JUDGMENT 1. - All these writ petitions relate to selections made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission') for appointment, by way of direct recruitment, on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Ranger Grade I. The post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (for short 'ACF", is a post included in the Rajasthan Forest Service and recruitment to the pots in the Rajasthan Forest Service and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the said post is regulated by the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 (herein after referred to as the State Service Rules'). Under the State Service Rules, direct recruitment to the post in the Service is to be made by a competetivc examination conducted by the Commission. The said examination consists of written test to be followed by personality and viva voce examination. The written to test consists of 5 papers of 100 marks each, i.e. 500 marks in all. Three papers are for compulsory subjects and two papers are for optional subjects. Under Rule 24 of the State Service Rules, it is provided that the Commission shall call for interview such of the candidates who have obtained a minimum 35% marks in each of the compulsory subjects and a minimum of 40% marks in the aggregate in written test. It has also been provided in the said rule that the Commission may, in its discretion, award grace marks upto I in each of the compulsory papers and upto 3 in the aggregate. Earlier, the marks prescribed for the interview were 100. but by amendment introduced by notification dated 4th March, 1986 the said marks have been reduced to 60. Rule 24 also prescribes that the marks awarded in the interview shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test of each candidate. Sub-rule (1) of rule 25 of State Service Rule, lays down that the Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates recommended by them for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Forest Service in the order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate marks. In the proviso to the said sub rule. it has, however, been laid down that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minmmun of 33% marks, in the personality and viva voce examination and a minimum of 45% stark, in the aggregate. In the proviso to the said sub rule. it has, however, been laid down that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minmmun of 33% marks, in the personality and viva voce examination and a minimum of 45% stark, in the aggregate. With regard to candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, it has, however, been provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 that the commission may recommend the name of such candidates upto the number of vacancies reserved for then from amongst those who have qualified for interview even if they fail to obtain the minimum marks in the personality and viva voce examination or in the aggregate prescribed under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 25. 2. The post of Ranger Grad, I is included in the Rajasthan Subordinate Forest Service and recruitment to posts in and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service is regulated by the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Subordinate Service Rules'). The Subordinate Service Rules also make provision for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service through a competetive examination held by the Commission. The said competelive examination also consists of a written test and personality and viva voce examination. The written test consists of five subjects out of which three are compulsory subjects and two are optional subjects carrying 100 marks each i.e. in all 500 marks. The personality and viva voce examination earlier carried 100 marks, but after amendment, vide notification dated 4th March, 1986, the marks for personalty and viva voce examination have been reduced to 60. In clause (f) of Rule 20 of the Subordinate Service Rules, it is provided that candidates who have obtained a minimum 35% narks in each of the compulsory subjects and minimum of 40 marks in the aggregate in written test shall be considered to have obtained qualifying marks at the examination, and out of such of the candidates who have obtained minimum qualifying marks at the written test, such of them as may be decided upon by the Commission shall be called for interview. The said sub-rule also prescribed that the marks awarded in the personality and viva voce examination shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by the candidate. The said sub-rule also prescribed that the marks awarded in the personality and viva voce examination shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test by the candidate. Sub-rule (g) of Rule 20 provides that the Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates arranged in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. In the proviso to the said sub-rule, it has been laid down that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in the personalty and give voce examination and minimum 45% marks in the aggregate. In the second proviso to the said sub-rule, it has also been provided that the Commission shall in the case of candidates belonging to Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe recommend the names of such candidates upto number of vacancies reserved for them from amongst those who obtained the minimum marks in the aggregate. 3. Rule 18 (2) of the State Service Rules provides that the Commission may hold a combined examination for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Forest Service. Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service and to any other Service or Services. Similarly, sub-rule (aa) of Rule 20 of the Subordinate Service Rules provides that the Commission may hold a combined competetive examination for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service, Rajasthan Forest Service and to any other Service or Services. 4. The Commission conducted a combined competetive examination for direct recruitment to the posts of ACF in the Rajasthan Forest Service and the posts of Ranger Grade I in the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service and for that purpose it issued a Syllabus in 1985. The written test was held by the Commission in August. 1985, and the petitioners in these writ petitioner appeared in the written test. On the basis of the results of the written test.85 candidates, including the petitioners in these writ petitions.were called for interview. Five out of the six petitioners in these writ petitions. namely. Jogendra Singh (S.B C. W.No.631/86), Ranjeet Singh (S.B.C.W. No. 732/86). 1985, and the petitioners in these writ petitioner appeared in the written test. On the basis of the results of the written test.85 candidates, including the petitioners in these writ petitions.were called for interview. Five out of the six petitioners in these writ petitions. namely. Jogendra Singh (S.B C. W.No.631/86), Ranjeet Singh (S.B.C.W. No. 732/86). Mani Ram Sharma (S B C.W. N. 733 of 1986) Phool Chand Poonia (S B.C.W No. 952 of 1986) & Mani Ram (sic Beni Prasad) Sharma (S.B.C W. No. 1245 of 1986) were not selected for the post of ACF because they failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the personality and viva voce examination and Dilip Singh, petitioner in S.B.C.W. No. 776 of 1986 was not selected because he failed to obtain the minimum aggregate of 45% marks prescribed for selection for the post of ACF under rule 25 of the State Service Rules and the minimum aggregate prescribed for for the post of Rangeger Grade I under sub-rule (g) of Rule 20 of Subordinate Service Rules. Petitioners Jogendra Singh. Ranjeet Singh, Mani Ram Sharma and Beni Prasad Sharma (sic Diiip Singh) obtained the minimum qualifying marks in the personality and viva voce examination for the post of Ranger Grade I. Feeling aggrieved by their non-selection for the post of ACF, the petitioners Jogendra Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Mani Ram Singh Sharma, Phool Chand Poonia and Beni Prasad Sharma have filed these writ petitions wherein they have challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 of the State Service Rules which prescribes a minimum percentage of marks for the personality and viva voce examination on the ground that prescribing minimum marks for interview and prescribing minimum marks in the aggregate under the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 of the State Service Rules is arbitrary, unreasonable and is violative of' the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Petitioner Dilip Singh in his writ petition has challenged the constitutional validity of the first proviso to sub rule (g) of Rule 20 of the Subordinate Service Rules which prescribes a minimum of 45% marks in the aggregate on the ground that the said provision is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. 5. Before I may deal with merits of the case, I may refer to preliminary objection which has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions on behalf of the respondents. It has been submitted that on the basis of the impugned selection, persons selected by the Commission have already been appointed on the post of ACF and that the petitioners have not impleaded the said selected candidates as parties to the writ petition and no order to their prejudice can be passed in their absence and that the writ petitions are bad for non joinder of necessary parties and are, therefore liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioners are not seeking any relief against the persons who have been selected and have been appointed on the post of ACF and that the relief' that they are seeking is that they are entitled to be appointed on the post of ACF. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in (1) Miss Kamlesh Bharadwaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan and another : 1982 R. L. R. 638, wherein a similar objection was raised, but was rejected and the said judgement has been affirmed by the division bench of this Court in (2) Rajasthan Public Service Commission & others v. Dr. Miss Damyanti Dadhich : 1983 R. L. R. 473. In Miss Kamlesh Bharadwaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan and another (supra), the petitioners had challenged the selection made by the Commission and it was submitted that selected candidates were necessary parties because their rights could be adversely affected in case the select ion was set aside. The said contention was rejected by this Court on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in (3) General Manager, South Central Railway Sikandrabad & another v. A V. R., Sindhanti and others : (1974) 4 S. C. C. 335, that what was being challenged in that case was interpretation regarding the exception clause in the qualifications prescribed by the Commission and that the said question was not concerned with any certain candidates but was a policy decision. Similarly here also the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-rule (I) of Rule 25 of the State Service Rules on the ground that it is violative of the right of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and this relief is claimed only against the Ste Government and the Commission who have been impleaded as parties. For that reason it cannot be said that the writ petition suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. The preliminary objection is, therefore, rejected. 6. I have heard Sarva Shri Jagdeep Dhankar, G. S. Singhvi and R. K. Pareek, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of the writ petitions and the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents. 7. I will first take up the writ petitions filed by petitioners other than Dilip Singh relating to the selection for the post of ACF in the Rajasthan Forest Service which involve challenge to the validity of the proviso to sub-rule (1) to rule 25 of the State Service Rules, which reads as under:- "Provided that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in the personality and viva voce examination and a minimum of 45%, marks in the aggregate." Learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that personality and viva voce examination conducted by the Commission on the basis of oral interview tends to be subjective and by prescribing minimum qualifying marks as well as minimum aggregate marks after taking into account the marks obtained in the personality and viva voce examination, has the effect of making the marks obtained in the personality and viva voce examination the determining factor in the selection process and this renders it violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground of arbitrariness. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel have placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in (4) Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib : (1981) 1 S. C. C. 722, and (5) Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and others : (1985) 4 S C. C. 417. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel have placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in (4) Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib : (1981) 1 S. C. C. 722, and (5) Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and others : (1985) 4 S C. C. 417. In this connection the learned counsel have also submitted that the post of ACF is also included in the Indian Forest Service which is an All India Service and that selection for the purpose of direct recruitment to the Indian Forest Service is made by the Union Public Service Commission in accordance with the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Department of Environment, Forests and Wild Life) Rules made by the Government of India on 1st February, 1986 and that tinder Rule 12 of the said Rules, candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as may be fixed by the Union Public Service Commission in their discretion are to be called for interview for a personality test and thereafter under Rule 13 the candidates are required to be arranged by the Union Public Service Commission in order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate and there is no requirement of minimum qualifying marks in the personality test or further requirement of aggregate marks after taking into account the marks obtained in the personality test. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also pointed out that in most of the State Services and Subordinate services in the State of Rajasthan, there is no provision for minimum qualifying marks in the interview and that minimum qualifying marks for interview have been prescribed only in the Rajasthan Forest Service, Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service. Rajasthan Administrative Service and Rajasthan Police Service. It has been urged that there is no justification for picking out the aforesaid 4 services only for the purposes of prescribing minimum qualifying marks in interview when no such minimum qualifying marks have been prescribed in respect of other services. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has argued that minimum qualifying marks for interview have been prescribed with a view to achieve a minimum standard and that prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the personality and viva voce examination does not involve violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has argued that minimum qualifying marks for interview have been prescribed with a view to achieve a minimum standard and that prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the personality and viva voce examination does not involve violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In this connection the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the personality and viva voce examination is conducted by a Board consisting of members of the Commission and eminent experts in the field and that there is no possibility of arbitrariness in awarding of marks in the personality and viva voce examination. In support of his aforesaid submission, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (6) Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan : (1981) 4 S. C. C. 159. , (7) Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. U. P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad and others : (1986) I S. C. C. 671, and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in (8) Manjula Devi T. N. v. State of Karnataka and others : (1980) 1 S. L. R. 511. 10. The question relating to the validity of provisions providing for selection for admission to educational institutions or for public employment on the basis of marks obtained at an interview test, has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a number of cases and it would be useful to take note of those decisions. 11. In (9) R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and others : AIR 1964 SC 1823 , the Supreme Court was dealing with admissions to the engineering and medical colleges in the State of Mysore. The selection for admission to these institutions was to be made by a Selection Committee which interviewed the candidates after converting the total of the marks obtained in the optional subjects in the qualifying examinations 300 marks and fixing the minimum marks for interview as 75. It was contended before the Supreme Court that selection by interview was inherently repugnant to the doctrine of Equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, for whatever may be the objective tests laid down, in the final analysis the awarding of marks is left to the subjective satisfaction of the selection committee and, therefore, it gave ample room for discrimination and manipulation. The Supreme Court did not accept the said contention and observed that without better and more scientific material placed before them, it could not be held that selection by interview in addition to the marks obtained in the written examination is itself bad as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, observed that if in any particular case the selection committee has abused its power in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution that may be case for setting aside the result of the particular candidate. 12. In (10) Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others : (1971) 1 S. C. C. 38, the Supreme Court was again dealing with the admissions to medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu on the basis of selections made by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee had been authorised to give a minimum 75% marks at the interview and maximum 200 marks had been assigned for the marks obtained in the optional subjects in the Pre-University examination. The Supreme Court, while observing that ear-marking of 75 marks for interview out of 275 marks prima facie appeared to be excessive, held that under the existing conditions in this country they could not accede to the contention urged by the petitioners before the Supreme Court that the system of interview in vogue is so defective as to make it useless and in this context reliance was placed on the earlier decision in R. Chitralekha Vs. State of Mysore and others (supra). State of Mysore and others (supra). The learned Judges at the same time, have pointed out that various researches conducted in other countries, particularly in U. S. A., show that there is possibility of serious errors creeping in interviews made on haphazard basis and in this context they have referred to the book on - Psychology and its Bearing on Education" by C. W. Valentine, wherein reference has been made to marks given to the same set of persons interviewed by two different competent Boards and it has been stated that when the orders of merit for the two boards were compared it was found that the man placed first by Board A was put 13th by Board B when the man placed 1st by Board B was put 11th with Board A. In this case the Supreme Court declared the impugned selection as invalid for the reason that while awarding marks in the interview the selection committee had not divided the interview marks under various heads and the marks were not given on itemwise basis, but were given in a lump. 13. In (11) State of Karnataka and another v. M. Farida and others : AIR 1976 SC 2482 , the Supreme Court while dealing with selection for appointment to class I and class II gazetted posts made by the Karnataka Public Service Commission has considered the observations in Peeriakaruopan's case (10) relating to dividing the interview marks under the different heads and not awarding the same in lump. The Supreme Court has held that it would not be correct to assume as a general proposition that in every case where the interviewing body is asked to take into consideration several specified qualities, they must be of equal value and separate marks should be allotted under each head and that where the rules do not contain a clear direction, it would be reasonable to suppose that their intention is that there should be a block assessment on an integrated test. 14. In (12) Miss Nishi Maghu etc. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others : AIR 1980 SC 1975 , the Supreme Court was dealing with selection for the purpose of admission to medical colleges in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and interview by a selection committee. 14. In (12) Miss Nishi Maghu etc. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others : AIR 1980 SC 1975 , the Supreme Court was dealing with selection for the purpose of admission to medical colleges in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and interview by a selection committee. 100 marks were prescribed for the qualifying university examination and 50 marks were allotted for interview. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (9) and A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (10) and observed that reserving 50 marks out of a total of 150 seemed excessive especially when the time spent was not more than 4 minutes on each candidate. The Supreme Court observed that they expected the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in the said judgement and that other things remaining the same, for future years to reduce the percentage of marks allotted for interview to a reasonable proportion of the total marks for the selection test. 15. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others (4) was a case relating to admissions to the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar made by a selection committee by allocating 100 marks for the written test and 50 marks for the viva voce examination. Before the Supreme Court it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that viva voce examination does not afford a proper criterion for the assessment of the suitability of the candidates for admission and that it is a highly subjective and impressionistic test where the result is likely to be influenced by many uncertain and imponderable factors such as predictions and prejudices of the interviewer, his attitudes and approaches, his pre-conceived notions and idiosyncrasies 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 and, therefore, selections made on the basis of oral interview must be regarded as arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court observed that this criticism cannot be said to be wholly unfounded and it reflects a point of view which has certainly some validity. In that case the Supreme Court has pointed out that the oral test method suffers from certain disadvantages namely, (1) the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral tests, (2) the difficulty of securing a reviewable record on an oral test; and (3) public suspicion of the oral test as a channel for the exertion of political influence and other corrupt nepotistic or extraneous considerations. The Supreme Court has, however, observed that despite all this criticism the oral interview method continues to be very much in vogue as a supplementary test for assessing the suitability of candidates where-ever test of personal traits is considered essential. After referring to the earlier decisions in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (9) and A. 'Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (10) the Supreme Court has, at the same time observed as under:- "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 irreleva 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 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." In that case the Supreme Court has taken note of the marks prescribed for the oral interview for selection in the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the Indian Police Service and has expressed the view that under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for the interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid. In that case the Supreme Court has also observed that it would 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 inter- viewing committee. 16. In Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan and others (6) this question was considered in the context of selection for appointment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules which provided for a competitive examination consisting of a written test carrying 300 marks and viva voce examination carrying 100 marks. On the basis of the decision in Ajay Hasia's case (4). it was submitted that since 25% marks had been allocated for via voce examination, the selection was vitiated on the ground of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court rejected the said contention and observed that while written examination assesses a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities and that written examination and interview are both essential features of a proper selection and that the weight to be attached respectively to them will depend on various factors. In this context the Supreme Court has pointed out that in the case of admissions to a college where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination, the importance to be attached to the interview test must be minimal. But in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way. subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. But in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way. subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. The Supreme Court has further observed that there are many services to which recruitment is be made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise and the discerning may in an interview test, catch a glimpse of the future personality and that in the case of such services where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given though not much too great weight, to the interview test. According to the supreme Court the precise weight to be given to the interview test must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. Taking into consideration the provisions of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules. the Supreme Court held that the interview test is generally conducted by a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court, the Chairman and a member of the Public Service Commission and a special invitee expert. The Supreme Court held that it was not possible to say that prescribing 25% marks for the interview test was on the high side. 17. In (13) Javid Rasool Bhat and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others: (1984)2 S.C.C. 631 , selection for admissions to the medical colleges in the State of Jammu & Kashmir was made on the basis of the performance in the written test and viva voce examination and out of total 100 points 85 points were prescribed for the written test and 15 points were prescribed for viva voce examination. The Supreme Court held that the said selection was in accordance with the decision in Ajay Hasia's case (4). 18. Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others (5) related to selection for the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied services, made by the Haryana Public Service Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive branch) Rules, 1930. 18. Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others (5) related to selection for the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied services, made by the Haryana Public Service Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive branch) Rules, 1930. Under the said Rules, the selection was to be made by a competetive examination consisting of written test as well as interview. The written examination carried an aggregate of 700 marks for candidates in general category and an aggregate of 400 marks for ex servicemen. The viva voce examination carved 200 marks in both cases. The percentage of marks prescribed for viva voce examination was thus 33.3% for ex-servicemen and 22.2% for other candidates. After referring to its earlier decisions in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (4) and Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan & others (6) , the Supreme Court held as under: "It is now admitted on all hands that while a written examination assesses the candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, a viva voce test seeks to assess a candidate's over all intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the viva voce test, there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability. judgement, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities can be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by viva voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview board." It was further observed. "The spread of marks in the viva voce test being enormously large compared to the spread of marks in the written examination. the viva voce test tended to become a determining factor in the selection, process, because even if a candidate secured the highest marks in the written examination, he could be easily knocked out of the race by awarding him the lowest marks in the viva voce test and correspondingly, a candidate who obtained the lowest marks in the written examination could be raised to the top most position in the merit list by an inordinately high marking in the viva voce test. It is therefore obvious that the allocation of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3% opens the door wide for arbitrariness and in order to diminish if not eliminate, the risk of arbitrariness, the percentage needs to be reduced." In these circumstances the Supreme Court held percentage of 22.2% marks for the interview test for candidates in general category was quite high and that allocation of 22.2% of the total marks for vive voce test infected the selection process with the vice of arbitrariness. In this context the learned Judges have pointed out that competitive examination in the Indian Administrative Service and other allied services also consists of a written examination followed by a viva voce test and that earlier in 1948 the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test was 22 and it was brought down to 21.60 in 1951 and 17.11 in 1964 and that the Kothari Commission, in its report made in 1976, pleaded for further reduction of the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test and strongly recommended that the viva voce test should carry only 300 out of a total 3000 marks and that in view of the aforesaid report of the Kothari Committee, the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test in the competetive examination in the Indian Administrative Service and other allied services, has now been brought down further to 12.2%. The Supreme Court has also observed that so far as the candidates in general category were concerned, it would be prudent and safe to follow the percentage adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in case of selections to the Indian Administrative Service and other allied services and with regard to ex-service officers the Supreme Court felt that a higher percentage could be prescribed for them having regard to the fact that they would ordinarily be middle-aged persons with personalities fully developed and that the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test for them may be 25. 19. In Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. U. P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahbad and others (7). the Supreme Court was dealing with appointment on the post of Principal of a post graduate college, which was to be made by selection on the basis of interview by the U. P. Higher Educational Service Commission. 19. In Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. U. P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahbad and others (7). the Supreme Court was dealing with appointment on the post of Principal of a post graduate college, which was to be made by selection on the basis of interview by the U. P. Higher Educational Service Commission. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the marks for interview were not separately allocated under each of the heads and, therefore, the selection was arbitrary. The Supreme Court rejected the said contention in view of the decision in Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan (6) wherein it was held that the failure to allocate marks under each head, does not render the selections illegal because the interview board was not under any obligation to divide the marks under various sub-heads. 20. Manjula Devi v. State of Karnatake and others (8) , on which reliance has been placed by the learned Addl. Advocate General, related to selection for the post of Munsiffs in the Subordinate Judicial Service under the Karnataka Munsiffs (Special Recruitment) Rules 1978. The said Rules provided for selection by a Selection Committee on the basis of marks obtained in the viva voce examination and the Selection Committee had made selections on the basis that in order to become eligible for selection, a candidate should secure not less than 40 out of 100 marks prescribed. In that case it was urged that the Selection Committee had no power at all to prescribe the minimum standard or the minimum marks to be secured by a candidate in the viva voce examination. It appears that there was some difference of opinion in Karnataka High Court on that issue and the matter was referred to the full bench and the full bench held that the Selection Committee was competent to prescribe the minimum marks to be secured by the candidates in the viva voce examination under the Rules in question. This would show that in that case the question which was raised was not whether the Rules prescribing the minimum marks were violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but the question was whether prescribing the minimum marks for the viva voce examination was permissible under the relevant Rules. This would show that in that case the question which was raised was not whether the Rules prescribing the minimum marks were violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but the question was whether prescribing the minimum marks for the viva voce examination was permissible under the relevant Rules. Moreover, this was a case in which selection was made only on the basis of viva voce examination and there was no written test. In these circumstances the aforesaid decision does not have any bearing on the question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions. 21. On the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, it can be said that it is permissible to make provision for selection for the purpose of admission in educational institutions as well as for public employment by holding a written test as well as viva voce test but in case of a service to which recruitment is necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality interview test may be the only way subject to basic essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. In cases where candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination and the importance to be attached to the interview test in such a case would be minimal. In case of Services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise, sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise and therefore some weight has to be given to the viva voce test. In cases where written test and viva voce examination are both provided oral interview test should be resorted to as an additional or supplementary test and it cannot be made the determining factor for the selection process. The said decisions also show that in the matter of public employments the practice followed by the Union Public Service Commission for making selection can be adopted as the criterion in the matter of selection for appointment to similar posts or services in the State. 22. The said decisions also show that in the matter of public employments the practice followed by the Union Public Service Commission for making selection can be adopted as the criterion in the matter of selection for appointment to similar posts or services in the State. 22. If the principles referred to above are applied to the present case relating to selection for the post of ACF in the Rajasthan Forest Service, it can be said that 60 marks that have been prescribed for personality and viva voce examination in Rule 24 of the State Service Rules cannot be said to be on the higher side because the marks prescribed for the written examination are 500 and out of a total of 560 marks the percentage of marks prescribed for the personality and viva voce examination is 10.71. The vice is, however, in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 25. which prescribes 33% of the minimum marks for qualifying at the personality and viva voce examination. The effect of the said provision in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 is that a candidate who has secured the highest marks in the written examination, can be easily knocked out of the race by awarding him less than minimum qualifying marks in the personality and viva voce examination and a candidate who has obtained much lower marks in the written examination, can be raised to the top most position in the merit list by an inordinately high marking in the personality and viva voce examination and thereby the marks in the personality and viva voce examination tend to become the determining factor in the selection process. In this context it would be relevant to refer to the marks that have been secured by the petitioners in these writ petitions. In this context it would be relevant to refer to the marks that have been secured by the petitioners in these writ petitions. According to the statement (Annexure R/3) filed by the Commission in its reply to the Rejoinder in C.W. No. 952 of 1985 the marks obtained in the written test and the personality and viva voce examination by the petitioners were as under: S. No. Name Writ State service Total Suhordin Service Total Written marks Viva marks Written marks Viva voce marks 1 Joginder Singh 731/86 281 10 291 281 21 302 2 Ranjeet singh 732/86 303 15 318 303 21 324 3 Maniram 733/86 303 15 318 303 30 333 4 Dalip Singh 776/86 210 25 235 210 25 235 5 Beni Singh 1245/86 322 10 332 322 15 337 6 Phool Chand 952/86 324 14 338 - - -. 23. From a perusal of the statement showing the written and viva voce marks obtained by the candidates (which has been filed as Annexure R. 1 to the reply to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the Commission in Civil Writ No. 952/86) I find that 324 marks obtained by Phool Chand (petitioner in C W. 952/86) were the highest marks awarded to any candidate in the written test. In the viva voce examination he was, however. awarded 14 marks only acid since he failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce examination, he was not selected. If the requirement of minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test had not been there, he could have been selected on the basis of total of 338 marks obtained by him and would have been placed on the top of the merit list because the highest marks secured by the candidate in the merit list who has obtained the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce examination were 332. Similarly, Beni Prasad Sharma (petitioner in C. W. 1245/86) had secured 322 marks in the written test. He was awarded 10 marks in the viva voce examination and since he failed to secure the qualifying marks in the viva voce examination, he was not selected. although he had secured total 332 marks, which is equivalent to the highest marks awarded to the candidate who has been selected and has secured the qualifying marks in the viva voce examination. although he had secured total 332 marks, which is equivalent to the highest marks awarded to the candidate who has been selected and has secured the qualifying marks in the viva voce examination. Similarly, with regard to Ranjeet Singh and Mani Ram Sharma (petitioners in C W No 732 and 733 of 1986), it may be stated that both of them had secured 303 marks in the written test but were awarded 15 marks in the viva voce examination and since they failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce examination, they could not be selected although the total marks secured by them in the written test and viva voce examination were 318 each. Out of the persons who have been selected only three persons have obtained higher marks than 318 and rest have secured less than 318 marks. This would show that the marks obtained in the viva voce examination were the determining factor in the selection process with regard to number of candidates including the aforesaid 4 petitioners who had secured high marks in the written test, but could not be selected because they did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce examination. 24. In this context it may also be mentioned that Indian Forest Service is an All India Service and a person who is selected for appointment in the Indian Forest Service is initially posted as ACF, and after 4 years' service as ACF. he is promoted to the cadre of Conservator of Forest. The post of ACF is thus held by a member of the Indian Forest Service as well as a member of the Rajasthan Forest Service. The selection for the Indian Forest Service is made by the Union Public Service Commission in accordance with the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Department of Environment, Forests and Wild Life) Rules framed by the Central Government on 1st February, 1986. Rule 12 of the said Rules provides that candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as may be fixed by the Union Public Service Commission, in their discretion, shall be summoned by them for an interview for a personality test. Rule 12 of the said Rules provides that candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as may be fixed by the Union Public Service Commission, in their discretion, shall be summoned by them for an interview for a personality test. Rule 13 lays down that after examination the candidates will be arranged by the Union Public Service Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate and in that order so many candidates as are found by the Union Public Service Commission to be qualified by the examination shall be recommended for appointment upto the number of unreserved vacancies, decided to be filled on the results of the examination. Under the said rule no minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for the interview. 25. From the decision of the Supreme Court in (14) P. K. Ramchandra Iyer and others v. Union of India and others : AIR 1984 SC 541 it appears that in the selections made by the Union Public Service Commission minimum qualifying marks are not prescribed for the interview. By that decision the Supreme Court had disposed of a number of writ petitions and appeals. One of the appeals disposed of by the said judgement was of Om Prakash Khaudhuri relating to appointment on the post of Scientist in the Agricultural Research Service with the Indian Agricultural Statistics Institute, an affiliate of Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The said selection was made by a competetive examination consisting of written test and viva voce test and while making the selection, the Selection Board had prescribed the minimum marks for the written test as well as the viva voce test. The appellant in .hat case had qualified in the written test but he could not secure minimum marks prescribed for qualifying at the viva voce test and, therefore, he was not selected. He challenged the said selection on the ground that the relevant Rules did not provide for prescribing the minimum marks for qualifying at the viva voce test, and that the Selection Board could not prescribe the minimum marks for qualifying at the viva voce test. The Supreme Court upheld the said contention and held that the relevant rules did not provide for prescribing the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test and the Selection Board could not impose such a qualification. The Supreme Court upheld the said contention and held that the relevant rules did not provide for prescribing the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test and the Selection Board could not impose such a qualification. In this context the Supreme Court has taken note that the Union Public Service Commission has framed its rules relating to competetive examination held by it in 1978 to recruit personnel to Indian Economic Service and the Indian Statistical Service and the said competetive examination consists of a written test and viva voce test and that the Union Public Service Commission has not prescribed any minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test and that taking into consideration the pratice followed by the Union Public Service Commission, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research had also revised the procedure and had eliminated the requirement of obtaining minimum qualifying marks at viva voce test. 26. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and others (5), the Supreme Court has observed that it would be prudent and safe to follow the practice adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in case of selections to the Indian Administrative Service and other allied services and on that basis the Supreme Court has held that marks to be allocated for viva voce test should not exceed 12.2% in case of candidates belonging to the general category. Similarly it can be said that it would be prudent and safe to follow the procedure adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in the case of selection for Indian Forest Service and since the Union Public Service Commission does not prescribe any maximum (sic minimum) qualifying marks for the viva voce test, it would be reasonable to hold that no minimum qualifying marks should be prescribed for personality and viva voce examination in the Rajasthan Forest Service. 27. It may also be mentioned that in most of the State Services and subordinate services in Rajasthan. minimnm marks have not been prescribed for qualifying at the personality and viva voce examination and such minimum qualifying marks are prescribed only for the Rajasthan Forest Service. Rajasthan Forest Suborninate Service, Rajasthan Administrative Service and Rajasthan Police Service. The learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to point out any reason why this departure has been made in these four services only. 28. The same. Rajasthan Forest Suborninate Service, Rajasthan Administrative Service and Rajasthan Police Service. The learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to point out any reason why this departure has been made in these four services only. 28. The same. however, cannot be said with regard to provision with regard to minimum 45% marks in the aggregate which have been prescribed in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 25, The said minimum in the aggregate is of the marks obtained by a candid-tie in the written test as well as the personality and viva voce examination. There is sufficient check against arbitrariness in the matter of awarding the marks for the personality and vive voce examination because the percentage of marks for the personality and viva voce examination is not very high, and is only 10.71. The said provision does not, in my opinion, suffer from any constitutional infirmity. 29. For the reason aforesaid, I am of the opinion that proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 25 of the State Service Rules in so far as it prescribes 33% as the minimum for qualifying at the personality and viva voce examination suffers from vice of arbitrariness and violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. 30. Another contention that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that although one interview was held for the posts of ACF and Ranger Grade 1. different sets of marks were awarded to the candidates for personality and viva voce examination for the post of ACF and for the post of Ranger Grade 1. In this connection it has been pointed out that Jogendra Singh (petitioner in C W. 731/86) was awarded 10 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of ACF but was awarded 21 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of Ranger Grade 1. Similarly. In this connection it has been pointed out that Jogendra Singh (petitioner in C W. 731/86) was awarded 10 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of ACF but was awarded 21 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of Ranger Grade 1. Similarly. Ranjit Singh (Petitioner in C.W. 732 of 1986) was awarded 15 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of ACF, but was awarded 21 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of Ranger Grade I. Mani Ram Sharma (petitioner in C.W. 733 of 1986) was awarded 15 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of ACF but he was awarded 30 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of Ranger Grade I. Beni Prasad Sharma (petitioner in C.W. 1245 of 1986) was awarded 10 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of ACF but was awarded 15 marks in the viva voce examination for the post of Ranger Grade I. The learned Additional Advocate General does not dispute this fact, but has submitted that different considerations apply for the selection for the post of A.C.F. and selection for the post of Ranger and that while awarding marks at the viva voce examination, the Selection Board had put different types of questions and, therefore, awarded different sets of marks in the viva voce examinations for the two posts. I find it difficult to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the learned Additional Advocate General. As pointed out earlier, a combined competetive examination was held by the Commission for the purpose of making the selection for the posts of ACF in the Rajasthan Forest Service and for the post of Ranger Grade I which falls in the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service. The personality and viva voce examination was a part of the said competetive examination. Since there was one competetive examination for both the posts, one interview was held for that purpose and only one set of marks could be awarded for personality & viva voce examination It was not permissible for the Selection Board to award different sets of marks for the viva voce examination for the two different posts. In case it was felt that different standards are applicable for making selection for the two posts then different competetive examinations should have been held by the Commission. In case it was felt that different standards are applicable for making selection for the two posts then different competetive examinations should have been held by the Commission. But once it was decided to hold a combined competetive examination for both the posts, it was not permissible for the Commission to award different sets of marks in the personality and viva voce examination for the posts of ACF and for the post of Ranger Crade I 31. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that the personality and viva voce examination was conducted by the two Selection Boards, one presided by Shri J. M. Khan, the Chairman of the Commission, and the other by Shri Bhawani Mal Mathur, member of the Commission. It has been submitted that the Selection Board presided by Shri J. M. Khan, was biased against the candidates who were already in service and for that reason the petitioners Ranjit Singh, Mani Ram, Beni Prasad and Phool Chand who are in service and who had appeared before the said Board, have not been selected. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed before me the record relating to the marks secured by the candidates who had appeared before the two selection boards. I find that out of the 10 candidates who had been selected, seven of the candidates are in service and out of those 7 candidates, 5 were selected by the Selection Board presided by Shri J. M. Khan. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Selection Board presided by J. M. Khan was biased against the candidates who were in service. 32. It has also been urged by the petitioners in writ petitions Nos. 952 of 1986 and 1245 of 1986 that the questions that were put to the said petitioners during the course of personality and viva coce examination by the Chairman, the Selection Board were irrelevant and in that connection record of the questions put to the said petitioners and the answere given by him as prepared by each petitioner has been filed with the writ petition On behalf of the Commission, the said record has not been admitted. But neither the Chairman of the Selection Board nor any of the Members of the Selection Board has filed any affidavit to contradict the correctness of the said record. But neither the Chairman of the Selection Board nor any of the Members of the Selection Board has filed any affidavit to contradict the correctness of the said record. In the absence of any such affidavit, the said record may be treated as a fairly correct reproduction of the questions put to the candidates concerned and answers given by him. I have carefully perused the said record, but I am unable to hold that the questions that were put to the candidates by the members of the Selection Board were irrelevant or they disclose any bias on the part of the Selection Board during the course of interview of the candidate concerned. 33. 1 may now deal with S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 776 of 1986 filed by Dilip Singh. In this case I find that the said petitioner had secured 210 marks in the written test and he was awarded 25 marks in the personality and viva voce examination. He had thus secured 235 marks in all. Although he secured the minimum qualifying marks in the written test as well as the personality and viva voce examination, he did not, secure 45% marks in the aggregate in the written test and the personality and viva voce examination and, therefore, his name was not recommended for the post of ACF by the Commission in view of the proviso to sub-rule (I) of Rule 25 of the State Service Rules and his name was also not recommended for the post of Ranger Grade I in view of sub-rule (g) of Rule 20 of the Subordinate Service Rules. In the writ petition. the petitioner has challenged the validity of the proviso to sub-rule (g) of Rule 20 of the Subordinate Service Rules in so far as it prescribes that a candidate who does not secure minimum 45;1. marks in aggregate in the written test and the personality and viva voce examination, shall not be recommended by the Commission, on the ground that the said provision is violative of the right of equality guaranted under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the context of a similar provision contained in the first proviso to sub-rule (I) of Rule 25 of the State Service Rules which also fixes a minimum 45% marks in aggregate, I have held that the said provision cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. In the context of a similar provision contained in the first proviso to sub-rule (I) of Rule 25 of the State Service Rules which also fixes a minimum 45% marks in aggregate, I have held that the said provision cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. For the same reasons I am of the opinion that the provision contained in the proviso to sub-rule (g) of Rule 20 of the Subordinate Service Rules which prescribes that a candidate who does not secure mimimum 45% marks in aggregate in the written test and personalty and viva voce examination, shall not be recommended by the Commission, cannot be held to be violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner in that writ petition is, therefore, not entitled to any relief. 34. The aforesaid discussion leads to the conclusion that the petitioners in C.W. No. 731 of 1986 (Jogendra Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and another) , C.W. No. 752 of 1986 (Ranjeet Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and another) , C.W. No. 733 of 1986 (Mani Ram Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and another), C.W. No. 952 of 1986 (Phool Chand Poonia v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr), C.W. No. 1245 of 1986 (Beni Prasad Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and another) are entitled to succeed whereas Dilip Singh petitioner in S.B.C.W. No. 776 of 1986 must fail. 35. The next question which arises for consideration is with regard to the relief which may be granted to the petitioners who are entitled to succeed. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that persons recommended by the Commi- ssion on the basis of the impugned selection have already been appointed and since they have not been impleaded as parties in writ petitions, their appointment cannot be questioned. The learned counsel for the petitioners have however submitted that some posts of ACF are still lying vacant and that the petitioners can be appointed on those posts In this connection my attention has been invited to the observations of the Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandra lyer and others Vs. The learned counsel for the petitioners have however submitted that some posts of ACF are still lying vacant and that the petitioners can be appointed on those posts In this connection my attention has been invited to the observations of the Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandra lyer and others Vs. Union of India and others( 14) In that case the Supreme Cour found that the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board had committed a serious legal error prescribing minimum qualifying marks at the viva voce test and in drawing up the merit list on this impermissible method, but at the same time held it would be improper to disturb the selections of those who had been selected way back in 1978 The Supreme Court took note of the fact that 21 vacancies had been kept unfilled and directed that if the petitioner in that case had not been selected in a later selection, the Agricultural Scientists Recruiment Board may draw the merit list in respect of the remaining 21 unfilled vacancies from amongst those who were called for viva voce test and who were not selected because some of them, like the petitioner in that rase, did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce examination and that the merit list may be drawn in respect of those who though called for viva voce test did not qualify for being put in the merit list, ignoring the concept of minimum qualifying marks and if the petitioner comes within the zone of selection on the aggregate of marks obtained by him, his case shall be considered for appointment prospectively and not retrospectively. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in P. K. Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India and others (14) C. W. No. 731 of 1986 (Jogendra Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and another), C. W. No. 732 of 1986 (Ranjeet Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and another) C. W. 733 of F86 (Mani Ram Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and another). C.W.No. 952 of 1986 (Phool Chand Poonia v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), C.W. No 1245 of 1986 (Beni Prasad Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and another) can be allowed with the direction that the Commission shall prepare a merit list in respect of those candidate who though called for the personality and viva voce examination, but did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks in the said examination after ignoring the concept of obtaining minimum qualifying marks laid down in the proviso to sub-rule (I) of Rule 25 of the State Service Rules and the said merit list may be drawn on the basis of aggregate marks secured in the written test and personality and viva voce examination. The said merit list may be prepared for 50% of the advertised vacancies for which selection was required to be made. If any of the petitioners in these writ petitions is included in the said merit list, he should be considered by the State Government for appointment on the post of ACF prospectively and not retrospectively. 36. In the result the writ petitions No. 731 of 1986, C. W. 732 of 1984, C. W. 733 of 1986, C. W. 952 of 1986 and C. W. 1245 of 1986 are allowed and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to prepare a merit list in respect of those candidates who though called for personality and viva voce examination but did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks in the said examination after ignoring the concept of obtaining minimum qualifying marks for the personality and viva voce examination contained in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 of the State Service Rules and the said merit list may be drawn on the basis of aggregate marks in the written test and the personality and viva voce examination. The said merit list may be prepared for 50% of the advertised vacancies for the post of ACF for which selection was required to be made. If any of the petitioners is included in the said merit list, he should be considered by the State Government for appointment on the post of ACF prospectively and not retrospectively. S. B. Civil writ petition No. 776 of 1986, Dilip Singh v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & another is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their costs in these writ petitions.Petitions Allowed. *******