Judgment :- 1. The State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum, the 1st respondent in O. P. No. 132"8 of 1981-G has come up with this writ appeal. Our learned brother Chandrasekhar Menon, J. has allowed the writ petition. The writ petitioner is stated to be a Clerk-Typist in the State Bank of Travancore; and she had appeared for written test conducted for promotion as officers junior management grade (groups A and B). She is stated to have come but successful in the written test and she was also called for interview. According to the writ petitioner, she had done well in the interview also. It has been averred that the petitioner, who is a double graduate, was having a clean record of service with no adverse entry against her in the confidential reports. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 3 not to make regular promotions on the basis of Ext. P4, or to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P4 select list prepared by the authority as it is patently arbitrary and discriminatory, violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. Other incidental reliefs sought in the writ petition include the inclusion of the petitioner in the select list and the grant of promotion to her accordingly. 2. In the counter-affidavit it is not disputed that the petitioner had fared well in the written test; nor is there any dispute in regard to the averments made in the writ petition with respect to her qualifications. The only reason for her non-inclusion in the select list for promotion is that she failed to obtain the minimum percentage of marks prescribed at the interview. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant-respondent that the allotment of marks is as follows: 100 for written test, 33 for oral or interview; and 61/2 the minimum qualifying marks for the interview. In the petitioner's case the deciding factor was evidently the interview which lasted only for a few minutes. It rendered her performance in the written test totally irrelevant. 3. The learned judge found that the interview played an overwhelmingly important part so as to make it the decisive factor to disqualify a candidate when he did not get the minimum percentage of marks fixed, and that such arbitrary rule vitiated the selection process. It rendered her performance in the written test totally irrelevant. 3. The learned judge found that the interview played an overwhelmingly important part so as to make it the decisive factor to disqualify a candidate when he did not get the minimum percentage of marks fixed, and that such arbitrary rule vitiated the selection process. The learned judge also said that persons who did not approach the Court in time would not be entitled to any relief; and therefore interests of justice would be served by directing the inclusion of the petitioner also in the select list provided the aggregate of the mark obtained by her in the written and oral tests was found to exceed that of any one who had been selected, proceeding on the basis that there was no qualifying minimum marks fixed for the interview. In the matter of seniority among those selected etc., the direction in the judgment under appeal was that the petitioner should be given the consequential benefits if she was selected in implementation of the directions in the judgment. It is aggrieved by the directions in the judgment the appellant-respondent Bank has filed this writ appeal. 4. It was submitted before us by the counsel for the appellant that the management ought to have the right to choose the candidates for promotion on the basis of the merits assessed, whatever be the yardstick adopted for the purpose. It was also submitted that interview was one of the methods of assessing the merits and suitability of the candidates. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (AIR. 1981 SC. 1777). That was a case in which the Supreme Court held that the selection for the posts of Munsiffs could not be struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview test in that 25 per cent marks was allotted to viva voce under the rules and thus, the selection was arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 16. We do not think that in that decision the Supreme Court has, while approving interview as one of the methods to decide the suitability of candidates for selection for appointments, gone to the extent of approving a device by which the results of the written test could be rendered totally irrelevant, and the result at the interview which lasted for a minute the decisive factor of selection. In the very same decision the Supreme Court has emphasised that: "Thus, the written examination assesses the man's 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 features 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 candidate's 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. That was what was decided by this Court in Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR. 1971 SC. 2303), Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (AIR. 1981 SC. 487) and other cases. "(emphasis supplied)." 5. In the instant case, what the learned judge said in Para.16 of the judgment under appeal reads as follows: "Therefore I have no doubt in a case where the oral test the interview plays an overwhelmingly important part the decisive factor as in the case as to disqualify a candidate when he does cot get a minimum fixed there, the whole selection would be vitiated. Going by Lila Dhar's case too the marks of both the interview and the written examination should be added together and the persons who top the aggregate total marks should be selected. In a country where sixty per cent of the people are below the poverty line but where the right to equality is made a fundamental right, any method of selection which is likely to favour the elitist class should not be favoured upon. To give the predominant place to the interview oral test is likely to favour candidates belonging to the affluent class. To give the predominant place to the interview oral test is likely to favour candidates belonging to the affluent class. A man of real worth and quality because of the social position in which he and his family may be placed, because of the environment in which he was brought up and in which he may still be placed may give a totally wrong impression of oneself. A person coming from the financially well-to-do class who might have had his schooling in a Public School of the elitist class, though really not of that standard and of that depth of learning in any subject as the other candidate from the poorer class, may give the impression of a smart fellow a good first impression. It would be a deceptive impression. This is not an interview by a psychiatrist who could make a judgment of Leadership and initiative even from a first impression. As the Supreme Court itself has recognised as of some weight, an interview examination in a highly subjective and impressionistic test where the result is likely to be influenced by many uncertain and imponderable factors such as the predilections and prejudice of the interviewer, his attitudes and approaches, his pre-conceived notions and idiosyncrasies. It is likely to give scope for discrimination and manipulation." 6. We are of the opinion that the reasoning given by the learned judge is sound and is in keeping with the spirit of guideline given by the Supreme Court in the various decisions. Accordingly we find no scope for interference with the decision of the learned single judge, particularly in view of the restricted operation given to the judgment under appeal. The result, therefore is that the appeal is dismissed. Dismissed. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced counsel for the appellant bank made an oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not find any substantial question of general importance which, in our opinion, requires to be settled by the Supreme Court involved in this case; hence the request is declined. Leave refused.