JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - Feeling aggrieved from the selection made by U.P. Secondary Education Commission to the post of Principal Sri Daya Nand Rameshwar Prasad Hans Rani Arya Kanya Intermediate College of opposite party No. 3 who was the next senior teacher in the very same institution in which the Petitioner too was a teacher and earlier Headmistress also and had been officiating as Principal for about 13 years has filed this writ petition. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11-7-85 by the Regional Inspectors of Schools, Lucknow conveying to the Manager of the institution that opposite party No. 3 has been selected as Principal of the institution and within the time mentioned charge of the said post be given to her. The Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to the writ petition not to appoint the opposite party No. 3 as Principal of the institution and also not to interfere in the working of the Petitioner as Principal of the institution. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Headmistress in the same institution on 1-7-1961 and at that time it was only a Junior High School. In the year 1962 it was upgraded to the High School and till 1963 when a regular Headmistress was not appointed she acted as Acting Head Mistress which she officiated twice also in the absence of said Head Mistress. In the year 1966 the institution was raised to Intermediate and the Petitioner acted as Principal for four months till a regular Principal was not appointed. In October, 1971 certain disciplinary proceedings were taken against the then Principal and the Petitioner was appointed as Ad-hoc Principal and since then she is continuously in Office. The post of Principal fell vacant in regular manner only in 1984 and the Committee of Management resolved to appoint the Petitioner as Principal on Ad-hoc basis with effects from 1-7-1944 she being the senior most lecturer and fully qualified for the said post. The Petitioner was earlier promoted in the lecturer's grade on 1-7-1966 while opposite party No. 3 was directly appointed as lecturer in the institution some two months thereafter viz. with effect from 9-9-1966. 3. The Petitioner was earlier promoted in the lecturer's grade on 1-7-1966 while opposite party No. 3 was directly appointed as lecturer in the institution some two months thereafter viz. with effect from 9-9-1966. 3. After the promulgation of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Ordinance which was published in U. P. Gazette dated 10th July 1981 which was repealed and substituted by U.P. Ordinance No. 23 of 1981 promulgated on 27th October 1981 and later as replaced by U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, i982 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982) hereinafter known as ' Act ' which was deemed to have come into effect on 14th July 1981, selections to the post of Principal of recognized Secondary Education institution were to be made through the U.P, Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter known as Commission). In exercise of the powers conferred u/s 35 of the Act framed Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Commission Rules 1983 hereinafter known as, ' Rules'. The said Rules were amended vide First Amendment Rules, 1983. These rules provide for qualification of teachers, procedure for recruitment, appointment etc. In exercise of powers conferred u/s 34 of the Act, the Commission with the previous approval of the State Government framed Regulations for holding selection, conducting examination where necessary or for holding interview and laying down the procedure to be followed by the Commission for discharging its duties and performing its functions under the Act. The said Regulations were amended on 18th July 1983 vide U.P. Education Services Commission (Amendment) First Regulation 1983. Again in exercise of powers u/s 34 of the Act with the previous approval of the State Government the Commission made the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulation 1983 hereinafter known as Business Regulations. 4. The Commission Rules of 1983 apart from advertisement of vacancies after receipt intimation, the instructions and determination provided for the post of Head of Institution for holding of preliminary screening on the basis of academic record-teaching and administrative experience in Sub-rule 4 (11) provided for sending the names of two senior most teachers of the institution by the Management, copies of their service record (including character rolls) and such other record as may be required from time to time. For the appointment to post of Head of Institution apart from five direct candidates two senior most teachers of the said institution are interviewed. The marks are allotted to the candidates interviewed by all the members by the method of grading. The candidates are to adjudge for 75 marks keeping in view the following factors which have been laid down by the Commission: 1.Personality. 2.Knowledge of subject. 3.Knowledge of correct ideas and problems of the educational work and diagnostic attitude towards them. 4.General knowledge. 5.Adminstrative ability. 6.Self expressive and impressive views. 7.Achievement in curricular activities of the regional and state level. 5. Business Regulation 8(2) provides that so far two senior most teachers of the institution who are to be considered for the post of Head of Institution are concerned no one shall be admitted to the examination or interview unless he had duly applied on prescribed form and deposited the prescribed fee within specified time in the manner prescribed and that no application received after the last date fixed for the receipt of application shall be accepted. The Regulation also provide for the preparation of list of experts who will also be members of the interview Board. Business Regulation 7(6) provides that intimation of interview will be sent to a candidate 21 (twenty one) days in advance. The Chairman and Secretary of the Commission issued orders to Regional Deputy Director of Education, District Inspectors of Schools and Regional Inspector of Schools to take every possible step to make available the service records of two senior most teachers so that the same may be considered in the final interview. It needed emphasis for saving the Commission from litigation. Three such letters have been placed on the record of the writ petition. 6. The State Government has not filed counter affidavit in this case and during the course of hearing a supplementary affidavit was filed by the commission in view of the directions given by the court regarding decision of the Commission or to produce the same regarding allocation of marks for record of service and manner and adverse entry in the character roll. The Commission along with supplementary affidavit has filed a document which is headed as ' confidential. The Commission along with supplementary affidavit has filed a document which is headed as ' confidential. ' It provides that the marks obtained by the ' teacher candidates ' at the interview should be modulated on the basis of record of service in the particular institution if the same becomes available by the time of the finalization of result of selection. This modulation will be done by the two full time members of the commission constituting the interview board jointly as under : (a)That marks of the interview will be reduced to three fifth both the maximum as also those actually obtained. The interview marks will then be against a maximum of fifty five. (b)The remaining two fifth i.e. a maximum, of thirty marks will be allotted on the basis of service in the particular institution as follows: (i) For the first ten years-maximum of one marks per year; total, maximum of ten. (ii) For the eleventh to twentieth years; maximum of two marks per year total maximum of twenty. Grand total of maximum marks for service record-30. (c) The modulated marks will be the total of (a) plus (b) above. It further provides that after interview two members of the board will carry out one more exercise. They will proportionately reduce the marks in 45 and the remaining 30 marks will be for the entry in character roll meaning thereby that service record including character roll will not be scrutinized by the member of the Commission along with the expert but the same will be looked into by the two members of the commission after the expert leaves and interview is concluded. Learned Counsel for the commission contended that this has been done by the commission in exercise of residuary powers conferred upon it under the Business Regulation No. 13 which provides as follows: Subject to the provisions of Rules and the First Regulation and subsequent regulations made by the Commission, the Commission may deal with any matter not specifically provided for in such manner as it deems fit, and report the matter to the Government forthwith for information and direction, if any. It has not been stated in the affidavit or anywhere that as required this procedure laid down by the commission which is headed as ' confidential' was reported to the Government and the Government gave any instructions regarding it. 7. It has not been stated in the affidavit or anywhere that as required this procedure laid down by the commission which is headed as ' confidential' was reported to the Government and the Government gave any instructions regarding it. 7. The facts regarding which there appear to be no dispute are that the Commission advertised the post of the Principal of the institution and the interview was to take place on 21-5-1985. The Petitioner was officiating principal for the last Li years No information of the same was given to her with the result that she could not apply for it in time. It was only on 18-5-1985 she received a communication dated 17-5-1985 that she and opposite party No. 3 were to appear before the commission on 21-5-85 though Under Regulation 6(6) the intimation was to be given 21 days in advance. The Petitioner went at Allahabad on 21-5-85 and the opposite party No. 3 was also present. The preparation for interviewing other candidates was under process and progress and the Petitioner was given an impression that she might not be interviewed. The Petitioner thereafter made up her mind to return back. In the meantime opposite party No. 3 who had gone to see the Deputy Secretary of the Commission, came back and informed the Petitioner that she should not leave the commission office as it might be possible for commission to interview both of them on that very day. Thereafter a clerk of the Commission required the Petitioner to fill in the form and although the Petitioner was reluctant to do so but she did it taking the aid of her memory in the absence of relevant documents. In the form it was mentioned by her that she was doing it on the basis of memory. The Petitioner has averred that in these circumstances she was worried and got nervous and under such mental strain she faced the interview board. The Petitioner has further stated that during the course of interview she could get a scant feeling in view of some conversation between one or two members of the Board that it would not be fair to proceed with the interview. The Petitioner has further stated that during the course of interview she could get a scant feeling in view of some conversation between one or two members of the Board that it would not be fair to proceed with the interview. The undisputed factual position appears to be that the District Inspectress of Schools sent a copy of the letter dated 15-5-1985 to the Manager of the institution requiring her to send the character roll and record of the two senior most teachers which was received by the Manager on 17-5-85. The service record and character roll of the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 was received in the Office of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools which was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education, Lucknow for being dispatched to the Office of the Commission at Allahabad. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 were interviewed but the service record of these candidates was not before the interview board and according to the Petitioner in the absence of character roll there was nothing before the commission including the documents which she could have filed if intimation was given to her in advance regarding her administrative ability of the school management and other guidelines laid down by the commission. In the counter affidavit by Commission it has been stated that the Petitioner did not raise any grievance or made any complaint before the interview board that intimation had not been received by her in advance by 21 days or that she has suffered any prejudice. The non-receipt of the record up to the date of interview has been admitted, counter affidavit has been filed by the commission. The opposite party No. 3 has put in appearance in the case and engaged a counsel but no counter affidavit was filed by her and the management which also put in appearance subsequently no counter affidavit has been filed by it. 8. On behalf of the Petitioner the procedure adopted at the interview without disclosing any objective ground has been challenged on the ground of being an arbitrary process which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The interview held in the instant case has also been challenged on the ground of being in violation of Statutory Rules and Regulations framed in this behalf. The interview held in the instant case has also been challenged on the ground of being in violation of Statutory Rules and Regulations framed in this behalf. The main attack in this behalf was made regarding absence of service record at the time of interview the sending of which is mandatory by the management Under Rule 4(4) and breach of Regulation 6(6) providing for 21 days prior intimation of the date of interview. The basis of method adopted at interview and the modulation, evaluation and marking system has been challenged as arbitrary and against the cannons of fairness, opening doors for pick and choose. During the course of arguments when the confidential document providing for procedure for allocation of 30 marks for service record of two teachers of the institution by Commission was filed which provides for deduction of one mark for adverse entry and absence of giving half match in the entries in the character roll, the same was challenged on behalf of the Petitioner to be ultra-vireos, arbitrary without any legal sanction and beyond the powers of commission to formulate and evolve such formulae which rendered the selection irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary. 9. Before considering the plea pertaining to interview and its process it will be appropriate to consider the plea taken by the Petitioner at a late stage claiming regularisation on the post of Principal which would render the entire selection as redundant and unwarranted. This plea is based on Section 33A of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 the said Ordinance was replaced by an Act of legislature. Section 33A in so far as the same is relevant reads as follows : 33A. This plea is based on Section 33A of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 the said Ordinance was replaced by an Act of legislature. Section 33A in so far as the same is relevant reads as follows : 33A. Regulation of certain appointments : (1)Every teacher directly appointed before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as amended from time to time who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall, with effect, from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of such commencement. (2)Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity Under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. (3) Nothing in this Section be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment: if on the date of such commencement, such post had already been filled or selection for such post had already been made in accordance with this Act, or if such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal, or Head Master of the institution concerned. Explanation: For the purposes of this Sub-section a person shall be deemed to be related to another if: (i) they are members of a Hindu undivided family; or (ii) they are husband and wife; or (iii) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in the Second Schedule to the Intermediate Education Act, 1921". Section 33A regularizes the services of a teacher directly appointed before the commencement of the said ordinance on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the U.P. Secondary Education Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981 as amended from time to time. Under the Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982, the word ' teacher ' includes a Principal. Under the Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982, the word ' teacher ' includes a Principal. Paragraph 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 referred to above provides for promotion as well as direct appointment on ad-hoc basis. Paragraph 5 provides that if vacancy can not be filled in by promotion the same may be filled by direct appointment. The procedure for direct appointment is prescribed and for it intimation of vacancy is given, advertisement is made and best candidate is selected on the basis of quality points. In the instant case nothing like was done. Substantive vacancy for the post of Principal occurred in 19"4. The Petitioner who was officiating for the last 13 years was appointed as such by means of a resolution. This appointment was thus by way of promotion and was not a direct appointment. It not being a direct appointment the Petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of Section 33A referred to above. 10. So far as interview test is concerned, it cannot be denied that for appointment or promotion to a higher post interview test if not the sole test is a better test to judge the capacity and capability of a candidate if the same is done fairly and by persons of integrity and caliber. It can also be not denied that a candidate who otherwise may be the best candidate may for some reason or the other may not fare well before the interview board may be out of nervousness but process of selection by interview test on such a ground cannot be rejected. In Miss Nishi Maghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1980) 4 SCC 98 it was observed that the contention that interview system is not a reliable test to judge the suitability of a candidate as many uncertain factors were likely to affect the result of the interview reflects a legitimate point of view but it is a point of view and can not be taken as a word on the subject. In Shri Janki Prasad Parimoo and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, AIR 1973 SC 930 which was a case of selection to the post of Head Master and Head Mistress of educational institutions, it was observed: Undoubtedly when appointment to higher posts are made it may be legitimate to test the candidates at a properly conducted interview. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, AIR 1973 SC 930 which was a case of selection to the post of Head Master and Head Mistress of educational institutions, it was observed: Undoubtedly when appointment to higher posts are made it may be legitimate to test the candidates at a properly conducted interview. But it appears to us that the interview can not be made the sole test in cases of this kind. 11. In Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, AIR 1981 SC 487 it was observed t "The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very (sic) satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristic and tact, the oral interview test must, at the present stage be regard as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and is capable of abuse. We should however like to point out that in the matter of admission of colleges, or even in the matter of public employment, the oral interview 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 oral interview test are men of high integrity, caliber and qualification. '' The observations made in Ajay Hasia's case (supra) were explained in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1981 SC 1777 in which case it was observed: While a written examination has certain distinct advantage over the interview test there are get no written test which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, co-operative ness capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment ability to meet discussion, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated perhaps with some degree or error, by an interview test much depending on the constitution of the Interview Board In the said case distinction between admission in colleges and in services to which recruitment has to be made from persons of mature personality was pointed out. In some services interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. In some services interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. However, in many services where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality premise, some weight has to be given though not much to great weight to the interview test. 12. In the matter of selection of head of institution and that too between teachers of I he said institution who already had experience in teaching line, it is not the written test but interview test if done after taking into consideration their performance as teacher, administrative capacity, control, enforcement of discipline and degree of success in it will be the only way for making a just and fair selection. If all factors are considered in totality the chances of favor and bias-favor or unfair selection may be reduced to the minimum. If the guidelines so prescribed for holding a fair selection are followed in breach the purpose and the interview test may be defeated and it will be reduced to a farce. 13. The main challenge of the Petitioner regarding breach of Rules and Regulations is in respect of non-availability of the service record of the Petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 before the full Interview Board including expert. The Interview Board was also to allocate marks on the administrative ability which is one of the seven factors laid down by Commission which has evolved its own procedure in this behalf. It is not in dispute that the service Record of the Petitioner and the opposite party No 3 was not before the Interview Board and as a matter of fact the same was not received till then. It was subsequently received and was looked into by two permanent Members of the Commission who evaluated it for the purpose of awarding marks. Thirty marks were reserved for it in the manner laid down by the Board. 14. Rule 4 (i) of the ' Rules ' provides for determination and intimation of vacancies, while Rule 4 (ii) provides that in regard to the post of head of an institution, the Management shall also forward the names of two senior most teachers, copies of their service record (including character rolls) and such other record or particulars as the Commissioner may require from time to time. This may mean that while determining and intimating the vacancies to the commission the service record of two teachers is to be seen. Rule 6 provides procedure for recruitment in respect of outside candidates who are to be interviewed along with these two senior teachers of the institution provided that so far as the head of the institution is concerned, screening of the applicant shall be held on the basis of academic record, teaching and administrative experience which means that the service record of the outsiders who apply for the post of principal shall be scrutinized and thereafter the limited number of candidates as permitted will only be called for interview. 15. The contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that this has resulted prejudicial to her and the result of the interview would not be said to be just and fair and in accordance with Rules, while according to the opposite parties it has not caused any prejudice to the Petitioner inasmuch full 30 marks were allocated to the Petitioner and even then she could not succeed as the total number of marks obtained by her were shorter than the opposite party No. 2. This argument legally would not be sustainable even though factually it may be correct. It was to be remembered that the Commission was not making selection for the post of teacher but for the post of Principal. While making selection it is imperative on the part of the commission to look into the past record of service of the candidate and his administrative ability and this task cannot be assigned and delegated to two members instead of the Interview Board itself. If it is delegated to two members then it will be selection partly by the full Board and partly by two members and may not be fair assessment of the candidate. In Janki Prasad Parimoo (supra) it was observed that " the efficiency of a teacher and his qualification to be appointed Head Master depend upon several considerations. His character, his teaching experience, ability to manage his class, his popularity with the students and the high percentage of successful students he is able to produce are the matters which must be necessarily taken into consideration before a selection is made. His character, his teaching experience, ability to manage his class, his popularity with the students and the high percentage of successful students he is able to produce are the matters which must be necessarily taken into consideration before a selection is made. For this any Committee which desires to mike selection after interview should insist that the character roll and service record of these teachers should before it. " The Hon'ble Court expressed the view that the Committee committed an error when it proceeded to make the selection on the basis of mere interview without the service record. 16. On behalf of the opposite parties it was contended that in Janki Prasad Parimoo case (supra) there were no statutory Rules or procedure prescribed, while in the instant case the Commission has evolved its own procedure and as such the said authority will not apply to the present case. According to the counsel for the opposite parties allocation of marks is more or less mechanical process for which manner has been prescribed and non-production of the record before the Selection Board will not affect the ultimate selection. Under the rules and the procedure evolved by the Commission, 75 percent maximum marks are reserved for personality knowledge of subject, knowledge of correct ideas and problems of the educational work and diagnostic attitude towards them, general knowledge, administrative ability, self expressive and impressive view and achievement of the regional and state levels. Marks are allocated on these items by the method of grading by the Interview Board and administrative ability and the knowledge cannot be judged by the Interview Board by merely putting a few questions to the candidate appearing before the Board and the same can be judged after taking into consideration the experience and the service record which may also be helpful in formulating the questions to be put to the teacher candidates appearing before it. As no separate marks for the seven items have been prescribed, the administrative ability and capability may have procured more marks and the balance will tilt in favor of the candidate. As the service record of the candidate was not before the Interview Board, there has been breach of Rules and Regulations which prejudiced the selection and the selection deserves to be set aside. 17. As the service record of the candidate was not before the Interview Board, there has been breach of Rules and Regulations which prejudiced the selection and the selection deserves to be set aside. 17. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to go through the other grounds which have been urged on behalf of the Petitioner including the attack on the procedure evolved by the Commission for evaluating the character roll by allocation of marks in mechanical process which may render the evaluation unfair in view of the procedure so prescribed. 18. On behalf of the Petitioner violation of Reg. 6(6) regarding intimation of interview 21 days in advance was also canvassed. We would not like to express any opinion and the Commission may take the same also into consideration before making fresh selection and to make suitable amendments, if required. 19. The writ petition is thus allowed and the order dated 11-7-85 passed by the Regional Inspecteress of Girls School (annexure 3) and the selection of the Principal of Shri Day a Nand Rameshwar Prasad Hans Pani Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Sitapur is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed not to give effect to the said selection and hold a fresh selection in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in this judgment for the post of Principal of Sri Daya Nand Rameshwar Prasad Hans Rani Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Sitapur and a mandamus may issue accordingly. The parties will bear their own costs.