JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioners are challenging the decision of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishva vidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as jnkvv) relating to the implementation of merit Promotion Scheme (hereinafter referred to as mps ). ( 2. ) PETITIONER No. 1 Prof. R. A. Gour, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Extension. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are Assistant Professors. Petitioners Nos 1, 2 and 4 are working in the Faculty of Agriculture and Petitioner No. 3 in the Faculty of Basic science. The scheme of M. P. S. has been evolved and approved on 11-6-1985 by the indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as icar) which is premier body constituted for promoting research and development in agricultural work in India. The object of the MPS is to recognise outstanding work done by the agricultural Universities teachers in various fields of teaching and research in agriculture and allied sciences. ( 3. ) THE implementation of MPS is subject to the approval of Board of management of each of the Argicultural Universities in India Guidelines of MPS issued by the ICAR are filed by the petitioners in this petition as Annexure-A. ( 4. ) THE Board of Management of JNKVV accepted the mps in the interest of the teachers, by its resolution dated 29-11-1984 and accordingly by an order dated 15-1-1985, the Registrar, jnkvv issued directions that all eligible teachers who have completed 10 years service on a particular post, may apply for the next promotion. ( 5. ) IN jnkvv there are in all five Faculties viz. (a) Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandary, (b) Faculty of Basic Science, (c) Faculty of Agricultural engineering, (d) Faculty of Agriculture and (e) Faculty of Dairy Technology, and each faculty has various departments working under it. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the objectives of mps, ten years service or research work on a particular post is required, but the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in all fairness, on 18-7-1985 frankly conceded before this Court and assured that all the research Assistants cleared by the Screening Committees will be considered for next promotion. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the objectives of mps, ten years service or research work on a particular post is required, but the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in all fairness, on 18-7-1985 frankly conceded before this Court and assured that all the research Assistants cleared by the Screening Committees will be considered for next promotion. Therefore, in view of this concession, it is not necessary to decide whether after commencement of process of selection new conditions/qualifications, as have been imposed by the Board of Management, is within their competence or not. ( 7. ) AFTER giving effect to mps by a memorandum dated 7-1-1985, the Registrar, jnkvv had advised the Deans of various colleges affiliated to jnkvv to suggest the names of 12 reputed scientists of the discipline from which panel of referees will be prepared. Through this memo, it was also asked to send a list of staff members eligible for mps alongwith their research publication, book-reviews, curriculum development, teaching aids developed etc, and it is further directed that their proposals alongwith their recommendations should reach the Registrar wkhin one month. This memo is Annexure-C on record. ( 8. ) ON 11-1-1985 an agreement (Annexure-D) was arrived at between the teachers Association and the Vice-Chancellor, JNKVV, according to which vide clause (c), it was agreed that interview will be held mainly to give the teachers a chance to explain their achievement to the Selection Committee, if needed. ( 9. ) UNDER section 37 of the JNKVV Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Board has been given power to make new or additional statutes. ( 10. ) FOR giving effective implementation to MPS on the proposal of the Academic council, the Board by its resolution No. 16 resolved to amend the Statutes 1964 and accordingly on 29-11-1984 Statute No. 6 has been amended. ( 11. ) BUT, to the petitioners surprise, in spite of agreement dated 11-1-1985 (Annexure-D), on 4-4-1985 the Vice-Chancellor made a statement that 30 percent marks would be allocated for personal interview and 70 percent marks would be for research work and the reports of the referees sent in respect of the teachers would be opened by him and the person who according to him, not being found fit, will not be called for personal interview. ( 12. ( 12. ) THE Vice-Chancellor constituted a one man Scrutiny Committee tp scrutinize the reports sent by the referees and as such assuming the entire jurisdiction in the matter of selection by reserving that power with him. ( 13. ) I have heard Shri V. K. Tankha for the petitioners, Shri M. M. Sapre for the respondents, Shri H. C. Kohli who is appearing for 23 intervenors and Shri D. M. Dharmadhikari appearing for 26 intervenors. Shri Kohli supported the case of the petitioners whereas Shri Dharmadhikari advanced arguments supporting the case of the respondents. ( 14. ) SHRI V. K. Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the icar guidelines for implementation of mps, by virtue of section 37 of the Act, the Board of Management of jnkvv beyond its competency and being contrary to the resolution dated 29-11-1984 passed by the Academic Council under Section 37 (3) of the act, amended the Statute No. 6 of the Statutes 1964, asunder :- "in Statute No. 6 in clause (a), the following provisions to sub-clause (i) shall be added, namely : provided that 1/3rd of the total number of permanent posts of Assistant professors and Associate Professors shall be filled up by promotion strictly based on merit and in accordance with norms laid down by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the State Government from time to time : provided further that those teachers shall be considered for merit promotion who have put in at least ten years of continuous service in their respective cadre of which at least five years service should be in this Vishwavidyalaya. " and therefore, submitted that the aforesaid act of the Board of Management amending the Statute is illegal. ( 15. ) I have perused the documents and heard the rival contentions of the parties and after giving my anxious thoughts over the issue of amending the Statute, I do not see any legal infirmity committed by the Board of Management and as such it has not acted contrary to the resolution. Therefore, in my opinion, the Board of Management was fully competent in accordance with the provisions of Section 37 of the Act to amend the statute and the same was amended to promote the scheme of I. C. A. R. for implementing the MPS in its right perspective. ( 16. Therefore, in my opinion, the Board of Management was fully competent in accordance with the provisions of Section 37 of the Act to amend the statute and the same was amended to promote the scheme of I. C. A. R. for implementing the MPS in its right perspective. ( 16. ) IT is next submitted by Shri Tankha that neither in the icar policy for implementation of mps nor in the resolution dated 29-11-1984 there was any spur relating to the allocation of 30 percent marks for personal interview, Therefore, allocation of 30 percent marks for personal interview is without jurisdiction haying no rational basis and being not only against icar policy for implementation of mps but also against the provisions of Statute No. 6 (c) and therefore, this must be struck down. ( 17. ) TO adjudge the submissions of Shri Tankha, it is necessary to look into the guidelines issued by the icar in Annexure-A and the statute No. 6 of Statutes 1964, in its amnded form. It reads thus : "6. Procedure of Selection Committee.- (a) (i) All posts of Officers of the vishwa Vidyalaya as detailed under section 12 of the Act and Statute 3 (except those of the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and Deans of Faculties) and teachers (as defined under Section 2 (x) of the Act and detailed in Statute 32)shall be filled up by Selection based strictly on merit and all India advertisement. The employees of the Vishwa Vidyalaya possessing the prescribed qualifications shall be eligible to apply and their applications shall be considered alongwith those of other candidates : * * Provided that 1/3rd of the total number of permanent posts of assistant Professors and Associate Professors shall be filled up by promotion strictly based on merit and in accordance with norms laid down by the Indian council of Agricultural Research and the State Government from time to time : provided further that those teachers shall be considered for merit promotion who have put in at least ten years of continuous service in their respective cadre of which at least five years service should be in this Vishwavidyalaya. (ii) In case of recruitment to the posts of non-teaching service Personnel (except those at the point of entry into service) 100% posts shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the employees of the Vishwa Vidyalaya : provided that for Class II and above posts in the Works Section. . . . . . . . . . from the Government of Madhya Pradesh. (b) In case of direct recruitment through advertisement, the applications received in response to the Advertisement shall first be scrutinized by a committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, which shall recommend, to the Vice-Chancellor, the names of those applicants who fulfil the prescribed qualifications, for being called for an interview. The Selection committee shall then interview the applicants or may at its discretion consider the candidature of any applicant in absentia and shall recommend a panel of not more than 3 names for each vacancy, arranged in order of merit, to the Vice-Chancellor. (c) In case of recruitment by promotion from amongst the Vishwa vidyalaya employees, the Vishwa Vidyalaya shall determine in respect of each grade or service to which appointment may be made by promotion, the grade or service from which such pro notion may be made. The Selection committee shall scrutinize the service record, qualifications and professional attainments etc. of all employees in the concerned grade or service from which promotion is to be made and shall recommend a panel of not more than three names for each vacancy, arranged in order of merit-cum-seniority. " (** Amended by the Board of Management on 29-11-1964.) ( 18. ) SO far as the guide-lines contained in Annexure-A, are concerned, Item 4 (a)thereof specifically lays down that the final selection of persons to be promoted can be made by the University in accordance with its normal procedure. This normal procedure has got a significant meaning which relates to the procedure contained in statute No. 6. If the Statute postulates for personal interview for all departmental promotees, then this normal procedure could be exercised by conducting interview and if there is no specific provision for conducting personal interview, then the normal procedure as laid down under Statute No. 6, shall be followed for departmental promotees and the same procedure has to be valued and respected as it is. ( 19. ( 19. ) THEREFORE, in the context of this normal procedure we have to examine the scope of Statute No. 6. ( 20. ) FURTHER, from the text of Statute No. 6. reproduced above, it is to be ascertained in the context of normal procedure whether the procedure prescribed under Statute No. 6 for departmental promotions, interview is mandatory. ( 21. ) A bare reading of clause (b) of Statute No. 6 shows that while at the initial stage of the first appointment only, the candidates could be interviewed as the word interview finds place in clause (b) of the Statute No. 6 alone, but as far as clause (c)which relates to the case of recruitment by promotion the word interview is missing. ( 22. ) THE learned counsel appearing for the University (JNKVV) argued that by necessary implication the word interview could also be read in clause (c) of Statute no. 6. According to him, the Selection Committee shall scrutinize service record, qualifications and professional attainments etc. ( 23. ) I am afraied if this interpretation is given to clause (c) of Statute No. 6, then the whole purpose of clause (b) of Statute No. 6, will lead to absurdity. Intention of the legislature is to be judged by the express words used in the statute or by necessary implication. ( 24. ) SO far as the express words are concerned, the word interview has been used in clause (b) of Statute No. 6, but the same, as stated, is missing in clause (c ). The words by necessary inplication mean, the fact necessarily of being implied without being expressed. This interpretation to the. word etc. used in clause (c) of Statute No. 6, cannot be attached for the reason that ascertain the true meaning of a clause or clauses of a particular statute, that is, how its clauses proceed and succeed, for this purpose the whole statute with reference to context is to be seen in order to find out the real intention of the Legislature by comparing this clause with other clauses of the Statute. In m/s. Philips India Ltd. vs. Labour Court, Madras and others, AIR 1985 SC 1034 , Their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that - "no canon of statutory construction is more firmly established than that the statute must be read as a whole. In m/s. Philips India Ltd. vs. Labour Court, Madras and others, AIR 1985 SC 1034 , Their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that - "no canon of statutory construction is more firmly established than that the statute must be read as a whole. This is a general rule of construction applicable to all statutes alike which is spoken of as construction ex visceribus actus. This rule of statutory construction is so firmly established that, it is variously styled as elementary rule and as a settled rule. The only recognised exception to this well-laid principle is that it cannot be called in aid to alter the meaning of what is of itself clear and explicit. " ( 25. ) THEREFORE, clause (b) of Statute No. 6 being explicit for the appointment of direct recruitment in which interview is must and in clause (c) of Statute No. 6 for departmental promotions, which is also clear, the word interview is not occurring. Hence, even by applying the principle of necessary implication, it cannot be construed that the word interview should also be implied in clause (c) of Statute No. 6. ( 26. ) THE word interview which finds place in clause (b) of Statute No. 6 and the words professional attainments occurring in clause (c), have got different significant meanings. The word interview denotes to ascertain personal qualities and for judging it objectively marks are required to be awarded for ascertaining the merits of the incumbents. Whereas, professional attainments denote personal accomplishment in the profession and this could be judged by going through the service record and other achievements so far the incumbent has done during the tenure of his service. All the same, for judging professional attainments/accomplishments, an incumbent may be asked to explain relating to his achievement of research work etc. In substance for conducting interview marks have to be allocated for being awarded to the incumbent, whereas, in case of professional attainment for judging his achievements, he may be asked to participate in the debate etc. , but marks only could be awarded for his research work and other achievements. In substance for conducting interview marks have to be allocated for being awarded to the incumbent, whereas, in case of professional attainment for judging his achievements, he may be asked to participate in the debate etc. , but marks only could be awarded for his research work and other achievements. Therefore, interview and professional attainment cannot be equated with each other and hence by these two expressions, it cannot be said that for ascertaining professional attainments, interview as contemplated in clause (b)of Statute No. 6, is mandatory for departmental promotions, as envisaged in clause (c) of Statute No. 6. ( 27. ) WHILE interpreting the statute, this is not the function of the Court to usurp the Legislative function under the grab of interpretation and to lay down a new law. The court should always keep in mind the whole scope and object under which circumstances the particular statute was enacted. ( 28. ) APPLYING the above principle, if the entire provision of Statute No. 6 is considered then the entire position becomes crystal clear, i. e. , clause (b) of Statute No. 6 which specifically envisages relating to direct recruitment through advertisement. personal interview could be taken by allocating marks, but die position is not so in clause (c) of Statute No. 6, where in cases of promotion from amongst the Vishwa vidyalaya employees, there is no provision for interview and as such no allocation of marks for this purpose could be made by the Selection Committee. Therefore, the word interview, not being expressly used in clause (c) of Statute No. 6, even by fiction, it cannot be construed that interview should also be held in cases of promotion covered by Clause (c ). ( 29. ) FROM the discussion aforesaid, it is now crystal clear that clause (c) of Statute no. 6 is in mandatory form and the respondents are obliged to follow it in the matter of departmental promotions without allocating 30 percent marks for interview. Therefore, it necessarily follows that clause (c) of Statute No. 6 when does not envisage interview then the same cannot be applied for promotion. 6 is in mandatory form and the respondents are obliged to follow it in the matter of departmental promotions without allocating 30 percent marks for interview. Therefore, it necessarily follows that clause (c) of Statute No. 6 when does not envisage interview then the same cannot be applied for promotion. In Ramchandra Keshav Adke (dead) by l. R. s vs. Govind Joti Chavera and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 , Their Lordships of the supreme Court have held that - "where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This rule squarely applies where the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other. " Here in the instant case, interview by allocating marks is completely forbidden in clause (c) of Statute No. 6 and therefore, implementation of mps cannot be resorted to by conducting interview by allocating 30 percent marks for departmental candidates. ( 30. ) SHRI D. M. Dharmadhikari appearing for 26 intervenors, supporting the case of the respondents, submitted that only by conducting personal interview candidate could be judged whether he has that much power of expression to teach pupils. It is true that to test the vocabulary power, it is necessary to test the incumbent whether he possess that much capability and capacity to teach the students, but for this purpose alone, the Legislature at their wisdom, used the word interview in clause (b) of Statute no. 6. But, once the same capability and capacity to teach the students is tested at the initial stage and the incumbent is selected then for next promotion, the same test of interview is not required when the Legislature in so many words by omitting the word interview have laid down different tests in clause (c) of Statute No. 6 and therefore, the argument advanced by Shri Dharmadhikari, has no substance. ( 31. ) IT was further argued by Shri Sapre and Shri D. M. Dahrmadhikari that the selection Committee while selecting the departmental candidates may resort to the mode of taking interview and for that purpose may allocate 30 percent of the marks. ( 31. ) IT was further argued by Shri Sapre and Shri D. M. Dahrmadhikari that the selection Committee while selecting the departmental candidates may resort to the mode of taking interview and for that purpose may allocate 30 percent of the marks. The learned Counsel however, during the course of arguments, failed to point out from the Act or the Statutes, 1964 that the function of the Selection Committee has been vested with this Board. On the other hand, Section 49 of the Act which is very emphatic, envisages that Selection Committee constituted by the Vishwa Vidyalaya, shall function in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes and for this purpose, again, we have to revert to the provisions of Statute No. 6 (c) which nowhere lays down for interview and for allocating 30 percent marks. Therefore, this submission has also no force, and is repelled. ( 32. ) IT is further argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that on the recommendation of the Academic Council the Board of Management in its 75th meeting held on 7th and 8th March, 1981 has approved, for the guidance of the selection Committee, a scorecard for the selection to posts in Professors and Associate professors cadre. In that score-card, 60 percent marks have been allocated for written test and 40 percent marks for interview. This will be inclusive of the performance in interview, as well as publication, experience etc. This score-card which deals 40 percent marks for interview is only for guidance of the Selection Committee and this could be acted upon in the absence of any statutory provision, ( 33. ) IT is settled law that no executive instructions can be exercised in contravention of statutory provisions. Since the instant case is covered under Statute no. 6 (c), which does not postulate about an interview for departmental promotions and this being a statutory provision, the recommendation of the Academic Council dated 7th and 8th March, 1981 cannot be acted upon against Statute No. 6 (c) and therefore, this submission of Shri Sapre fails. ( 34. ) IN Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid Majib Sehravardi and others etc. ( 34. ) IN Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid Majib Sehravardi and others etc. , AIR 1981 SC 487 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referring to the case of Miss Nishi Maghu vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1975 , applied the test of I. A. S. Examination and the allocation of percentage of marks for personal interview, held not to be more than 12. 2 percent. ( 35. ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the decision reported in Liladhar vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1981 SC 1777 stated that in this case Ajay Hasias case (supra) has been considered and Their Lordships have held that in personal interview 25 percent of the marks could be allocated. In Liladnars case (supra) Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules were considered and keeping in view the statutory provisions, allocation of 25 percent marks were held valid. Shri Sapre further argued that the ratio laid down in Ajay Hasia s case (supra) is obiter dicta and is not binding. I am afraid that this contention has any force. In Municipal Commitee, amritsar vs. Hazara Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1087 considering the scope of Article 141 of the constitution of India, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that obiter dictum of the Supreme Court should be accepted as binding and therefore, the law relating to the percentage of allocation of marks for personal interview as laid down in ajay Hasias case (supra) that it should not exceed 12. 2 percent has got a binding force. In view of the statutory provision under which the present case is governed, i. e. clause (c) Statute No. 6, in the absence of any specific statutory provision, even 12. 2 per cent of marks cannot be allocated. ( 36. ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasias case (supra) have assigned cogent reasons for not allocating higher percentage of marks for personal interview and said that in these days considering the drawbacks and deficiency in the oral interview test and the condition prevailing in the country, particularly when there is deterioration on moral values, and corruption and nepotism are very much on the incraese, allocation of high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to marks allocated for written test, cannot be accepted by the Court free from the vices of arbitrariness. ( 37. ) TO me, the sole idea behind it, appears to be that by allocating high percentage of marks for personal interview/viva voce, interest of meritorious candidates may jeopardise, because of the lacking of high metallic character in persons taking interview, and their awarding marks by pick and choose policy may prevail upon the meritorious candidates who have secured high percentage of marks in other tests i. e. , written test etc. ( 38. ) IN the absence of any statutory provision either in the Act or in the Statutes, more so, after repealing Statute No. 37, I fail to understand, as to how in the present set up, the Vice-Chancellor has usurped the statutory powers of Selection Committee by having his final say in the matter of selection. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also failed to point out any statutory provision giving any right or jurisdiction to the Vice-Chancellor to prop into the matter of selection of the teachers. Therefore after receipt of the selection list from the referees, the Vice-Chancellor has no statutory powers in the matter of selection of the candidates in implementation of MPS. ( 39. ) HERE, I must observe that our country is not lacking behind in producing intellectuals having high morals and possessing metallic integrity. But, all the same there are few black sheep among them who at times, prevail upon them and make the whole atmosphere obnoxious, bringing nickname to the entire selection body. Therefore, now it has become necessary to allocate low percentage of marks for personal interview, just to deprecate favouritism. ( 40. ) THE learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Dr. Mrs. Hem lata Joshi and others vs. Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha and others, 1977 Labour and Industrial cases 952 and Officers Association. Bhilai Steel Plant and others vs. Steel Authority of india Ltd. and others 1983 MPLJ 50 and submitted that in Dr. Mrs. Hemlata Joshis case (supra) there was no specific provision in the Act and in that context Divison Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Selection Committee being a supreme authority, in the absence of any specific provision in the Act or Statute or Ordinance, may conduct interview, but such is not the situation here. In the instant case, Statute no. 6 (c) by necessary implication, does not provide for conducting personal interview. In the instant case, Statute no. 6 (c) by necessary implication, does not provide for conducting personal interview. Similarly, in Officers Association, Bhilai Steel Plants case (supra), it has not been pointed out by the learned counsel that despite any specific provision according to which personal interview and allocation of marks were not contemplated, even then the court has decided holding of interview and allocation of marks. Therefore, both these cases are distinguishable having no application to the facts of the instant case, particularly in view of the provision of Clause (c) of Statute No. 6. ( 41. ) SHRI D. M. Dharmadhikari appearing for the intervenors, relying upon the decision of the The Governing Body, G. C. College, Silchar, Assam and another vs. The gauhati University and others, AIR 1973 SC 761 submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition. It appears, the recent pronouncement of Their Lordships of the Supreme court in S. P. Gupta and others vs. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149 , escaped the attention of the learned counsel, wherein it has been held that in India, the doctrine of locus standi has been given go-by. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that "where the matter in issue is of public importance, every citizen has right to challenge the same". In the present case the petitioners are directly affected by the decision taken by the respondents covered by Clause (c) of Statute No. 6 and allocating 30 percent marks. Therefore, in my opinion, they have every locus standi to file this petition. ( 42. ) SHRI Sapre and Shri Dharmadhikari next contended that so far no prejudice or any irreparable injury has been caused to the petitioners to ventilate their grievances before this Court, therefore, this petition being premature, deserves to be dismissed, on this score alone. ( 43. Therefore, in my opinion, they have every locus standi to file this petition. ( 42. ) SHRI Sapre and Shri Dharmadhikari next contended that so far no prejudice or any irreparable injury has been caused to the petitioners to ventilate their grievances before this Court, therefore, this petition being premature, deserves to be dismissed, on this score alone. ( 43. ) IN my opinion this argument is devoid of any substance for the reason that where the anticipated prejudicial action having no legal sanctity and is contrary to the statutory provision and the affected persons apprehend loss due to threat of prejudicial action by the respondents, they (affected persons) may resort to the remedy available to them, in advance and in such cases, the persons concerned cannot be asked to wait for the injury to be caused to them, before seeking courts protection. In this context, Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Chief of the Army Staff vs. Major Dharampal, AIR 1985 SC 703 , have held that in such cases, even in advance, if a person is apprehensive of the alleged threat which may harm him, may knock the door of justice. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel has no force. ( 44. ) IT is next contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that since the persons concerned belonging to all the five Faculties of JNKVV have not come up before this Court, therefore, conducting interview and allocating 30 percent marks, of all the Faculties, could not be said to be prejudicial to the candidates belonging to other Faculties. ( 45. ) THE Intervenors, belonging to different Faculties of JNKVV, are being represented through their counsel Shri D. M. Dharmadhikari and Shri Kohli. ( 45. ) THE Intervenors, belonging to different Faculties of JNKVV, are being represented through their counsel Shri D. M. Dharmadhikari and Shri Kohli. Further, it may be that candidates other than the petitioners and the intervenors belonging to other faculties may not be alive of their superior statutory rights and have not come up to seek redress, but for this reason alone, the illegal action which is being taken by the respondents cannot be allowed to stand and to single out the benefit to be extended to the petitioners and the intervenors alone and as such, if for the petitioners, the action of the respondents for conducting interview and allocating 30 perceni marks is struck down, the same will also equally apply to the incumbents belonging to all other five faculties which are being governed by the common Act and the Statute. ( 46. ) THEREFORE, it is made clear that for purpose of STATUTE No. 6 (c), final selection shall be made of such candidates who have secured highest percentage of marks out of 70 percent or in the alternative, 70 percent marks be treated as 100 percent and the incumbents who have secured highest percentage of marks, may be selected for promotion, but the marks, if given in interview to such candidates shall not be taken into consideration for final selection for promotion. ( 47. ) FOR the reasons stated aforesaid that the action of the respondents for implementing the MPS, being contrary to the statutory provisions of Clause (c) of statute No. 6, where no interview or allocation of marks is contemplated, the said action is struck down. ( 48. ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 200/- if certified. The secutiry amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition allowed.