ........... If the respondent characterises a casual meeting with no prior notice or appointment as an interview for the purpose of selection for appointment it would only mean that the respondent has absolutely no idea as to what is meant by an interview and it is easy to imagine how vicious his method of selection was." Further details in an attempt to show that the averments relating to the interview was absolutely baseless had also been given in the reply affidavit filed on 16th October, 1980. 16. The case came up for hearing on 20th October, 1981. On that day, the hearing was adjourned by a week. An additional counter affidavit was filed on 27th October 1981, apparently confronted with a situation which revealed that the averments in a solemn affidavit filed before this court on behalf of the 2nd respondent contained, to put it mildly, inaccurate particulars. This counter affidavit referred to its early history and gave the details relating to the selection process to the various posts in the Corporation. The counter affidavit further stated that the Managing Director was competent to effect the impugned appointment, as the scale of pay was less than Rs. 750. It was claimed that considering his experience on the technical side, the 3rd respondent was preferred. The averments relating to interview in the earlier affidavit, were sought to be clarified as follows:- "The interview as referred to in counter affidavit is not the interview as understood in common parlance in the matter of selection of candidates. In fact no such formal interview was necessary in this particular case. As far as the identification of the candidates are concerned the third respondent was already doing some works on contract basis for the company while the petitioner had already met the Chairman in connection with his candidature. In fact no such formal interview was necessary in this particular case. As far as the identification of the candidates are concerned the third respondent was already doing some works on contract basis for the company while the petitioner had already met the Chairman in connection with his candidature. Therefore the complaints that the petitioner had not been called upon for interview is baseless." It was later asserted: "All the merits and demerits on the basis of the experience of each candidate has been objectively considered by the Chairman before making appointment of the third respondent." 17. The writ petition poses two questions: (i) Whether the Film Development Corporation is amenable to writ jurisdiction, (ii) Whether the selection made is violative under Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution? If so, should this court interfere with that order, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution 18. On the first question, the principles of law which should guide a court to decide whether a corporate body is an instrumentality of the State, have been well settled. Som Prakash Rakhi's case, ( AIR 1981 SC 212 ) and its amplification in Ajay Hasia's case, ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) fairly exhaustively cover the field. Copious extracts from these and other decisions which have laid down the tests, need not be extracted at length, bearing in mind the words of Lord Hailsham that verbose justice is not necessarily good justice [See R. v. Lawrence ((1981) All ER 974 at 975)]. As stated by Lord Diplock, "reasons expressed in judgments constitute the raw material from which binding precedent is distilled". [See Home Office v. Harman (1982 (1) All ER 532)]. This court has in respect of similar Government companies such as, for example, the United Electrical Industries Ltd., Quilon, taken the view that they are authorities coming within Art.12 of the Constitution (See Judgment in O. P. No. 3607 of 1981 by Chandrasekhara Menon, J.) 19. The Corporation is, as stated earlier, incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. That, however, will not alter its essential character as an instrumentality of the State, if it is otherwise so. It is well settled that a mere corporeal veil will not render a State authority under Art.12 any the less an, instrumentality of the State. The Corporation is, as stated earlier, incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. That, however, will not alter its essential character as an instrumentality of the State, if it is otherwise so. It is well settled that a mere corporeal veil will not render a State authority under Art.12 any the less an, instrumentality of the State. Is the corporeal film that the Film Development Corporation has, so transparent as to exhibit the real personality of the Corporation as an instrumentality of the State? That appears to be the question. That it is a corporeal entity whose capital is contributed exclusively by the Government, is not disputed. The subscribers to the memorandum are the Governor of Kerala and the then Director of Public Relations. Under Art.4, the right of transfer of the share of the company is restricted. A share can be transferred by a member or other person entitled to transfer, only to person approved by the Government. Art.19 deals with the appointment of directors. Thereunder, it is the Governor who has to appoint directors, fix their salary and allowances or fees and determine the term during which they shall carry on the office. It is in the Governor's absolute discretion to remove any Director appointed to that office at any time. It is the Board of the Corporation that has to run its administration along with the Chairman and the Managing Director. It is given to the Governor as to who should be appointed as the Managing Director and who the Chairman of the Corporation. Art.23 indicates that the business and management of the Corporation shall be under the supervision, control and direction of the Board of Directors, to be carried on by the Managing Director. The dividend could be declared only with the approval of the Governor. The annual budget has to be submitted to the Governor and the approval thereof of the Governor has to be obtained every year. The Auditors of the company have to be appointed by the Central Government on the advice of the Controller and Auditor General of India. Powers are given to the Controller and the Auditor General of India under Art.41 to direct the manner in which the company's accounts shall be audited. The Auditors of the company have to be appointed by the Central Government on the advice of the Controller and Auditor General of India. Powers are given to the Controller and the Auditor General of India under Art.41 to direct the manner in which the company's accounts shall be audited. Under Art.42, a copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts with a copy of the Auditor's report has to be submitted by the Corporation to the Finance Secretary of the State of Kerala. 20. A very important indication on this question is given under Art.43. Thereunder, the Governor may, from time to time, issue such directives or instructions as may be necessary in regard to the functions and the conduct of the business and affairs of the Corporation. Other powers too have been given under sub clause.(ii) of that Article. It is the prerogative of the Governor not only to issue directives to the Corporation as to the exercise and performance of its functions in the manner referred to above, but also in matters involving national security or substantial public interest. The Governor is also invested with the power to ensure that the Corporation gives effect to such directives. 21. That such directives have been issued from time to time is not a matter in dispute. Ext. R-1 itself is proof positive of the existence of the directives and the subordinate functioning of the Corporation in the manner ordained by the Governor. 22. The Corporation also admits that the recruitment of its employees is entrusted with the Public Service Commission under the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation by Corporations and Companies) Rules, 1971 framed under the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as Respects Certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970, 'The Kerala State Film Development Corporation Limited' figures as item No. (xiii) in R.2(d) of the Rules which defines 'Government Company' for the purpose of the Rules. Under R.2A no appointment to the post brought under the purview of the Public Service Commission shall be made except on the advice of the Commission. The Corporation and the Government Company (which as per the definition takes in the Kerala State Film Development Corporation also), has to follow the procedure provided under R.3 in referring the matters thereunder to the Commission. The Corporation and the Government Company (which as per the definition takes in the Kerala State Film Development Corporation also), has to follow the procedure provided under R.3 in referring the matters thereunder to the Commission. Though the post in question has not been apparently brought under the purview of the Public Service Commission, the provisions have been referred to indicate the status which the Corporation occupies under law. The legislature of the State has recognised it as an instrumentality of the State and subject to the control contained in the salutory provisions of that enactment. 23. Having regard to the provisions referred to above, the contention of the Corporation that it is not an instrumentality of the Stale does not appear to be tenable. The averment in Para.4 of the counter affidavit filed on 15th December, 1981 reading: "The contention that the Film Development Corporation is in fact managed and controlled by the State Government is not correct. There is no effective control of the Government in the functions of the Company." is as inaccurate and wholly misleading as many other averments in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent. 24. Going by the guidelines given by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the corporation satisfies the essential tests for being an instrumentality of the State and that it comes within the definition of 'State' under Art.12 of the Constitution. The structure of the Corporation which is entirely of a Government undertaking, its pattern of functioning, the guidance given, the control exercised and the supervision undertaken in every relevant respect by the Government, the total subservience of the corporation to the directives issued by the Government (which has also got the necessary power as to ensure that the directives are implemented by the corporation) and the manner in which this corporation has been dealt with by an Act of the legislature of the State, all clearly establish that it is an authority coming within Art.12 of the Constitution and amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. 25. Having held that the Corporation, despite its being a persona ficta with a corporate veil is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court, the legality of the impugned action has next to be considered. 26. The petitioner has rightly founded his challenge on Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. 25. Having held that the Corporation, despite its being a persona ficta with a corporate veil is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court, the legality of the impugned action has next to be considered. 26. The petitioner has rightly founded his challenge on Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. The relevance of these Constitutional guarantees in relation to public appointments has been the subject of several judicial decisions. It is no longer necessary to have a circular tour of such decisions. The decisions have emphasised the importance of equality of opportunity for being considered for such public posts, for, "equality of access lies at the core meaning of the equal protection clause (See Arval A. Morris: Equal Protection). 27. A philosophy of absolute right of the employer, as observed by K. K. Mathew, J., in his book 'Democracy, Equality and Freedom' is incompatible with modern times. As observed by the Supreme Court in The Manager, Government Branch Press and another v. D. B. Belliappa ( 1979 (1) SCC 477 at 486): "To bring it in tune with vastly changed and changing socio economic conditions and mores of the day, much of this old, antiquated and unjust doctrine has been eroded by judicial decisions and legislation, particularly in its application to persons in public employment, to whom the Constitutional protection of Art.14, 15, 16 and 311 is available." While considering matters relating to employment the test of the action being reasonable, just or fair has been applied in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Wing Commander, J. Kumar v. Union of lndia and others ( AIR 1982 SC 1064 at 1071). (See Para.19 and 20). An insight into this concept is gatherable from the following observations of the Supreme Court: "Although the State need not always make a reasoned order of appointment, reasons relevant to the rules must animate the order. Moreover, an obligation to consider every qualified candidate is implicit in the equal opportunity right enshrined in Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. Screening a candidate out of consideration altogether, is illegal, if the applicant has eligibility under the Regulations. And for such a drastic step as refusal to evaluate comparatively, i.e., exclusions from the ring of competitor manifest grands must appear on the record." 28. Screening a candidate out of consideration altogether, is illegal, if the applicant has eligibility under the Regulations. And for such a drastic step as refusal to evaluate comparatively, i.e., exclusions from the ring of competitor manifest grands must appear on the record." 28. Judged by these guidelines, the facts of the case leave no room for doubt that there has not been any consideration at all of the petitioner's claim after the corporation decided to create the post. The file of the corporation does not even contain his application. The 'note' considered on 13th June, 1977 does not refer to the petitioner or his application. There is no indication whatever of any of the authorities, assessing the petitioner's entitlement to the post. There is not even a title of evidence to show that either the selection committee or the Board of Directors had applied their mind or considered the question whether the selection was one in which the petitioner's claim had been adverted to by the competent authority. The assertion of the Government in Ext. P-6 that the petitioner's "application was also considered while selection was made", is not supported by any documents or materials. Equally unsustainable is the assertion in the counter affidavits of the 2nd respondent that "the Corporation had in their files two applications ...... one from the petitioner and the other from the 3rd respondent". The file contains only the applications of the 3rd respondent and one G. Bhaskaran. Its assertion that the appointment was made on the basis of selection from the two candidates (suggesting thereby the petitioner and the 3rd respondent) has no factual foundation. On this sole ground, the action of the corporation in appointing the 3rd respondent to the post is liable to be quashed. It is desirable that the relevant facts are examined in some detail. 29. The 3rd respondent made an application for the post on 2nd June, 1977. He started his application with the following words: "I understand that an editor is to be appointed by the Corporation and as such, I apply for the post." 30. Creation of the post must have been decided upon some time after 20th December, 1976, for on 20th December, 1976 the corporation informed the petitioner that "it was too early to consider the appointment of a film editor". The petitioner had renewed his application on 20th January, 1977. Creation of the post must have been decided upon some time after 20th December, 1976, for on 20th December, 1976 the corporation informed the petitioner that "it was too early to consider the appointment of a film editor". The petitioner had renewed his application on 20th January, 1977. The Chairman then assured the petitioner that his application "would be considered as soon as possible". His application, however, was apparently consigned to convenient oblivion. 31. In marked contrast was the treatment the 3rd respondent's application was accorded. On the same day the application was made by the 3rd respondent, it was placed for 'the kind perusal of the Managing Director and the Chairman', and on the same day, there was a recommendation by the Managing Director which contains among others the following statement: "Sri Gopalakrishnan is a well experienced competent Film Editor. He has already done two films for us, I would recommend him for appointment. ......." Two queries appear to have been raised, one of which is very relevant for the purpose of the case. That reads: "We have to take decision on two points: (1) Are we going to invite applications and then screen them or take this applicant directly. (2) Regarding advance increments, what are the rules to be observed. This to be examined.'' Action appears to have been taken very swiftly on the query. The answer (presumably by the Finance Manager) to the query was: "The Chairman has recommended the name of Shri Gopalakrishnan for appointment as Film Editor. Earlier we had received an application from Sri C. A. Suresh Babu seeking appointment as Film Editor. He was also interviewed by the Chairman some time back. In view of the marginal remarks of the Chairman about the professional competence and larger experience of Shri Gopalakrishnan and also the nature of duties indicated by the Chairman, it appears that the preference is for him than for Shri Suresh Babu, who is also a qualified Film Editor. As the Chairman is fully satisfied with the competence of Shri Gopalakrishnan in relation to our requirements with his remarks on the application it is for consideration whether the vacancy need be notified. Regarding the other point, a separate note is being put up." 32. As the Chairman is fully satisfied with the competence of Shri Gopalakrishnan in relation to our requirements with his remarks on the application it is for consideration whether the vacancy need be notified. Regarding the other point, a separate note is being put up." 32. The files do not discuss how the person who gave the above answer got the information about the petitioner having been interviewed 'some time back' by the Chairman. The files do not contain any application of the petitioner or any other record containing the above information. The query whether the application should not be invited and applicants should not be selected appears to have been bye passed without any definite decision. And stranger still is the fact the 'answer to the query' does not refer to the claims of the applicant Sri. G. Bhaskaran whose application is seen in the file. Matters become 'curiouser and curiouser', when the consolidated note was put up on 13th June, 1977. Item (12) dealt with the appointment to the post of Film Editor. In that note the petitioner's name does not figure at all. The two persons referred to therein, are the 3rd respondent and Sri G. Bhaskaran. The note was to the following effect: "We have two applications here received from one Shri N. Gopalakrishnan and another Shri G. Bhaskaran. The former is now working as Editor and the latter as Assistant Editor in the Merryland Studio, Trivandrum. The Corporation had also engaged them for the work of our documentary. From the marginal remarks rendered by the Chairman on the applications of these two persons, it can be seen that they are well qualified with the work. Perhaps one of them may be considered for the post. It may be mentioned that it would not be proper to offer a higher start for the candidates as remarked by the Chairman, in view of the fact that the appointment is being effected without calling for application in public..........." (emphasis supplied) On 13th June, 1977 a marginal note is made to the effect that the post of Film Editor may be offered to Sri Gopalakrishnan. It is in the above manner, that the appointment of the 3rd respondent was made on 27th June 1977. The memo was despatched to him on 28th June 1977, presumably to the Neyyatinkara address. It is in the above manner, that the appointment of the 3rd respondent was made on 27th June 1977. The memo was despatched to him on 28th June 1977, presumably to the Neyyatinkara address. The 3rd respondent reported for duty in the forenoon of 29th June 1977. 33. It is unfortunate that a very relevant query whether the appointment should not be on the basis of applications, had been ignored, apparently in an unseemingly haste, without due deliberation. It is equally unfortunate that the application made and the reminders sent by the petitioner did not receive the attention, and a fair consideration by the selection committee, or of any of the responsible officials of that concern, or even at the level of the Government. 34. As regards the 'interview' claimed to have been conducted, as detailed in the counter affidavit of the Corporation, the less said the better. Admittedly no intimation had been given to the candidate about any proposed interview. No records are available to show the time, date and place of the interview. No minutes or other records are kept to show the nature and result of the interview. Confronted with a situation, where the averments in the first counter affidavit had been established to be untrue, a desperate attempt was made to give a commentary on the concept of 'interview' in the second counter affidavit. It was submitted there that a casual meeting made by a candidate while handing over an application will do duty for an interview to a post of reasonably high emoluments and of a responsible nature. By no known concept can such a casual meeting be treated as a meaningful interview, if interview has to serve any purpose intended thereby, be it a selection to a post or admission to a seat in a professional institution. See Anti v. State of J. & K. ( AIR 1981 SC 1009 ) Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1981 SC 1777 ). 35. The Supreme Court had occasion to give the guidelines as to the modality of a meaningful interview in a recent decision [See M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another ( 1980 (4) SCC 1 )]. 35. The Supreme Court had occasion to give the guidelines as to the modality of a meaningful interview in a recent decision [See M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another ( 1980 (4) SCC 1 )]. Suffice it to say, that the interview claimed to have been conducted by the Corporation is bereft of any legal validity; it even stands self condemned in the light of its own admissions contained in the second counter affidavit. There not having been any proper interview as understood in law, the selection is vitiated in law. I have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the order by which the 3rd respondent has been appointed to the post, without conforming to the elementary requirements of a legal selection process enjoined by the Constitution and obligated by the mandatory provisions of Art.14 and 16 thereof. 36. It was contended on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the appointment should not be set aside at this distance of time. I do not find any merit in such a contention. The naked violation of the Constitutional provisions cannot go unnoticed when the affected party approaches this court. It is true that immediately after the appointment he did not approach this court for relief. He pursued, and pursued vigorously, his remedies, with the Government, which has powers to issue necessary directives to the Corporation and to see that such directives are implemented. If a citizen pursued such remedies, it cannot be said of him that he was sleeping over his rights. It was really the Secretariat that was having a turpitude over the repeated representations. When ultimately the Government sent the reply Ext. P-6, it was vitiated by grossly inaccurate statements. It is regrettable that even when a specific complaint had been made about an unjust and illegal action on the part of the Corporation in filling up the post without any due regard to the basic requirements of law and principles governing appointments to public posts, the Government did not make an effective enquiry into such a complaint. The petitioner approached this court soon after the receipt of Ext. P-6. I reject the contention urged on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the writ petitioner is guilty of laches and acquiescence. 37. The petitioner approached this court soon after the receipt of Ext. P-6. I reject the contention urged on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the writ petitioner is guilty of laches and acquiescence. 37. Both counsel for the petitioner and for the 3rd respondent attempted to expatiate the superior qualifications and experience of their respective clients. I declined to go into those details, for, it is not the function of this court to make the selection to the post. It is essentially for the body invested with the power and authority to make such selection. If an honest selection is made, according to the requirements of law and of the Constitution, the selection would not ordinarily be set at naught. The selection in the present case, however, does not conform to the Constitutional requirements, for the reasons discussed above. Whether the petitioner or the 3rd respondent or any other persons would be more suitable, is a matter for the selecting body, when it proceeds to make a selection in accordance with law. 38. I, therefore, allow the writ petition, quash the decision of the Corporation relating to the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Film Editor, and the memo, dated 27th June, 1977, conveying the intimation of the appointment to the 3rd respondent. The Corporation shall fill up the post afresh and in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. The invalidation of the appointment may create some dislocation in the work of the Corporation. It will be open to the Corporation to devise suitable measures, on a provisional basis, to tide over the present situation. It may not take a long time to frame proper recruitment rules and to make a proper and legal appointment in a accordance with such rules. 39. Before parting with the case, it may be necessary to make some observations on matters which have incidentally arisen in the case. One such matter relates to the place of Corporations in general and their pattern of functioning, with particular reference to some disturbing features revealed in the functioning of the Film Development Corporation. 40. Public sector Corporations do play a very prominent part in our present democratic set up. One such matter relates to the place of Corporations in general and their pattern of functioning, with particular reference to some disturbing features revealed in the functioning of the Film Development Corporation. 40. Public sector Corporations do play a very prominent part in our present democratic set up. It was to give content and meaning to the Directive Principles of State policy enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, particularly Art.38 and 39 thereof, that the idea of creating and developing a strong public sector was conceived. Speaking about such public sector enterprises, a noted Economist observed: "There has undoubtedly been an element of idealism, if not ideology, in the push given to the public sector in the initial years of Planning. While capital accumulation and growth were assiduously sought, much stress was laid on ensuring that in the process, concentration of wealth and economic power in private hands was avoided. The early planners, especially Jawaharlal Nehru, saw in the public sector a means of reconciling economic development with distributive justice; both the means of production and the fruits of growth and development would vest with the Government, and therefore could be used to benefit the poorer sections of society." (emphasis supplied) (Observations in the lecture delivered by Dr. K. S. Krishnaswamy, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India in the Fourth Ajit Bhagath Memorial Lecture). It is essential that such instrumentalities of the State should function in a manner consistent with the laudable objectives with which they have been created. actions should be modulated by fairness and justice. That is a constitutional requirement. In its working, decisions which have the effect of changing existing notions may have to be taken and implemented. They can be so implemented consistent with the provisions of the Constitutions and the laws. Only recently, a decision taken by a local authority to carry out an election promise of the party which came to manage the authority, was struck down, despite its being honestly implemented and its apparent populist appeal. [See Bromley IBC v. CLC (1982 (1) All ER 129)] large powers are conferred on the persons in charge of such public undertakings. Conferment of such powers is conceived in the interest of an effective and dynamic functioning of such authorities. [See Bromley IBC v. CLC (1982 (1) All ER 129)] large powers are conferred on the persons in charge of such public undertakings. Conferment of such powers is conceived in the interest of an effective and dynamic functioning of such authorities. It is, however, desirable to bear in mind the observations of Watkins, L. J. in Bromely's case supra, where he observed: "Those who come newly to govern people and who act in haste in wielding power to which they are unaccustomed would do well to heed the words of Gladstone. He knew a great deal of power, and in 1890 he said of it: 'The true test of a man, the test of a class, the true test of a people is power. It is when power is given into their hands that the trial comes'." 41. This is particularly necessary as regards the institutions in the formative stage. Professor Wade during the Commonwealth Lawyers' Conference of 1971, in the course of the deliberations, emphasised, in answer to a query raised by a delegate, that an insistence on proper and well regulated functioning is all the more desirable in developing countries, and that such insistence need not be looked upon as a pattern of functioning of only the developed countries. In moulding a pattern of life and culture, it is essential that good trends and high moral standards are maintained in the developing stage. The observations appear to be as apposite in respect of nascent Corporations, as they are in respect of nascent democracies. A similar strand of thought was prominent when great academicians gave their views relating to the new universities. (vide 'New Universities in the modern world' edited by Murray Grose, 1966 Edition). High standards in the matter of effecting appointments have to be observed by the Corporations too. 42. Exigencies of situation may certainly necessitate appointments being made on an ad hoc or temporary basis, when the existence of the post could not be reasonably anticipated or the arising of a vacancy not normally expected. If such ad hoc appointments are made, to be followed by expeditious and mode of action to fill up the posts on a regular basis and in accordance with law and the constitutional provisions, that could not possibly be objectionable. If such ad hoc appointments are made, to be followed by expeditious and mode of action to fill up the posts on a regular basis and in accordance with law and the constitutional provisions, that could not possibly be objectionable. This court would not ordinarily rush to dissect the propriety or wisdom of such action, of which the State authority is ordinarily the best judge. Things are, however, different, when posts are filled up on a permanent basis and the selected personnel have all the advantages and benefits of a public appointment. May be, a post or a category of posts might not be entrusted with the Public Service Commission for having its selection process. The Corporation or its selection agency may have powers to fill up certain types of posts, for rational and justifiable reasons. But even there, the essential ingredients of a fair, reasonable and legal selection process must be scrupulously satisfied. While the particular manner in which appointments have to be made, may differ depending upon the exigencies, the principle is well entrenched that it should not be a cloistered one. That an advertisement is an effective way to attract the best talents is demonstrated by the large volume of advertisements one comes across in all forms of media. Even entrepreneurs or concerns who owe no public duty to follow a reasonable and equitable policy of recruitment, resort to such advertisements in an endeavour to get the services of the brightest and the best. I do recall the rows of notices of mighty Corporations and applications for appointments on the notice boards of the New York Law School, in an endeavour to get at the best legal talents fresh from the academic campus, to man their legal matters. Such publicity certainly has salubrious effect on the institutions requiring the talents and the talented persons seeking employment. 43. Whether you select a person for a public post, or for admission in a professional college, the basic requirements of reasonable standards have been already indicated and demonstrated by large number of judicial decisions, which have adjudicated diverse rival contentions in different contexts. A selection process, under our Constitutional set up, is aimed at the selection of the brightest and the best. Constitutionally permissible reservations, of course, form an understandable exception to this general rule. A selection process, under our Constitutional set up, is aimed at the selection of the brightest and the best. Constitutionally permissible reservations, of course, form an understandable exception to this general rule. A benign discrimination, it is well known, is intended to further the objective of obtaining effective and efficacious equality in truth and fact. See Alevy v. Down State Medical Centre of the State of Yew York where the following observation occur. "The 14th amendment was adopted to guarantee equality for blacks, and by logical extension has come to include all minority groups. ..... Additionally, the Amendment has been interpreted as permitting, if not requiring, the correction of historical invidious discrimination. It would indeed be ironic and, of course, would cut against the very grain of the Amendment, were the equal protection clause used to strike down measures designed to achieve real equality for persons whom it was intended to aid." (See Protective Discrimination in the United States by Robert L. Hardgrave) 44. Publicity -- adequate publicity - is a sine qua non of any fair action. It has been so accepted from the times of Bentham. He said: "Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and surest of all guards against improbity." This well known passage has been quoted by Shaw, L. J. in Scott v. Scott (1913 Appeal Cases 417), where reference has been made to the role of publicity as disciplining the judiciary; it has also been referred to in the recent decision in 1982 (1) All ER 523 and 537. (There, however, appears to be a printers devil in the passage as extracted in All ER, the word 'improvity' occurring in place of improbity). The selection process in the present case has been little better than a secret one. The Corporation decided to create the post of a Film Editor. Barring the petitioner and the third respondent and one Bhaskaran, no citizen in this State appears to have had any knowledge about the existence of such a post and the prospect of its being filled up. And even these three persons happened to know about the same and pursued their applications, out of accidental circumstances. 45. When the State and the instrumentalities of the State disregard the solemn constitutional duty under Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution, courts have necessarily to step in. And even these three persons happened to know about the same and pursued their applications, out of accidental circumstances. 45. When the State and the instrumentalities of the State disregard the solemn constitutional duty under Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution, courts have necessarily to step in. The words of Lord Kenyon said in different context may be apposite here: "But, if an individual can break down any of those safeguards which the Constitution has so wisely and to cautiously erected ........ he will stab the administration of justice in its most vital parts." Such persons have been characterised as 'guilty of a crime of the greatest enormity'. See The King v. Jolliffe (4 TR 285 at 289). 46. Our own Supreme Court, in Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1982 SC 1107 ), had occasion to refer to the relationship that exists or ought to exist between the Government and the people in India, and had pointed out that it is different from the relationship between the ruler and his subjects in the west. (See Para.49 and 50 of the above judgment). The attitude of the Indian ruler was portrayed with reference to Sri Rama. Probably the Supreme Court had in mind the lines in Ramayana (Edited by Remesh C. Dutt in 1936). "Truth and justice each action swayed And each baser motive quelled People's love and Monarch's duty Every thought and deed impelled." 47. The files produced by the Corporation, does not evidence a desirable level of perfection in the matter of maintenance of files. As has been already stated above, papers which, normally ought to have found their place, are missing in the file produced. It appears to have been one reconstructed from some other file, as is evident from the duplication in the paginations given. Out of the 27 pages and 30 papers contained in the file, the first nine refer to pages 189 to 197, the next four refer to pages 199 to 205, the next three refer to pages 313 to 317, and the balance two refer to 409 and 411 of some other file. 48. Apart from the unsatisfactory nature of the file, the contents thereof, particularly the note starting at page 23 reveal disturbing features of the arbitrary manner in which appointments to various posts are made. 48. Apart from the unsatisfactory nature of the file, the contents thereof, particularly the note starting at page 23 reveal disturbing features of the arbitrary manner in which appointments to various posts are made. It appears that in respect of certain posts deputation was suggested; in respect of certain others, the Employment Exchange was sought to be approached for sponsoring the candidates; in respect of many, appointments and regularisations were ordered; when it came to the question of filling up the post of Assistant Film Officer Grade I, and when there was application for that post, and even when he had met the Chairman, the decision was: "It would be better to invite applications so as to avoid criticism. Shri. Menon can also apply." (emphasis supplied) Not being the subject matter of this writ petition, I do not want to make any comments on the same. 49. It is also necessary to make a comment on the way in which the counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is unfortunate that the counter affidavits of the Corporation had been prepared without any regard for accuracy or truth. This court with the constraints of time in dealing with thousands of writ petitions which are before it, has necessarily to go by the averments contained in the affidavits and counter affidavits. Counter affidavits of the Government and of responsible public authorities, are often treated as reflecting the correct statements of facts, having regard to the status and position of the Government and such authorities. The Supreme Court had in Mohammed Ibrahim v. Rama Rao ( AIR 1976 SC 1822 ), occasion to caution: "We cannot, however, part with this case without drawing the attention of the State Government to what seems to be a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to an unreported judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G. Satyanarayan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [Writ Petns. Nos. 1480 and 1525 of 1968 decided on 5th March, 1969 (Andhra Pradesh)] in which the High Court, expressed its grave concern at innumerable instances in which irresponsible statements were made, without any regard to accuracy, in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government. The case before us is yet another instance of the malady. Nos. 1480 and 1525 of 1968 decided on 5th March, 1969 (Andhra Pradesh)] in which the High Court, expressed its grave concern at innumerable instances in which irresponsible statements were made, without any regard to accuracy, in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government. The case before us is yet another instance of the malady. We hope that the higher officers of the State Government will cease hereafter to utilise the lower ones to provide an alibi for their own want of care and that the legal advisers of the Government will display greater competence and attention in drafting affidavits." It is therefore absolutely essential that the counter affidavits are prepared with extreme care and objectivity, ensuring that the statements are supported by documents or other materials. The misleading averments in the counter affidavit have been already referred to above. If this court had proceeded on the assumption that such averments were correct, it would have entailed the dismissal of the writ petition. A probe into the files had been undertaken by this court, alerted by the inconsistent statements in the counter affidavits and other attendant circumstances. 50. I deeply pondered over the question whether action should not be taken against the deponent for such a serious lapse. After due deliberation, I have decided not to initiate any such proceedings, in the hope and trust that the disapprobation of the conduct of the deponent would be sufficient to avert the repetition of such serious lapses in future. 51. I conclude with the words of the Supreme Court: "An administrator's action should be such as is not driven to repent for the mistakes he may have committed, but if he has committed any mistake in the past, he should try to avoid a repetition of such mistakes"� 52. The original petition is allowed as indicated above. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs in the writ petition, from the 4th respondent Corporation