P. S. POTI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners two in number are police Head Constables in the Civil Service of the State. The next promotional post for the petitioners is that of sub-inspector of police. Under the scheme of promotion in the force a police Head Constable who has served continuously for more than 7 years and whose age is not above 50 is eligible for the selection. ( 2 ) UNARMED police Sub-Inspectors are recruited directly by competitive examination and also by promotion of officers from the lower ranks. 50% is to be filled by direct recruitment and the other 50 by promotion. Of the 50% to be filled by promotion one-half is to be filled by promotion of officers from the lower ranks and the other half by promotion of Head Constables who pass the Sub-Inspectors course at the Police Training School. Instruction 165 of the Gujarat Police Manual 1975 provides that for Head Constables there will be a departmental examination for qualifying for promotion as Sub-Inspectors. This examination is to consist of both written and oral tests which will be part of the same examination and only one result sheet would be issued. Clause (c) of Instructions 165 deals with the syllabus and the maximum marks obtainable for each paper. The syllabus covers a rather wide field of study. The papers and the marks for the written test are as follows:prescribed 27 Acts which include Central and Bombay Acts. It is necessary that a candidate in order to obtain a pass must get 45% in each of the three papers and 50% of the total marks prescribed for all the papers together. ( 3 ) BY a memorandum dated 22-12-1978 the Inspector General of Police Gujarat State who is the 2nd respondent in the petition invited applications for the written test to be held in 1979. Both the petitioners are candidates who appeared for that test. 189 candidates so appeared for the written test. Only those who got 45 % separate minimum and 50 % total minimum being considered as qualified 21 alone out of the 189 candidates were declared passed in that test. Petitioners are amongst those 21 who were so declared passed. The 1st petitioner obtained rank No. 3 in the said written test. The petitioners claim that they have 19 years of service in the police. Petitioners are amongst those 21 who were so declared passed. The 1st petitioner obtained rank No. 3 in the said written test. The petitioners claim that they have 19 years of service in the police. ( 4 ) INSTRUCTION 165 (2) (b) prescribes an oral test for those who have passed the written test. The significant fact is that it is not the cumulative result of the written and oral tests that determines the eligibility of a candidate for selections. Only those who have passed in the written test are called for the oral test and those who appear for the oral test will have to pass the same independently by obtaining the minimum of 50 % marks. The candidates will be tested by an Examination Board. The maximum marks for the oral test is fixed as fixed as 150 50 marks being for interview and 100 marks for assessment of service records. The subject for the practical test would carry marks as follows: Marks (i) Interview 50 (ii) Assessment of service records 100 (c) Interview: Interview is meant to test personality and altertness. (d) Assessment of service records:the allocation of 100 marks preseribed for Assessment of service record will be as under: Item Maximum No. Remarks. of marks to be given 1 Rewards 30 In this connection the total length of service should be taken into consideration. 2 Remarks 50 Similarly the nature of work for which the rewards or remarks are obtained should also be considered e. g. rewards for doing good investigation or for any specific good action would indicate aptitude and capacity to become a good officer. 3 Punishments 20 Full marks may be given to Head Constables for having no punishments at all provided other remarks are good. For every warning 1 mark should be deducted for every reprimand 1 1/2 marks for extra duty or for every other minor punishment 2 marks and for every major punishment 4 marks should be deducted. ( 5 ) THE complaint of the petitioners is that the entire selection process has been rendered absolutely arbitrary by inducting an independent oral test and finally adjudging without giving any weightage to the marks or ranks obtained in the written test. ( 5 ) THE complaint of the petitioners is that the entire selection process has been rendered absolutely arbitrary by inducting an independent oral test and finally adjudging without giving any weightage to the marks or ranks obtained in the written test. It is said that though termed an oral test what is envisaged in Instruction 165 (2) (b) of the Manual is not a test at all as there is no assessment at the interview and is only an arbitrary process of marking which will enable an eligible and qualified candidate to be ousted while it would enable one who is not high up in rank on merits to be selected. In other words the plea is that total arbitrariness in the process of selection has been introduced by the oral test envisaged by the said instruction. ( 6 ) IN furtherance of the plea of arbitrariness petitioners contend that while the result of the oral test has been made to depend entirely upon the 150 marks awarded the 50 marks for interview is fixed without any guidelines as to how evaluation is to be made. Though the instructions indicate that the interview is meant to test the personality and alertness it is not indicated how this assessment is to be made. Further it is pointed out that the requirements for a policeman in the matter of appearance is indicated by instruction 61 (5) (b) (ii) which prescribes:physique.- Height - Not less than 165 centimetres chest measurement - not less than 84 centimetres when fully inflated with a minimum expansion of 5 centimetres. and it is only those candidates who satisfy these requirements that are allowed to appear. Equally serious attack is made to the allocation of marks for rewards remarks and punishments. As for remarks it is said that there again there is no indication as to how assessment is to be made and if a person is to be disqualified on the basis of his records that ought to have preceded the written examination and not succeeded in it. So is the attack to allocation of 30 marks for rewards for it is said that if mechanically the number of rewards should determine the marks it would be unfair as some persons may be placed in a position where they could earn rewards while others may not be placed in similar positions. So is the attack to allocation of 30 marks for rewards for it is said that if mechanically the number of rewards should determine the marks it would be unfair as some persons may be placed in a position where they could earn rewards while others may not be placed in similar positions. It would depend upon whether a person gets an opportunity to take investigative work for otherwise there will be no occasion for rewards. Further it is said that the awarding of marks for punishments is also not on any sure foundation. ( 7 ) TO illustrate their point attention is invited to the case of the 1st petitioner. He has made an excellent record in the written test and he satisfied the physical requirements. There is no case that his personality does not entitle him to be selected as a sub-inspector of police. He has earned several rewards during the short period he was given investigative work and he has not earned any serious punishment. All along particularly from the year 1972 to 1979 his records have been quite good. Nevertheless he has been found to be ineligible as he is not seen to have passed the oral test. It is pointed out that petitioner No. 1 is said to have obtained 71 1/2 marks out of 150 and he is said to have failed by a margin of 3 1/2 marks only. Had there been no arbitrariness in the selection this would not have happened and being a third ranker he would have been in the usual course selected. The petitioners further point out that the 1st petitioner when he was posted in the investigation squad did appreciable work and besides this he took several trainings viz. : (i) Radio Telegraph Operators Training in 1963 (ii) Auto Electricians Course in 1968 (Baroda) (III) Revolver Training at Ahmedabad Hqrs. in 1969 (iv) In service Course for Skilled Head-constables at PTS Junagadh for four months-1974. (v) Refresher Head Constable Course PTS at Junagadh-5 months in 1977. (vi) M. O. B. and Computer Training at Ahmedabad CID Crimes in 1977. : (i) Radio Telegraph Operators Training in 1963 (ii) Auto Electricians Course in 1968 (Baroda) (III) Revolver Training at Ahmedabad Hqrs. in 1969 (iv) In service Course for Skilled Head-constables at PTS Junagadh for four months-1974. (v) Refresher Head Constable Course PTS at Junagadh-5 months in 1977. (vi) M. O. B. and Computer Training at Ahmedabad CID Crimes in 1977. ( 8 ) THE petitioners therefore pray that this Court may hold the executive instructions contained in Instruction 165 (2) of the Gujarat Police Manual 1975 prescribing the practical test as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and declare that the petitioners are fit for promotion to the post of PSI quashing and setting aside the examination result of 21-12-1979 so far as the petitioners are concerned. Before admission of the application notice was ordered by this Court to respondents 2 and 3 and subsequently this Court also directed the examining authority to show cause why less marks under the head of remarks were given to petitioner No. 1. This was before rule was issued in the case on 3-7-1980. As directed by the Court a reply was filed by the Inspector General of Police by an affidavit sworn on 24th April 1980 evidently covering the matter mentioned in the order of 11-4-1980. The purpose of the affidavit is only to explain how the marks given for remarks happened to be evaluated. After rule was issued no counter has been filed in the case by the respondents which of course is in a way a handicap to the proper disposal of the petition. During the course of hearing an affidavit by one of the five members of the Examination Board which held the oral test was filed with a view to indicate how evaluation was being made at the oral test. Shri G. D. Bhatt Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State made available to us the records relating to the selection of the petitioners for our perusal. ( 9 ) WHEN selection is made to depend on an interview or an oral test the result is quite often suspect by those who do not get selected. Unlike in the case of written test when selection is based upon or mainly upon interview such a course is open to the charge of absence of that objectivity as is called for in a proper selection. Unlike in the case of written test when selection is based upon or mainly upon interview such a course is open to the charge of absence of that objectivity as is called for in a proper selection. Even so the process of interview for selection is not to be held to be arbitrary since quite often a full assessment of a candidate cannot be made merely on the basis of a written examination. While his intellectual equipment and his thoroughness of study may possibly be better assessed by a written test assessment of his full personality will be more feasible by a further assessment at an interview. No doubt some element of arbitrariness may be involved in any process of selection based on interview. Nevertheless it may be necessary to resort to interview to get a full and complete picture of the candidate and that will be necessary particularly when the question of selection is for appointment to a post requiring certain aptitudes personality and many other qualities. Qualities such as initiative resourcefulness effectiveness in discussion adaptability and capacity for decision making could best be adjudged only by a proper assessment made at an interview but the process of assessment must be so meticulously worked out as to make the determination of the result quite objective since otherwise there would be room for much more error of judgment than in an assessment in a written test. Courts have been called upon time and again to consider in the background of a charge of arbitrariness how far selections have been unfair by reason of the method adopted the procedure adhered to and the mode of assessment chosen. While any and every approach to selection by a process of interview will not be upheld by a court the mode adopted will not be frowned upon by a court if a proper selecting body adopting a fair and reasonable procedure honestly makes an attempt to assess objectively the qualities required of the candidate in order to satisfy itself. To reach this result several approaches have been approved by courts several rules have been formulated and several procedures affirmed as good but all the same it will not be possible to define with any precision what would be a fair and reasonable procedure and how assessment ought to be made. To reach this result several approaches have been approved by courts several rules have been formulated and several procedures affirmed as good but all the same it will not be possible to define with any precision what would be a fair and reasonable procedure and how assessment ought to be made. Any strait-jacketed formula is bound to infringe the discretion of the selecting body which in accordance with rules if any prescribed will have to adopt a fair and proper procedure in the matter of such assessment. Rules or instructions if any to the selecting body must be such as to enable objective and fair assessment to be made and if the rules do not reflect this approach mere compliance with the rules or instructions would not render the selection by the body concerned fair or sustainable. ( 10 ) QUITE often results are made to depend merely on interviews without any written or oral test. The test of fairness would be more stringent in such cases for the ultimate outcome would depend merely upon impressions and that no verifiable at a later date impressions which may not perhaps within the time limit available for interviewing the candidate be a safe or adequate method to assess the candidate concerned. Where the interview is only a part of the test and the written test has due weightage the position may be a little different. Mere again if undue importance is given to the oral test so as to negate effectively the result of the written test the scrutiny of the fairness of procedure involved in the assessment in the oral test will be closer and the assessment of the fairness more rigorous. ( 11 ) BEFORE we go into the facts of this case it will be rewarding to consider the case law concerning the validity of selection based on interviews. Fresh selection may be for admission to colleges for appointment by direct recruitment or by promotion or for other purposes and the adaptability of the oral test or interview must vary from situation to situation. One of the earliest cases in which the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a challenge to selection on the basis also of the result of an interview was that in Chitralekha v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1964 SC 1823 ). One of the earliest cases in which the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a challenge to selection on the basis also of the result of an interview was that in Chitralekha v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1964 SC 1823 ). The validity of orders of the Government of Mysore in respect of admissions to Engineering and Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore was under challenge in that case. The Selection Committee appointed for such admission converted the total of the marks in the optional subjects of the candidates to a maximum of 300 marks and to this added a maximum of 75 marks for interview. The controversy concerned the assessment in regard to the abovesaid 75 marks at the interview which was to be added on to the marks obtained at the written test to make the final selection. The contention that selection by interview was inherently repugnant to the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution did not succeed in that case. It may be noticed that the court was considering in that case the mode of testing the capacity and calibre of the students in the matter of admissions to colleges. The Court referred to the views of educationalists in this matter. It is in this context that the Supreme Court said:the modern trend of opinion insists upon other additional tests such as interview performance in extracurricular activities personality test psychiatric tests etc. Obviously we are not in a position to judge which method is preferable or which test is the correct one. . . . In the ultimate analysis whatever method is adopted its success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of objectivity and devotion to duty. Three relevant facts noticed in that case may be adverted to. It was not as if the marks of the candidates reflecting their performance in their regular examinations were ignored. Only Z5 per cent addition was made to such marks as marks for the interview. Secondly the Court noticed that the selection team consisted of three competent men all of them Deans of Medical Colleges. Thirdly the Court also noticed that by its order the Government had laid down a clear policy and prescribed definite criteria in the matter of giving marks at the interview. Secondly the Court noticed that the selection team consisted of three competent men all of them Deans of Medical Colleges. Thirdly the Court also noticed that by its order the Government had laid down a clear policy and prescribed definite criteria in the matter of giving marks at the interview. The criteria were particularly specified as general knowledge of the candidates aptitude and personality previous academic career including special distinctions etc. N. C. C. A. C. C. etc. extracurricular activities including sports social service debating dramatics etc. ( 12 ) THE question raised in Chitralechas Case was again raised before the Supreme Court in A. Periakaxup pan v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1971 SC 2303 and the statement of law made earlier was reiterated by the Supreme Court in that case. ( 13 ) THE best that could be said against holding an interview for the purpose of determining the eligibility of a candidate for admissions to professional colleges was urged before the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib ( AIR 1981 SC 487 Justice Bhagwati did examine this plea in rather elaborate detail in that case. The marks in the qualifying examinations were not the basis for admission to the Regional Engineering College Srinagar. The candidates who had applied for admission had to undergo a written entrance test. 100 marks were allocated for such written entrance test and there was to be a viva voce examination for which 50 marks were allocated. The challenge to the holding of the viva voce examination evidently covered a wide ground. It was urged in that case that viva voce examination does not afford a proper criterion for assessment of the suitability of the candidates for admission and it is highly subjective and impressionistic test where the result is likely to be influenced by many uncertain and imponderable factors such as predelictions and prejudices of the interviewer his attitudes and approaches his pre-conceived notions and idio-syncracies and it is also capable of abuse because it leaves scope for discrimination manipulation and nepotism which can remain undetected under the cover of an interview and moreover it is not possible to assess the capacity and calibre of a candidate in the course of an interview lasting only for a few minutes. The selections were therefore contended to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The selections were therefore contended to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court noticed that this criticism cannot be said to be wholly unfounded and it reflects a point of view which has certainly some validity. After referring to the literature on the subject the court went on to consider the decisions in Chitralekhas Case and Periakaxappans Case already adverted to. Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court concluded: it is therefore not possible to accept the contentions of the petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that selecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral intervew in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits the oral interview test must at the present stage be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would however like to point out that in the matter of admission of (sic) colleges or even in the matter of public employment the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and moreover great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity calibre and qualification. (Emphasis supplied.) ( 14 ) MORE interesting is the further discussion in the same judgment of the contention of the petitioners that even if oral interview may be regarded in principle as a valid test for selection in the case before the Court it was arbitrary and unreasonable since the marks allocated for the oral interview were very much on the higher side as compared with the marks allocated for the written test. The marks came to 33 1 being 50 out of 150. The marks came to 33 1 being 50 out of 150. Deliberating on this contention the Court observed: now there can be no doubt that having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing in the country particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test cannot be accepted by the Court as free from the vice of arbitrariness. It may be pointed out that even in Poriakaruppans Case ( AIR 1971 SC 2303 ) (supra) where 75 marks out of a total of 275 marks were allocated for the oral interview this Court observed that the marks allocated for interview were on the high side. This Court also observed in Miss Nishi Meghus Case ( AIR 1980 SC 1975 ) (Supra): Reserving 50 marks for interview out of a total of 150. . . . does seem excessive especially when the time spent was not more than 4 minutes on each candidate. There can be no doubt that allocating 33 1/3 of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is significant to note that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service the Indian Foreign Service and the Indian Police Service where the personality of the candidate and his personal characteristics and traits are extremely relevant for the purpose of selection the marks allocated for oral interview are 250 as against 1800 marks for the written examination constituting only 12. 2 % of the total marks taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. We must therefore regard the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained. Ultimately the Court set down a guideline which may indicate to what extent marks could be allotted at an interview to be added on to the mark in the written test. Ultimately the Court set down a guideline which may indicate to what extent marks could be allotted at an interview to be added on to the mark in the written test. At page 503 of the report this is what the learned Judges said on this: we may point out that in our opinion if the marks allocated for the oral interview do not exceed 15% of the total marks and the candidates are properly interviewed and relevant questions are asked with a view to assessing their suitability with reference to the factors required to be taken into consideration the oral interview test would satisfy the criterion of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. We think that it would also be desirable if the interview of the candidates is tape recorded for in that event there will be contemporaneous evidence to show what were the questions asked to the candidates by the interviewing committee and what were the answers given and that will eliminate a lot of unnecessary controversy besides acting as a check on the possible arbitrariness of the interviewing committee. (Emphasis supplied.) the case before the Supreme Court in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1981 SC 1777 ) concerned selections to the post of Munsiffs in the judicial service. Under the rules selection was to be based on the result of written test in four papers total marks of which would be 300 and the result of a viva voce test for which maximum 100 marks was fixed. The viva voce test was to be held by a Board consisting of a Judge of the Rajasthan High Court the Chairman of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission a member of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and an expert. The relevant paragraph of the rule also laid down the various criteria for assessment to be adopted for the viva voce test. The selection was under attack in that case for the reason that the allocation of 25% marks for the interview test was on the high side. In dealing with this contention the Supreme Court noticed that having regard to the composition of the interviewing body there could be no case for a plea of arbitrariness and further it was professional men who faced the interview and therefore some weightage must be given to the interview test. In dealing with this contention the Supreme Court noticed that having regard to the composition of the interviewing body there could be no case for a plea of arbitrariness and further it was professional men who faced the interview and therefore some weightage must be given to the interview test. The Supreme Court also did not accept the plea that allocation for different heads of the criteria laid down should have been made in the marks awarded to the various candidates. In this context the court said 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 candidates personality. It is of interest to notice that the Bench which heard that case did not adopt the view expressed in the earlier case in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) as applicable to a matter of public employment though they noticed the specific reference made in that behalf in the earlier decision. We may notice in the decision to which we have adverted to just now that in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1981 SC 1777 ) Justice Chinnappa Reddy spoke for the Bench. Justice Chinnappa Reddy was party to an earlier decision in Arti v. State of Jammu Kahmir ( AIR 1981 SC 1009 ) where while considering the plea of admission to a Government Medical College Srinagar the Supreme Court noticed the earlier decision in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) which was relied on in support of the contention raised by the petitioners in this case. The court noticed that even 10 years earlier in Pariakaruppans Case disapproval of earmarking 75 marks out of 275 marks for interview had been made and again in Miss Nishi Meghus Case ( AIR 1980 SC 1975 ) reservation of 50 marks for the interview out of a total 150 marks was noticed as excessive. The court noticed that even 10 years earlier in Pariakaruppans Case disapproval of earmarking 75 marks out of 275 marks for interview had been made and again in Miss Nishi Meghus Case ( AIR 1980 SC 1975 ) reservation of 50 marks for the interview out of a total 150 marks was noticed as excessive. That precisely happened again but the court refused to interfere in that case for the reason which we would rather set down in the words of the Court: however we are reluctant to interfere on this ground because a clear pronouncement that an allocation of more than 15% of the total marks to the viva voce examination would result in constitutional invalidity has been made only recently in Ajay Hasia (supra) by this Court and that was after the selection process in the present case had already been taken. We would prefer to impress on the State Government that there is need to revise the marks ratio because of the very real risk future selections will face on this score. We notice that in the decision in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1981 SC 1777 ) the viva voce or interview test concerned admission to judicial service while the other cases adverted to concerned admission to colleges and not appointment or promotion in services. Though in the decision in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) the Bench seemed to observe that the same rule applies whether it be selection for admission to colleges or selection to services this as we have already noticed has not received full endorsement in the later decision in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1981 SC 1777 ). ( 15 ) NOW we are called upon to consider the facts of this case. The situation here is different from the situations which arose in the various cases to which advertence has been made by us. There was no doubt a written test and only 21 persons out of 189 passed in the written test. The subsequent interview was not held with a view to add the marks at the interview to the marks obtained in the written test but to make an independent assessment. The result of the written test was treated as irrelevant in the case of all candidates who were to take the oral test. The subsequent interview was not held with a view to add the marks at the interview to the marks obtained in the written test but to make an independent assessment. The result of the written test was treated as irrelevant in the case of all candidates who were to take the oral test. In other words the performance in the written test was of no consequence at all excepting to declare that the candidates had passed in the written test. However meritorious the candidates performance in the written test was if he did not obtain 50% marks in the oral test he would not be selected. However poor his performance was in the written test if he had passed in the written test even if he obtained only 50% marks in the oral test he would be selected. The anomaly of the situation cannot be better illustrated than by reference to the case of the first petitioner himself. Out of 189 candidates who had applied for selection he stood third in the written test which covered a fairly wide field. The oral test about which we will presently discuss-to show that it was not in the nature of a viva voce test at all-stood against the selection of the petitioner in that he did not get 50% but fell short of it by about 2%. He got only 71 1/2 out of 150 and therefore despite the fact that he got the third rank in the written test he has not been selected. The question therefore is not whether proper criteria had been laid down or applied for the purpose of an assessment at the interview but further whether the method was reasonable in that it completely and totally ignored the performance in the written test giving it no validity at all except to the limited extent of qualifying a person for being considered for the oral test. Now let us look into the break up of the marks for the viva voce of the interview. This is to be found in the reply affidavit filed by the Inspector General of the Gujarat State. The test is referred to therein as `practical test in contradistinction to the written test and that is of 150 marks 50 for interview and 100 marks for assessment of service records. This is to be found in the reply affidavit filed by the Inspector General of the Gujarat State. The test is referred to therein as `practical test in contradistinction to the written test and that is of 150 marks 50 for interview and 100 marks for assessment of service records. Assessment of service records cannot really be part of a viva voce test or an interview nor could it be said to be a practical test. It is merely a computation. A computation which will appropriately have bearing in the initial determination whether a candidate should be held to be eligible for the selection. But that was not the approach here. That computation determines the final result of the selection with marginal impact on it by reason of 50 marks allocated for the interview. Even for the interview there is no criteria laid down excepting to state that interview is meant to test personality and alertness. We have noticed that no reply affidavit by the respondents has been filed in the case specifically answering the points raised and the one filed earlier by the Inspector General of Police was in compliance with the other of this Court regarding answer to one of the points viz. the evaluation on `remarks. ( 16 ) AS already adverted to there is an affidavit filed by one Maniram Darbaram an officer in the Police force whose affidavit is to explain the assessment made at the interview. Since at the relevant time he was holding office as Principal Police Training College Junagadh he was on the Board for interviewing the candidates. We are now referring to his affidavit to understand the facts about the interview. The other members of the Board were one Shri N. H. Sethna an I. P. S. Officer one Shri N. J. Jadeja the Inspector General of Police one Shri Navani the then Police Commissioner and one Shri P. K. Datta the D. S. P. concerned at the relevant time. The deponent swears in the affidavit that the marks for reward and punishment were given to the candidate in accordance with the of rules and for remarks the service books the of the candidates were referred to and both the petitioners were given 25 marks each out of 50 for `remarks. The deponent swears in the affidavit that the marks for reward and punishment were given to the candidate in accordance with the of rules and for remarks the service books the of the candidates were referred to and both the petitioners were given 25 marks each out of 50 for `remarks. ( 17 ) WE have already found how despite the quality of performance in the written test the result of a candidates selection depends entirely on what is referred to as practical test. As we have indicated that is really not a practical test at all. The 150 marks are also not for the interview for the interview carries only 50 marks. There are no proper criteria laid down as to how these 50 marks are to be awarded for the interview excepting the indication in Instruction 165 (2) (b) of the Gujarat Police Manual that it is meant to test personality and alterness. It leaves a lot of room for arbitrary marking. This would not have been objectionable if the result of the interviewwould have only marginally changed the result but if despite best performance at a written test comprising a series of papers on widely differing subjects a person is to lose only because at the interview he gets less marks it would be rather an unfortunate situation for the candidates interviewed. Therefore the need for a very objective approach to the assessment of marks at interview. But there is none. The 1st petitioner did not fail because of the marks he received at the interview. He is seen to have received 30 out of 50 marks. The second petitioner is seen to have received 25 out of 50 marks. In the case of the 1 petitioner there was even an excess or 5 marks to be carried to make the 50% of the balance 100 marks. ( 18 ) NOW let us see how marks out the other 100 were awarded. Out of the 100 marks for assessment of service record 50 marks were for `remarks. Evidently this Court felt even at the time of ordering notice that this was vague and that was why this Court issued a direction even then to the examining authority to show cause why less marks under the head of `remarks were given to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was given 25 out of 50 marks. Evidently this Court felt even at the time of ordering notice that this was vague and that was why this Court issued a direction even then to the examining authority to show cause why less marks under the head of `remarks were given to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was given 25 out of 50 marks. Petitioner No. 2 was also given 25 out of 50 marks. Why it should have been 25 and not more the Court wanted to know even at that time. It is in answer to this that the affidavit sworn on 24th April 1980 was filed by the Inspector General of Police. The answer to this in that affidavit is as follows:8 I say that the Examination Board headed by myself had objectitively and carefully considered the petitioners service record and thereafter decided to give the petitioner 25 marks out of total 50 marks. I say that the sail assessment was justified in view of petitioners sheet a remarks. I beg to invite the Honble Courts attention to the following entries made in the petitioners service sheet :entry No. 9 28-11-1969 made by Discipline not satisfactory-Average. the Dy. C. P. Entry No. 10 arade average Work was not satis- 23 factory mischievous-needs control-not fit. Entry No. 11 25 Parade average. Entry No. 12 29 Parade Fair. Entry No. 13 8 Law and Parade average. Entry No. 14 30 T. O. Ordinary-Drill average-Average. Entry No. 16 13 Drill weak cannot take Squad Drill. I say that the constabulary Staff in the Police Department are orally informed by the Dy. C. P. /s. P. about their yearly assessment at the time of making the Entries in the service sheet. 9 It is true that for some years the petitioners performance has been assehd as satisfactory. However that can not entitle the petitioner to obtai higher marks in view of the aforesaid Entries in his service sheet. Excepting stating certain facts there is no indication therein why 25 out of 50 marks were awarded and what was the mode of examination and marking. In fact the 1st petitioners performance has been considered satisfactory in the subsequent years and conveniently that has been omitted to be mentioned in the affidavit. This does not appear to us to be fair. In fact the 1st petitioners performance has been considered satisfactory in the subsequent years and conveniently that has been omitted to be mentioned in the affidavit. This does not appear to us to be fair. When the interview was held in 1979 why the assessment was not made taking into account the records for the relevant years 76 77 and 78 is not evident. There is a failure to advert to the entries for those years in the affidavit of the dependent. ( 19 ) EVEN the marks awarded for remarks did not result in either of the petitioners losing their chances of selection. Perhaps if they had been awarded more marks that would have offset the deficiency if any in regard to `rewards and `punishments and that is the grievance. ( 20 ) NOW we are logically called upon to look into the propriety of awarding marks for rewards and punishments or if the petitioners had obtained 50 of the 50 marks they would still have been selected. In fact if the 1st petitioner had even got 40% out of the 50 viz. 20 marks he would have been selected as he had a carry over of 5 marks and it is because he was not awarded even that that he lost. . ( 21 ) `rewards takes in 30 out of the 50 marks and the 1st petitioner got only 8 marks for that while the 2nd petitioner got only 5 marks for that. It is this that has really resulted in both the petitioners losing their selection. In regard to the 20 marks for punishments the 1st petitioner got 8 marks and the 2nd petitioner got 13 marks and the marks by which the 1st petitioner fell short viz. 1 1/2 marks would have been more than made good by the 5 marks excess at the interview. That is why we said that ultimately it is the low marks obtained for `rewards that has sealed the fate of the petitioners in this case. ( 22 ) 20 marks have been assigned for `punishment. It may appear at sight strange that marks should be assigned for punishment at all but what is really meant is that 20 marks are awarded to a person who has no punishment and from 20 marks are reduced depending upon the number of punishments earned by a person. ( 22 ) 20 marks have been assigned for `punishment. It may appear at sight strange that marks should be assigned for punishment at all but what is really meant is that 20 marks are awarded to a person who has no punishment and from 20 marks are reduced depending upon the number of punishments earned by a person. Instruction 165 (2) (b) shows that one mark has to be deducted for every warning 1 1 marks for every reprimand 2 marks for extra duty or for every other minor punishment and 4 marks for every major punishment. According to the 1st petitioner even adopting this only 7 1 marks had to be deducted because he has throughout his career only one warning. three reprimands and one extra drill for which deducting 7 1/2 marks he should get 12 1/2 marks in place of 8 1/2 marks awarded to him. The reply affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police does not meet the point but in the affidavit filed by the Maniram M. Darbaram he mentions that one mark for warning. 4 1/2 marks for extra duty totalling 11 marks were deducted. According to the petitioner he had only one punishment of extra drill and therefore two marks alone should be deducted for extra duty. This is a matter on which a better answer was called for. Going through the records made available to us for perusal we find that by a single order of punishment he has been awarded three drills and there is no reason to assume that for that reason he has been punished by way of three extra duties. In this state of affairs it is difficult to accept the case for deduction of 11 1/2 marks as against the case of 7 1 marks pleaded by the petitioners. If so the 1 petitionr would get 12 1/2 marks for punishment and even if he gets only 8 marks for rewards he would be selected as the toal out of 150 would be more than 75. ( 23 ) THERE is no more material explaining `rewards than what is to be found in Instruction 165 (2) (b) of the Gujarat Police Manual. ( 23 ) THERE is no more material explaining `rewards than what is to be found in Instruction 165 (2) (b) of the Gujarat Police Manual. As against the entry `rewards in the instruction it is mentioned that the total length of service should be taken into consideration and similarly the nature of the work for which the rewards were obtained should also be considered. It is explained that rewards for doing good investigation or for any specific good action would indicate aptitude and capacity to become a good officer. With regard to rewards there is a categorical averment in the petition in the following terms :so far as the rewards are concerned the petitioner says that all the Head Constables are not posted on the post of investigations and they do not get equal chance with others for getting rewards though he may be much better than the person who has got many rewards. The test which has been given without taking into consideration the nature of duties of Head Constable is totally arbitrary and denies equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution. The subsequent affidavit filed by Maniram Darbaram to which we have adverted to indicates that the 1 petitioner had obtained 17 awards and that is the reason he was given 8 marks and the 2nd petitioner had obtained 10 awards so he was assigned 5 marks. The contention of the petitioners remains unanswered. Their sepcific case was that Head Constables posted in investigative work will have occasion to obtain rewards whereas Head Constables posted on other work will have no such occasion to obtain rewards and so long as the choice of posting is not with the Head Constables concerned the mechanical counting of rewards would not be a proper method of assessment of merit. If this approach is not correct or that the case that there are opportunities for rewards even in branches other than that of investigative work and such opportunities are equal to the opportunies in the investigative work such a case can be evident only by an averment to that effect. There is no such case That is why we emphasise the fact that no reply affidavit has been filed controverting the specific allegations in the petition in this regard. There is no such case That is why we emphasise the fact that no reply affidavit has been filed controverting the specific allegations in the petition in this regard. Of course in the affidavit filed by Shri Maniram Darbaram there could naturally be no averment since the purpose of his affidavit was only to explain how marks were awarded at the interview and not to show how the rule itself was justified. Though it may perhaps be proper to fix 30 marks for `rewards the mechanical application of 1/2 mark for every reward irrespective of the opportunity of the candidate con cerned to obtain such rewtaids would clearly be arbitrary and would result in discrimination against a Head Constable who is not placed in the same position as another who had ample opportunities to obtain rewards. The petitioners specific case is that they were posted only for a short period as Head Constables and consequently they could not get as many rewards as would be sufficient to get them the 30 marks or even the 50% of it and if for that reason ar if mainly for that reason if not solely for that reason they lose the selection that would be arbitrary unfair and unjust. We see considerable force in this contention and we hold that the method by which marks for `rewards were awarded was improper and thoroughly unfair. That really leads to the rejection of the petitioners in the matter of selection. If the assessment for `rewards was eschewed the petitioners would necessarily have been selected. ( 24 ) WE have indicated how many irrelevencies or more appropriately how many arbitrary features resulted ultimately in the rejection of the 1st petitioner in the selection despite his excellent performance in a written test which was of a fairly good standard. There is yet another fact to be noticed. The positive points which the 1st petitioner had which should normally have been gone into on assessment of records relating to service have not even been noticed evidently because there is no scope for noticing it in the mechanical scheme of assessment resorted to. There is yet another fact to be noticed. The positive points which the 1st petitioner had which should normally have been gone into on assessment of records relating to service have not even been noticed evidently because there is no scope for noticing it in the mechanical scheme of assessment resorted to. We are referring to the averments of the petitioner in this regard in para 11 of his petition where he mentions that during the 19 years of his service he took several trainings as skilled Police Officer and reference is made to 6 trainings to which we have already adverted to in para 7. These have evidently gone unnoticed in the assessment of records as there was no scope for awarding marks in the rigid and mechanical frame adopted in the matter of assessment. ( 25 ) THE sum total is that the petitioners have lost the selection without a fair assessment of their right to be selected. These have evidently gone unnoticed in the assessment of records as there was no scope for awarding marks in the rigid and mechanical frame adopted in the matter of assessment. ( 25 ) THE sum total is that the petitioners have lost the selection without a fair assessment of their right to be selected. Summing up the objectionable features are: (1) The total rejection of the marks in the written test and restricting the result of the written test which covered a very wide field as relevant only for selection for the purpose of interview; (2) Selection made entirely to depend on a second stage which is referred to as practical test a test which is not really any practical test but purorts to be an interview coupled with assessment of service records; (3) No guidelines or criteria for award of marks for interview are fixed; (4) Similar absence of guidelines for award of marks for `remarks (5) Omission to consider relevant material such as recent service records; (6) The marks awarded for punishment are arbitrary in the case of the 1st petitioner particularly when the marks as awarded and not specifically controverted do not support three punishments for extra duties; (7) The arbitrary fixation of 30 marks for `rewards and further the fixation of 1/2 mark for one reward without considering the question of opportunity for the candidates to obtain the rewards; (8) The failure to take into account very relevant service records as in the case of 6 training qualification the 1st petitioner had additionally; (9) The petitioners despite the fact that they have been selected out of the 189 candidates in the written test and have come within the 22 interviewed and despite the fact that they have more than 50% marks in interview remarks and punishments put together they are losing only for the reason that in `rewards they have not made up 50 marks which is not on account of their fault since obtaining rewards depends on they being placed in a position where they could obtain them. ( 26 ) FOR these reasons we feel that the petitioners had been dealt with un fairly. ( 26 ) FOR these reasons we feel that the petitioners had been dealt with un fairly. If the system of 1 mark for one reward not contemplated in Instruction= 165 (2) (b) but arbitrarily fixed without regard to the opportunity offered to earn that reward is found to be unreasonable there is no need to strike down the rule as such. Even within the framework of the rule it is open to the selecting body to frame for the future a more intelligible rational rule. So far as the present case is concerned it is sufficient to say the method of assessment of rewards has led to mischievous results and has given rise to an anomalous situation consequent on which to that extent there is certainly arbitrariness. Hence we find that it may not be necessary for the purpose of this case to go into the validity of Instruction 165 (2) (b) though we feel that at the earliest opportunity the rule requires to be looked into and treated properly by the rule making authority lest on a future occasion there be a similar challaenge. While we do not want to strike down Instruction 165 (2) (b) it need not be taken as our approving the rule. We are saying so because we do expect that there should be a more rational approach to the question of selection giving due weight to the written test making the assessment at interview real by laying down appropriate criteria there-fore and making assessment of service records more objective so as to reflect the real merit of the candidates. While we leave the matter at that for the reason that we can decide this case even without striking down the rule we consider the grievance of the petitioners as legitimate. Since we find that the assssment of rewards in their case did not yield a proper result we would issue a mandamus to the respondents in this case to take immediate steps to see that ignoring the result arising from the marking as to rewards the cases of both the petitioners are considered and on the marks obtained by them otherwise their selection results be declared. In other words while we save the rule we give relief to the petitioners in that in the case of both the petitioners we direct that in view of what we have found here their right to selection be adjudicated on the basis of examining whether they have obtained 50% of the marks excluding 30 marks set apart for rewards. If they have then they are entitled to be promoted at the relevant selection. Since the matter is simple we do not think this should take much time. Therefore we direct the 2nd respondent the Inspector General of Police State of Gujarat to determine this on the materials available and to report to Government within two weeks. The Government shall within a month from today pass appropriate orders in regard to both the petitioners based on such result. The rule is made absolute. No costs. Rule made absolute. .