Judgment :- 1. In response to the notification issued by the Public Service Commission for the post of Boat Lascars, the petitioners submitted their applications but they were not called for interview. Therefore they approached this Court with this Original Petition and obtained an ad interim order directing the Public Service Commission to interview them subject to the final decision in the case. Accordingly they were duly interviewed. The rank list consisting of about 299 candidates already made on the 28th of February, 1982 had a life of two years. In pursuance of the interim direction made by this Court after the petitioners were interviewed, petitioners 4, 5,6, 8 and 9 were included in the rank list subject to the final decision in the original petition. Petitioners 1 to 3 and 7 were not even provisionally selected for inclusion in the rank list. Hence it is obvious that their cases do not deserve any further consideration. 2. So far as petitioners 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are concerned, it is obvious that if they were suo motu called for interview by the Public Service Commission they would have got themselves included in the rank list. Mr. Kelu Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission, also told us that they would have been advised for appointment, as persons lower in the rank list have already been advised. 3. The principal contention of Sri. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the action of the Public Service Commission in not calling the petitioners for interview is arbitrary. It appears that the number of candidates to be interviewed was restricted in this case to 400 in all, relying upon the second proviso to R.5(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. When the Public Service Commission is confronted with the situation where there are unduly large number of applicants, the second proviso to R.5(ii) enables it to restrict the number of candidates to be called for oral test or interview on the basis of one or more of the three criteria mentioned therein. When the Public Service Commission is confronted with the situation where there are unduly large number of applicants, the second proviso to R.5(ii) enables it to restrict the number of candidates to be called for oral test or interview on the basis of one or more of the three criteria mentioned therein. For the sake of convenience we propose to extract the first and second provisos to R.5(ii) as follows: "Provided that where the number of qualified applicants is unduly large having regard to the number of vacancies the Commission may restrict the number of candidates to be called for the oral test (interview) to such extent as they may decide after conducting any examination as they deem fit: Provided further that the Commission may also restrict the number of candidates to be called for oral test (interview) on the basis of any one or more of the following criteria: (a) Higher qualification (b) Higher marks (c) Age The second proviso alone is relied; but the first proviso is required to understand the scope of the second proviso. 4. For the post of Boat Lascars the qualification prescribed is that the candidate must be literate in Malayalam, Tamil or Kannada. He should also possess a Boat Lascar's licence. It was explained that the Public Service Commission felt that those who are older in age should be preferred to the younger ones as the younger candidates would have further chances of appointment. It was on that basis, it was sumitted by Sri. Kelu Nambiar, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission that the number of candidates to be interviewed was restricted to 400 out of the total number of 996, selecting the older among the candidates depending upon the classification required to be made in accordance with the rule of reservation. In the counter affidavit filed by the Public Service Commission, the procedure followed by them has been indicated in Para.8 to 11 extracted below: "8. For filling up the 70 vacancies already reported and for the vacancies that could be anticipated, the Commission decided to call for interview about 400 candidates on the basis of age, as is done in the case of selection for Last Grade Servants. For filling up the 70 vacancies already reported and for the vacancies that could be anticipated, the Commission decided to call for interview about 400 candidates on the basis of age, as is done in the case of selection for Last Grade Servants. According to this principle, SO percent of the total number of candidates to be called for the interview should be from the forward communities and the remaining 50 per cent to be earmarked for the various reserved communities. Consequently, the community-wise break up of candidates will be as follows: 9. It was found that there were 172 candidates belonging to forward group who were born on or before 31-5-1959. It was decided to include these 172 candidates from the Forward group in the list of candidates for the interview. Similarly there were 59 candidates from the Exhale community who were born on or before 31-1-1950. They were included in the list of candidates to be called for the interview. The name of the community (or group), the number of candidates and the age group of such candidates who were called for the interview are as shown below: 10. All the petitioners in this O. P. were applicants for the post. The community and the date of birth of each one of the petitioners as claimed in the applications of them are as below. 11. Since it was decided by the Commission to restrict the number of candidates belonging to Ezhava Community (as was done in the cases of other community groups also) to be called for interview for those who were born on or before 31-1-1950 the petitioners who belong to Ezhava Community and who were born on dates after 31-1-1950 were not called for the interview held from 13-4-1982 to 17-4-1982." 5. The petitioners apart from contending that the choice of candidates for interview made as per Para.8 to 11 is itself arbitrary, also stressed that no uniform age has been accepted as a principle for all communities. It was further contended that the relevant provision viz., the second proviso to R.5(ii) itself is arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. We therefore propose to examine the contention that the second proviso to R.5(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure violates Art.14 of the Constitution. 6. It was further contended that the relevant provision viz., the second proviso to R.5(ii) itself is arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. We therefore propose to examine the contention that the second proviso to R.5(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure violates Art.14 of the Constitution. 6. This Court has recognised the power of the Public Service Commission to regulate its own procedure by framing appropriate Rules under Art.320 of the Constitution. Though the Public Service Commission is clothed with the power to regulate its own procedure by prescribing appropriate procedure, the power exercised by the Public Service Commission is also subject to the provisions of Art.14 of the Constitution The Public Service Commission which is required to interview the candidates for the purpose of making selection to several posts can undoubtedly regulate its procedure for restricting the number of candidates to be 'interviewed by eliminating candidates at a preliminary selection. But any procedure for such elimination must be fair and reasonable and answer the requirements of Art.14 of the Constitution. 7. The second proviso to R.5(ii) confers power on the Public Service Commission to restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview. It further provides that such restriction can be made on the basis of any one or more of the three criteria viz., higher qualification, higher marks and age. The first part of the second proviso empowers the Public Service Commission to restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview without affording any guidance in regard to the extent of the restriction of the number of candidates to be called for interview. In the absence of any guidance, the Public Service Commission is thus enabled to restrict the number of candidates at its own sweet will. On one occasion the number maybe restricted to four times and on another occasion to ten times the number of vacancies. This provision; providing no statutory guidelines, is clearly conferment of an arbitrary power, not countenanced under Art.14 of the Constitution. The first part of the second proviso to R.5(ii) has therefore to be declared as void as offending Art.14 of the Constitution. 8. This provision; providing no statutory guidelines, is clearly conferment of an arbitrary power, not countenanced under Art.14 of the Constitution. The first part of the second proviso to R.5(ii) has therefore to be declared as void as offending Art.14 of the Constitution. 8. So far as the second part of the second proviso to R.5(ii) is concerned, it provides that the Public Service Commission can restrict the number of candidates to be called for interview by adopting any one or more of the three criteria viz., higher qualification, higher marks and age. Here again, the rule does not indicate expressly or even impliedly the circumstances under which one or the other criteria should be preferred or as to the cases when all the three criteria should be followed. Higher qualification may be a preferential ground for selection and for restriction of the number of candidates. But there may be cases where higher qualification is a positive disqualification for certain posts at least in the lowest categories. The rule, as it stands, does not permit restriction on the basis of lower qualification. Regarding age, the rule does not state whether it is the higher or the lower age that should be the criteria for restriction. More over, as seen in this case, the Commission is allowed under this rule to fix different age for different communities to restrict the number of candidates for each community. Here an Ezhava born after 31-1-1950 is not called for interview, even if he is able to compete for the open selection. If the candidate is a Muslim, candidates born after 30-11-1958 are not called. For Dheevara candidates, 31-5-1945 is the date of birth which will determine whether they will be called for interview. Arbitrariness is thus writ large in the rule itself. Therefore we have no hesitation in taking the view that the second part of the second proviso also is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Hence the entire second proviso to R.5(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure is hereby declared as void as offending Art.14 of the Constitution. 9. Therefore we have no hesitation in taking the view that the second part of the second proviso also is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Hence the entire second proviso to R.5(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure is hereby declared as void as offending Art.14 of the Constitution. 9. As petitioners 4,5,6,8 and 9 having been included in the rank list in pursuance of the interview held as per the interim order made by this Court during the pendency of this original petition and as it is conceded that persons lower in rank than them have already been advised for appointment as Boat Lascars, this is a case in which we should issue a mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to appoint them as Boat Lascars within a specified time. The question regarding assignment of racks and the payment of salary having been fairly left to the discretion of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, we consider it appropriate that the appointment shall be prospective and that the petitioners to be appointed in pursuance of this direction shall not be entitled to any back salary and that for all purposes including the purpose of seniority and other conditions of service, their rights will be regulated taking into account the date on which they are actually appointed in pursuance of the direction to be issued in this case. 10. Having (regard to the fact that the second proviso R.5(ii) has been in operation for a long number of years, Sri. Kelu Nambiar made a request that the declaration that the second proviso to R.5(ii) is void as offending Art.14 of the constitution be made prospective in nature from this date making it clear that the action taken by the Public Service Commission so far on the basis of the second proviso does not stand disturbed by this decision. We consider that that is a reasonable request and make a declaration accordingly. 11. For the reasons stated above this original petition is allowed. The second proviso to R.5(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure is declared void as offending Art.14 of the Constitution. We consider that that is a reasonable request and make a declaration accordingly. 11. For the reasons stated above this original petition is allowed. The second proviso to R.5(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure is declared void as offending Art.14 of the Constitution. There shall be a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to appoint petitioners 4,5,6,8 and 9 as Boat Lascars within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, subject to the aforesaid observations. In so far as petitioners 1 to 3 and 7 are concerned, the original petition stands dismissed. No costs. Let a copy of this order be despatched to respondents 1 and 2 forthwith. Let a copy of this order be furnished to counsel appearing for both sides on usual terms.