JUDGMENT Amrendra Nath Verma, J. - In this bunch of petitions, the various petitioners who are teachers in different Intermediate Colleges, have challenged the validity of the selections held by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) for the appointment of heads of the petitioners colleges. The petitioners have further claimed the relief of a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation by the Commission of the candidates for appointment as Principals of the various Colleges. 2. As a result of the impugned selections, the Commission has recommended the names of the private respondents for appointment to the post of Principal of the concerned Intermediate Colleges. 3. The impugned selections have been challenged by the petitioners on a variety of grounds which will be dealt with below. Before the various submissions are considered, it will be necessary to set out the background of the various pieces of legislation in which the aforesaid Act came to be passed as well as the broad outlines of this enactment. 4. Prior to 1981, the appointment of the Heads of Intermediate Colleges was governed by the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The scheme under this Act was that the post of the head of an intermediate college was required to be filled by direct recruitment except where an institution was raised from a High School to an Intermediate College in which case the Head Master of such a High School stood automatically promoted as Principal of Intermediate College provided he possessed the prescribed minimum qualifications and a good record of service. The selection of candidates for appointment to the post of head of an Intermediate College used to be made with the aid of a selection committee which consisted of (i) the President or any member of the Committee of Management of the College nominated by the Committee by a resolution in that behalf; (ii) a member of the Committee of Management other than one referred to above and (iii) three experts nominated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. 5. It appears that the process of selection contemplated under the.U. P. Intermediate Education Act gave rise to considerable discontent among the aspirants for the post of heads of institutions. There were general complaints against the fairness of these selections. 5. It appears that the process of selection contemplated under the.U. P. Intermediate Education Act gave rise to considerable discontent among the aspirants for the post of heads of institutions. There were general complaints against the fairness of these selections. The candidates complained that large scale nepotism, favouritism and corruption was rampant in the matter of selection of teachers and heads of institutions. It was found by the Government that it was unsafe to leave the matter of selection of teachers in the hands of selection committees which were dominated by various factions of the Committees of Management. 6. With a view to curbing the above evil and further to restore confidence in the selection of teachers, the State Government promulgated the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Ordinance, 1981 which provided for establishment of a Commission called the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission which was to consist of a chairman and not less than six but not more than eight other members to be appointed by the State Government. Of the members one was to be a person who occupies or has occupied a position of eminence in Judicial Services; two were to be persons who may have occupied a position of eminence in the State Education Services and the others were required to have teaching experiences as (i) professor of any University, (ii) Principal of any college recognised by or affiliated to any such University for a period of not less than ten years and (iii) Principal of any institution recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for a period of not less than fifteen years. 7. The Ordinance provided that the Commission shall have the powers and duties to prepare guidelines on matters relating to the method of recruitment and promotion of teachers and heads of institutions and to conduct examinations where considered necessary, hold interviews and make selection of candidates for being appointed as such teachers. It further provided that the Commission shall make recommendations regarding the appointment of selected candidates and their promotion. The Commission was also invested with the powers of making regulations prescribing fees for holding selections, for conducting examinations, where necessary, or for holding interviews and laying down the procedure to be followed by the Commission for discharging its duties and performing its functions. Under cl. The Commission was also invested with the powers of making regulations prescribing fees for holding selections, for conducting examinations, where necessary, or for holding interviews and laying down the procedure to be followed by the Commission for discharging its duties and performing its functions. Under cl. 16 of the Ordinance it was further provided that every appointment of a teacher or head of an institution shall, after the date of promulgation of the Ordinance, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission. 8. It appears that there was some delay in the establishment of the Commission as a result of which some Removal of Difficulties Orders were passed for making ad hoc appointments under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act for the interim period i.e., until the establishment of the Commission. 9. Eventually the Ordinance was replaced by the aforesaid U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. It contained provisions which were identical with those of the Ordinance mentioned above in so far as the establishment of the Commission, its composition and its powers and duties were concerned. 10. Under the aforesaid Act a Commission was established consisting of members drawn from the various categories mentioned above. Section 3 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 provides for establishment of the Commission. Section 4 deals with the composition of the Commission. Section 9 lays down the powers and duties of the Commission. Section 10 provides for the procedure for selection of teachers and heads of the institutions. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 provides that the procedure for selecting of candidates for appointment to the posts of teachers and heads of institutions shall be as may be prescribed, provided that the Commission shall, with a view to inviting talented persons, give wide publicity in the State. Section 16 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the Regulations made thereunder, every appointment of a teacher shall on or after July 10, 1981 (the date on which the aforesaid Ordinance was promulgated), be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission. Section 16 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the Regulations made thereunder, every appointment of a teacher shall on or after July 10, 1981 (the date on which the aforesaid Ordinance was promulgated), be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission. There is then Section 32 on which considerable stress was laid by learned counsel for the petitioners which provides that the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations made thereunder in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance or the rules or regulations made thereunder shall continue to be in force for the purposes of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher. Section 34 of the Act says that the Commission may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make or amend regulations prescribing fees for holding selections, for conducting examinations where necessary or for holding interviews and laying down the procedure to be followed by the Commission for discharging its duties and performing its functions under this Ordinance. Section 35 vests in the State Government power to make rules by notifications for carrying on the purpose of this Ordinance. 11. In pursuance of Section 35, the State Government has framed rules which are called the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. Rule 3 provides that the minimum academic qualification for appointment as a teacher (which term includes a Principal or a Headmaster) shall be as given in Regulation I under Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Rule 4 casts a duty on the management to determine and intimate to the Commission the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment. 12. Rule 4 (1) (ii) which again was the subject of considerable debate at the Bar reads thus:- "(ii) In regard to the post of head of an institution, the Management shall also forward the names of two seniormost teachers, copies of their service record (including character rolls) and such other record or particulars as the Commission may require from time to time. Explanation:- for the purpose of this sub-rule `senior-most teachers' means the seniormost teachers in the post of the highest grade in the institution, irrespective of total service put in the institution." 13. Rule 5 enjoins the Commission to advertise the vacancies in at least two newspapers having wide circulation in the State and also to notify the same to the Deputy Director. Rule 6 then provides that the Commission shall scrutinise the applications and then call for interview such number of candidates as it may consider proper. Clause (2) of Rule 6 provides that if on account of excess number of applications, the Commission considers it desirable to limit the number of candidates to be called for interview, it may in the case of the post of Head of an institution hold preliminary screening on the basis of academic record, teaching and administrative experience provided that the number of candidates to be called for interview shall, as far as possible, be not less than five times the number of vacancies. Rule 7 lays down that the Commission shall prepare an institution-wise panel of those found most suitable for appointment and arrange them in order of merit. Rule 7 (2) provides that the panel prepared under sub-rule (1) shall hold good for one year from the date of its notification by the Commission. Under Rule 8 the Commission forwards the panel to the Deputy Director who, within fifteen days of the receipt of the panel, is required to notify it on his notice board and send two copies to the Inspector. The Inspector in his turn intimates the names of the selected candidates to the Management which is required under sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 to comply with the directions i.e. make appointment in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission. 14. The above then is a brief survey of the relevant statutory provisions. 15. We now proceed to deal with the various submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 16. The first contention raised by leraned counsel for the petitioners was that Section 9 (a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 are liable to be struck down as amounting to delegation of essential legislative functions to the Commission. 15. We now proceed to deal with the various submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 16. The first contention raised by leraned counsel for the petitioners was that Section 9 (a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 are liable to be struck down as amounting to delegation of essential legislative functions to the Commission. In support learned counsel cited several decisions of the Supreme Court (Article 143, Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act (1912) etc.) In re, ( AIR 1951 SC 332 ); Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Delhi, ( AIR 1968 SC 1232 ), B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry ( AIR 1967 SC 1480 ), D. S. Garewal v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1959 SC 512 ) and A. V. Nachane v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 205 ;(1982 Lab IC 161). 17. We find no merit in the above contention. There is no dispute so far as the principle of delegation of powers is concerned. It is true that if the Legislature abdicates its essential legislative functions to the delegate, the statute would be liable to be struck down as suffering from the vice of delegation of essential legislative functions. In the present case, however, we find that Section 9 (a) and (b) does not suffer from that vice. The Commission has been empowered and charged with the duty of making selections after holding examinations where considered necessary or on the basis of interviews and thereafter make selection of candidates for being appointed as teachers or heads of institutions. The legislative policy behind the enactment as discernible from its various provisions, namely, that of choosing the most suitable candidate after holding interviews or examinations, where considered necessary, from amongst the candidates possessing the prescribed minimum qualifications, having been clearly indicated by various provisions of the Act, the duty to prepare guidelines on matters relating to the method of recruitment and promotion and to conduct examinations or to hold interviews for that purpose cannot be regarded as delegation of essential legislative functions. The Commission is composed of eminent members of the Judicial Service and eminent and experienced academic men such as professors of an university or a principal of a college affiliated to an university having an experience of not less than ten years or a principal of an intermediate college having an experience of not less than fifteen years. Consequently, leaving the preparation of guidelines on matters relating to the method of recruitment and, promotions or the duty to hold interviews and make selections on its basis can, by no stretch, be regarded as essential legislative functions. In the present case, we find that the entire procedure for holding selections has been laid down in the Rules framed by the State Government itself. It is only the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview as well as the criteria for interview test, etc. which have been left to be determined by the Commission. Obviously, these are not essential legislative functions but are matters of detail to be worked out by a high powered commission which alone, we do venture to think, is the best agency for preparation of guidelines on these matters. 18. The second argument was that the powers of the commission under Section 9 can be exercised only through the regulation making power vested in the Commission under Section 34 of the Act, with the previous approval of the State Government and not by any orders or decisions of the Commission. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on Section 4 (33) (a) of the U. P. General Clauses Act which provides that in a statute the term prescribed means prescribed by regulations which includes rules framed under the statute. 19. The argument is devoid of any merit. The Commission has not purported to exercise any power outside the rules and regulations framed under the Act. The substance of various rules having relevance to the controversy has already been set out in detail. The entire procedure beginning from notification of vacancy up to the holding of interviews and thereafter preparation of the panel of names, etc. are all dealt with by the rules framed by the U. P. Government itself. 20. In addition, acting under Rule 34, the Commission has, with the prior approval of the State Government framed regulations which were duly notified on August 22, 1983. are all dealt with by the rules framed by the U. P. Government itself. 20. In addition, acting under Rule 34, the Commission has, with the prior approval of the State Government framed regulations which were duly notified on August 22, 1983. These regulations have been described as U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations 1983. The regulations lay down in detail how the procedure and conduct of business of the Commission shall be regulated. Regulation 6 (1) provides that the Commission shall constitute Board or Boards for interview/viva voce test of candidates for various posts for which selection is to be made. Regulation 8 in so far as is relevant for our purpose, stands thus:- "(8). (1) The proforma for submission of applications and the procedure and methodology for - (a) Registration of applications received, (h) Preliminary scrutiny if any considered necessary for short listing of applicant candidates, (c) Organisation including fixing Of subjects and syllabus etc. of the competitive examination, if any, to be held, (d) Organising interviews, (e) Evaluation of candidates consequent to the interview, (f) Preparation of final select lists and other allied matters: will be as decided by the Commission from time to time. (2) Except the seniormost teachers whose names are forwarded for the post of the Principal/Head Master in accordance with Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, no candidate shall be admitted to the examination or interview unless he has duly applied on prescribed form and has deposited the prescribed fees in accordance with the prescribed mode within the specified time." 21. It will thus be seen that the entire procedure for the selection of Principals has been laid down by the rules or regulations framed under the Act. Regulation 8 (1) specifically empowers the Commission to lay down the procedure or methodology for evaluation of candidates consequent to the interview for preparation of final select list and other allied matters. These regulations have received the prior approval of the State Government and they empower the Commission to work out the methodology for evaluation of candidates on the basis of the interviews. Regulation 8 (1) (b) further authorises the Commission specifically to do preliminary screening if considered necessary for short listing of applicant candidates. This is also provided under Rule 6 of the Rules framed by the State Government. 22. Regulation 8 (1) (b) further authorises the Commission specifically to do preliminary screening if considered necessary for short listing of applicant candidates. This is also provided under Rule 6 of the Rules framed by the State Government. 22. In pursuance of the aforesaid Regulations as well as the Rules the Commission took a decision as regards the screening of the applications on the basis of quality point marks based on the factors mentioned in Rule 6, namely, academic record, teaching and administrative experience. The allocation of marks as determined by the Commission has been set out in detail in the short counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents in all these petitions. According to this counter-affidavit maximum quality point marks for academic record have been put at 160 and those for teaching experience and administrative experience at 20 each, total 200. On the basis of these quality point marks of each of the general candidates the Commission decided to call the first five for interview in addition to the two teacher candidates who were called for interview in terms of Rules 4 (1) (ii) in respect of each of the institution. The Commission also decided to allocate 75 marks for interview which are awarded on the basis of various factors given in Annexure C-A. 2. to the short counter-affidavit. Finally on the basis of the marks awarded by the members of the interview board, the Commission selects the candidate obtaining the highest marks. 23. The allocation of marks under different heads and the modalities adopted for the selection of candidates on the basis of the interview held by the Commission are matters which are based on the decision taken by the Commission in terms of Regulation 8 of the Regulations framed by the Commission. 24. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the Commission has acted without framing the regulations or outside the same. The entire action taken by the Commission in the matter of impugned selections flowed directly from the rules framed by the State Government as well as regulations framed by it with the prior approval of the State Government. 25. 24. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the Commission has acted without framing the regulations or outside the same. The entire action taken by the Commission in the matter of impugned selections flowed directly from the rules framed by the State Government as well as regulations framed by it with the prior approval of the State Government. 25. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that even the allocation of quality point marks by the Commission and its decision to make selections on the basis of the marks obtained at the interviews, were matters which had to be prescribed in the regulations themselves. The regulations having authorised the Commission to take decisions on these matters. It cannot be argued with any validity that the Commission has acted otherwise than in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act within the meaning of Section 10(2). Clause (ii) of the second proviso to Rule 6 having specified the criteria oh the basis of which candidates were to be screened, namely, their academic record, teaching and administrative experience, and further the policy of making selections on the basis of the most suitable candidates having been disclosed with sufficient particularity in the Act, laying down the guidelines in pursuance of Regulation 8 (1) could not be said to have been done otherwise than in the prescribed manner within the meaning of Section 10 (2) of the Act. We, therefore, reject the argument that the guidelines laid down by the Commission as regards the screening of the general candidates on the basis of quality point marks and subsequently making recommendations on the basis of the marks obtained both by general candidates as well as teacher candidates at the interview, had to be prescribed in the regulations themselves. 26. For the petitioners, the next submission was that the entire methodology adopted by the Commission for making selections was arbitrary and was hit by Article 14 of Constitution. It was urged that different yardsticks were applied by the Commission for making selections in regard to teacher candidates and the general candidates. 27. Having given the matter a careful consideration we find that the above contentions are devoid of any substance. It was urged that different yardsticks were applied by the Commission for making selections in regard to teacher candidates and the general candidates. 27. Having given the matter a careful consideration we find that the above contentions are devoid of any substance. The methodology adopted by the Commission has been elaborated in the short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents referred to above according to which after the occurrence of a vacancy in an institution and intimation of the same by the Management to the Commission as required under Rule 4, all the requisitions made by various institutions for filling up the posts of heads of institutions falling in a region are pooled together and the various applications received by the general candidates are processed and a graded list prepared on the basis of quality point marks, the details of which are given in Annexure-CA-1 and have been outlined hereinabove. These quality point marks are determined with reference to the criteria as regards the academic record, teaching and administrative experience and the marks allocated are worked out on the basis of the methodology' and guidelines indicated in the said annexure. The preference given by each applicant in respect of an institution treating it as separate unit is also noted. This process is thereafter computerised according to the information supplied by the candidates in their respective formats. After that first five candidates are picked up from the top of the graded list prepared in the unit in the manner indicated above, these along with the teacher candidates of the unit are required to appear before the interview board constituted for the unit on lottery system on the date of the interview. The board is manned by three experts drawn in accordance with the rules and two members of the Commission. Every candidate is then interviewed by the Board, the interview lasting on an average fifteen to twenty;minutes for each candidate. Marks are allotted by individual members of the Board by the method of grading at the end or the interview on the basis of the criteria which has been indicated in Annexure-CA-2 which reads thus;- "Madhyamik Shiksha Ayog. The candidates called for interview have ( to be adjudged by members of the Board for 75 marks, keeping in view the following factors. 1. Personality, 2. Knowledge of the subject, 3. The candidates called for interview have ( to be adjudged by members of the Board for 75 marks, keeping in view the following factors. 1. Personality, 2. Knowledge of the subject, 3. Knowledge of current ideas and problems of the educational work and diagnostic attitude towards them. 4. General knowledge. 5. Administrative ability regarding school management. 6. Self expressive and impressive views. 7. Achievement in curricular activities of the regional and State levels." 28. After the seven candidates referred to have been interviewed the average of the marks given by the members of the Board is calculated and the average for each general candidates is assigned as their respective marks in the interview. 29. In the case of teacher candidates the methodology adopted for computing the marks obtained by them at the interview may be set out in the own words of the respondents as disclosed in paragraph 4 (e) of the short counter-affidavit:- "In case of two teacher candidates their service record and experience is evaluated by the two members of the commission in the Board on the basis of the guidelines fixed by the Commission. According to which some marks in a definite proportion are availed of the maximum marks fixed for the interview and the service record and experience of the teacher candidate is evaluated against such marks in a manner prescribed by the Commission. The marks obtained thus by the teacher candidates is modulated in the same proportion with the marks obtained by the teacher candidates in interview along with the general candidates. On doing so, of the two marks obtained by the teacher candidates that which stands to the advantage of the teacher candidate is taken into account and accordingly marks so obtained are assigned to the teacher candidates as their marks in the interview. 30. As a result of the marks allocated to the seven candidates if it is found that the teacher candidate secured the top position he is selected as the head of the institution straightway. In case the teacher candidate does not secure the top position, the institution is thrown open for the general candidates. 30. As a result of the marks allocated to the seven candidates if it is found that the teacher candidate secured the top position he is selected as the head of the institution straightway. In case the teacher candidate does not secure the top position, the institution is thrown open for the general candidates. In the latter case for every institution so opened for general candidates a graded list is prepared for the unit on the basis of the total marks arrived at by adding the quality point marks to the marks obtained by them at the interview and the preference given by the general candidates in the category. The first three candidates on the top of such a list are set out in the panel of the institution and the same is sent to the Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 31. The above then is the methodology and the criteria adopted by the Commission for making recommendations. That the methodology adopted by the Commission as set out in the short counter affidavit in point of fact was not challenged by the petitioners before us. 32. In our opinion, the criteria and the process of selection adopted by the Commission cannot, by any stretch be regarded as arbitrary or impinging upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the remotest degree. 33. The Commission does preliminary screening on the basis of academic record as well as teaching and administrative experience in accordance with Rule 6 and by a process of elimination selects the best five candidates on the basis of the quality point marks obtained by them. These five candidates and the two teacher candidates whom the Commission is obliged to call for inter view irrespective of the quality point marks under Rule 4(1) (ii) are then interviewed and the marks obtained by them at the interview then become the criteria for making selections. These five candidates and the two teacher candidates whom the Commission is obliged to call for inter view irrespective of the quality point marks under Rule 4(1) (ii) are then interviewed and the marks obtained by them at the interview then become the criteria for making selections. So far as the teacher candidates are concerned, the petitioners can hardly have any legitimate grievance against the methodology adopted by the Commission inasmuch as the inter se competition between them and the other five general candidates is held on a basis which is wholly favourable to them in that the marks allotted to them at the interview through both the processes indicated above are determined and thereafter that which is more favourable to the teacher candidates is retained for the purpose of final selections. 34. The petitioners can, therefore, have no legitimate grievance if the final selections are made on the basis of the marks given to the candidates (general as well as teachers) at the interview. If the teacher candidate secures the highest marks, the process of selection for that institution comes to a close. If, however, the teacher candidate does not get the highest marks, the post is thrown open to the general candidates. This appears to be perfectly fair and reasonable in that the policy seems to be that if the teacher candidate is found to be the best amongst the seven candidates, he should be appointed to the post being one who has already been serving in that institution. This policy of some weightage in favour of the teacher candidates seems quite reasonable and proper and is in consonance with the policy of the State Government as disclosed by the rules framed by it under the Act. 35. The contention of the petitioners in this connection, however, was that if the teacher candidate does not secure the highest marks at the interview, his quality point marks should also be considered along with those of the general candidates in drawing up of the panel of three candidates. It was urged that it is quite possible that a teacher candidate might on his quality point marks being added to the marks obtained by him at the interview, entitle him to get at least the second or third position in the panel. 36. It was urged that it is quite possible that a teacher candidate might on his quality point marks being added to the marks obtained by him at the interview, entitle him to get at least the second or third position in the panel. 36. The argument is misconceived and it ignores some basic features of the manner in which the teacher candidates are before the Commission for the interview. As found above, the methodology adopted for allocation of marks to the teacher candidate at the interview is different for the simple reason that in order that the competition between the teacher candidate and the general candidate might be fair and reasonable despite the fact that they have been drawn from two different sources, the teaching and administrative experience including the service record of the teacher candidates are also considered as these were not considered at any prior stage because they were not subjected to the process of screening unlike the general candidates. 37. Further because of the simple fact that a large number of general candidates whose quality point marks may have been much higher than those of the petitioners having been already screened out at the preliminary screening, it would be grossly unfair to take into account the quality point marks of the teacher candidates at this stage, i.e., after the interviews. Moreover, the teacher candidates are not barred from applying as general candidates and if they consider that by virtue of their quality point marks they have a better chance, they are free to come through that channel in which case they would be treated at par with the general candidates at all stages. The source material in the case of general candidates and the teacher candidates being different in that they have come before the Interview Board through different channels, the petitioners cannot contend that they must be treated at par even after they as teacher candidates having failed to secure the highest marks, the post is thrown open to the general candidates at which stage the competition is between general candidates not only who have given their first preference for that institution hut also the others. 38. The net result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that there is neither any arbitrariness nor any discrimination involved in the process of selection adopted by the Commissioner. 38. The net result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that there is neither any arbitrariness nor any discrimination involved in the process of selection adopted by the Commissioner. The procedure followed by the Commission in making the selections is from every respect perfectly valid and proper, both constitutionally and otherwise and the same appears to us entirely unexceptionable, whether the challenge is by the teacher candidates or, by the general candidates. The supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on March 2, 1979 discloses the reasons why the Government showed some preference to the teacher candidates. The reasons which impelled the Government to do so seem to us to be perfectly valid and proper. 39. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondents at the instance of the court prepared a draft the accuracy of which has not been challenged by the petitioners, according to which even if the petitioners quality point marks were added to the marks obtained by them at the interview by either method, their total would be far less than those of the candidates selected for appointment. 40. We next turn to the argument which was founded on Section 32 of the Act which reads thus; "32. Applicability of U. P. Act II of 1921 - The provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and the Regulations made thereunder in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made hereunder shall continue to be in force for the purposes of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher." 41. Relying on this provision it was urged that under Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, the quality point marks were laid down and inasmuch as the quality point marks have not been laid down in any regulation framed under Section 34 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, the quality point marks as well as the marks allotted under Regulation 10 for interview must prevail and ought to have been applied by the Commission. 42. We find no merit in this contention. Firstly, the entire scheme of Selection under U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 is radically different from that contemplated under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 42. We find no merit in this contention. Firstly, the entire scheme of Selection under U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 is radically different from that contemplated under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The task of holding selection has been entrusted under U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 to a high powered commission consisting of eminent men drawn from academic field as well as Judiciary. The Commission has also been vested with the power of exercising subordinate legislative functions, namely, that of making regulations under S. 34. There is absolutely no parity between the Commission, in composition, functions and duties and that of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 16-F( 1) of the Intermediate Education Act which had no such powers of making regulations, etc. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Sivaram Shakya v. State of U. P. reported in 1982 U. P. L. B. E. C. 324, while considering the vires of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Ordinance, 1981 had occasion to consider this aspect of the matter and it observed thus: "There may not be any clear provision in the Act repealing the U. P. Intermediate Education Act in regard to the appointment in its entirety but there are sufficient indications in the Ordinance which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the selection after the promulgation of the Ordinance has to be made in accordance with the Scheme laid down by it and not according to the Intermediate Education Act." 43. The relevant provisions of the Ordinance which were up, for consideration before the aforesaid Division Bench were identical with those or the present Act. With respect we entirely agree with the aforesaid observations. Section 16 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 specifically prohibits making of any appointment on or after July 10, 1981 otherwise than on the recommendation of the Commission. There is, therefore, no question of the criteria laid down in the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act being adopted for making selections under the present Act. 44. Section 16 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 specifically prohibits making of any appointment on or after July 10, 1981 otherwise than on the recommendation of the Commission. There is, therefore, no question of the criteria laid down in the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act being adopted for making selections under the present Act. 44. Further reading Section 32 along with Section 16 U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 clearly indicates that the legislative intent is that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations made thereunder shall not be applicable not only when they are expressly inconsistent with any specific provisions of the Act or the Rules or the Regulations made thereunder but also if they are inconsistent with any decision taken or order passed by the Commission under the powers specifically conferred upon the Commission under the Act or the Rules or Regulations made thereunder. That being so, it is apparent that the guidelines laid down by the Commission under the Regulations being inconsistent with Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, shall prevail and govern the selections. 45. Yet another submission on behalf of the petitioners was that the criteria laid down by the Commission for allotting marks at the interview cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the Commission has omitted to specify separate marks for each of the criteria laid down by it. It was urged that the marks for the interview should have been on itemized basis and ought not to have been allotted in a lump. In support learned counsel placed reliance on two decisions reported in A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, ( AIR 1971 SC 2303 (Paragraph 5) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, ( AIR 1981 SC 487 (paragraph 4.)) 46. We are unable to accept the above contentions. Both these cases were considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1981 SC 1777 : (1981 Lab IC 1515). Their Lordships distinguished the two cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that they related to admission to colleges as distinct from the criteria laid down for allotment of marks in the case of entry into public services. Their Lordships distinguished the two cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that they related to admission to colleges as distinct from the criteria laid down for allotment of marks in the case of entry into public services. In para 5 of the judgment in the case of Lila Dhar (supra), their Lordships observed that the provision of marks for interview test need not and cannot be the same for admission to colleges and entry into public services. Their Lordships distinguished the case reported in A. Periakaruppan's case (supra) on the ground that there the Selection Committee was required to give marks at the interview on the basis of five distinct tests (as distinct from criteria). Their Lordships called these tests as sub-tests and observed that the case reported in A. Periakaruppan's case (supra) did not afford any true guidance in matters of employment and entry into public services. The following passage in Lila Dhar's case (supra) appearing at page 1781, to our mind, provides a complete answer to the petitioners contention and we need dilate on this matter no further: "The second ground of attack must fail for the same reason as the first ground of attack. The Rules themselves do not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test. The criteria for the interview test has been laid down by the Rules. It is 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 may 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 may give a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality. 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." 47. Lastly, it was urged that the guidelines laid down by the Commission as disclosed in the short counter affidavit filed op its behalf have no legal validity in any case inasmuch as the same have not been proved to have been authenticated under Section 27 of the Act which provides that all orders and decisions of the Commission shall be authenticated by the signature of the Secretary appointed under Section 8 or any other officer authorised by the Commission and further that all orders and decisions of the Board shall be authenticated by the signature of the President or any other officer of the Board. The above contention cannot be accepted as there is no challenge either in the petition or in the rejoinder affidavit that the orders and decisions taken by the commission incorporating the guidelines were not duly authenticated by the Commission. As there was no challenge we will assume that these decisions and orders were duly authenticated. No other point was urged in support of these petitions. 48. Our conclusion on a consideration of all the submissions as well as a close examination of the applicable statutory provisions is that the impugned selections are perfectly valid and proper and they do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or lack of power. 49. In the result, all these petitions fail and are dismissed. The interim orders are hereby vacated.