Judgment :- 1. Petitioners were candidates who had applied for appointment as Clerks/ Typists in the Guruvayoor Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha. That is an institution under the supervision and control of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, which is a semi-governmental organisation. The bye-laws of the institution provides for selection of candidates for appointment by a committee consisting of the Principal, Chairman, seniormost available member of the teaching staff as member and Sansthan's nominee as another member. The candidates were required to undergo a typing test in English or Hindi. In the present case, the candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It was specifically mentioned in the notification, that the candidate should have passed typewriting (higher). It was also insisted that the candidates should know type-writing in Hindi. 2. Three vacancies were notified for appointment. One of them was reserved for candidates belonging to scheduled castes. Qualifications prescribed were matriculation, typewriting speed at least 30 w.p.m., in English/ Hindi and wording knowledge of Hindi. A desirable qualification was knowledge of Sanskrit (B.A. or equivalent with Sanskrit as one of the subjects). The age limit was 25 years. 3. Petitioner in O.P. No. 2567 of 1987 is a Post Graduate in Hindi from Calicut University. She had passed typewriting (lower) examination in English with a reasonably good speed in Hindi typewriting. She had working knowledge Hindi and had studied Sanskrit as another language in the Post Graduate Course. She was within the age limit. 4. Petitioner in O.P. No. 8108 of 1987 had passed S.S.L.C. and typewriting examinations and also ha d working knowledge of Hindi. She was within the age limit. 5. Candidates who were eligible were subject to a practical test. It is not denied that the petitioners came out successful. Thereafter, they were called for an interview. The Committee consisted of the Principal as Chairman and respondents 3 and 4 as members. The committee prepared a list of six candidates. The first vacancy was allotted to a candidate belonging to scheduled caste. That person has been impleaded as the 8th respondent in O.P. No. 2267 of 1987. The other two vacancies were filled up by appointing candidates with rank Nos. 2 and 3 in the list. Petitioners assail that selection. 6. Various contentions have been urged in support of the relief which the petitioners seek in these Original Petitions. That person has been impleaded as the 8th respondent in O.P. No. 2267 of 1987. The other two vacancies were filled up by appointing candidates with rank Nos. 2 and 3 in the list. Petitioners assail that selection. 6. Various contentions have been urged in support of the relief which the petitioners seek in these Original Petitions. I do not think that it is necessary for me to consider those allegations. Since I am confining myself only to the question of propriety in the conduct of the oral lest and interview, which resulted in elimination of candidates, who were found eligible and qualified in the written test, I do not think that it is necessary for me to consider the averments relating to the propriety of the constitution of the committee. Nor am I called upon to consider whether the petitioners have been able to make out that the process of selection was vitiated by personal bias due to the fact that two of the candidates, who were selected, are close relatives of the teaching staff of the second respondent-institution. 7. It is not in dispute that at least the petitioner in O.P. No. 8108 of 1987 was found to be qualified and eligible. It is also not in dispute, that he had successfully passed the practical test. He was eliminated only because of the interview. Petitioners submit that the interview was conducted without any guidelines or any ascertainable standard for awarding marks or grades to the candidates. It is their further submission, that candidates were eliminated entirely on the basis of the whims and fancies of the members of the committee. Petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 1777, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravadim,1981(1) SCC 722, State Bank of Travancore v. Soumini, 1984 KLT 135, Channabhasavaih v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 1293, and A. Periakuruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 SC 2303, in support of their submission, that elimination of candidates, who were otherwise eligible only on the basis of an oral test or interview is prima facie unsustainable. They proceed to submit that such selection on elimination has to be set aside in case it is found on a scrutiny of the records that the selection did not have any guidelines and did not apply any uniform ascertainable standards in the matter of selection. I do not think that these propositions can now be disputed. Petitioner in O.P. No. 2567 of 1987 filed an application requiring the Principal of the College, who is the Chairman of the Committee, to produce the records relating to the selection. The Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, who appeared for respondents, produced before me what he called a select list, containing the names of six persons. If is submitted that the list was prepared on the same day on which the interview was conducted and all the members of the committee have signed it. It is submitted further, that there was no dispute on the bona fides of the members of the committee in eliminating candidates or selecting respondents 6 to 8. A further quarry was whether the proceedings of the selection committee was available and whether it is evident from the records, that any ascertainable standard was applied with reference to guidelines governing the discretion of the committee. The Additional Central Government Standing Counsel sought to produce three mark sheets, two of them were not signed by anybody, whereas the third one was signed by the Principal, who is the Chairman of the Committee. Excepting the two mark sheets, no other documents were produced by the respondents. 8. Those documents do not render any assistance for ascertaining whether any guidelines were evolved by the selection committee or were applied in interviewing candidates, awarding marks to them or eliminating eligible candidates. Far more curious is the fact, that the members of the committee have not signed the so called mark sheets. There is no averment in the counter affidavit, that marks were awarded by the members of the committee. Nor is there any assertion, that the members awarded marks in three separate mark sheets. In any case, the standard, on the basis of which marks were awarded to candidates, who were eliminated from selection, are not revealed by the documents on which reliance was sought to be placed by the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. 9. Nor is there any assertion, that the members awarded marks in three separate mark sheets. In any case, the standard, on the basis of which marks were awarded to candidates, who were eliminated from selection, are not revealed by the documents on which reliance was sought to be placed by the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. 9. He submitted strongly, that the committee having been constituted by fairly high functionaries, there is no occasion to dispute or doubt their bona fides. Another submission emphatically urged by him was that the selection committee had at no time awarded marks or evolved any procedure for elimination or selection of candidates by the process of an interview. He submits, that the process adopted thus far has matured into a precedent, which has been scrupulously followed and that justifies the process adopted by the committee. He placed considerable reliance on Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 1777, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, and Sambasivan v. State Bank of Travancore, 1987 KLJ 48. Counsel submitted, that the award of marks on various items of relevant consideration is not a matter to be agitated in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted further, that this court is not competent to substitute its views in the place of those of members of the committee. His last submission is, that persons who have acquiesced of the competence of the committee by subjecting themselves to the process of selection and interview are not competent to challenge the outcome of such interviews. 10. In cases where guidelines and ascertainable standards are evolved' the procedure for grading or eliminating candidates are publicised. There is no occasion for this court to make a reassessment on the basis of its evaluation. In such cases, the opinion of the selection committee,the marks awarded by it, the ranks or grades which it assigned to the candidates are ordinarily beyond reproach. It is true that in such circumstances, this court will not ordinarily substitute its views on the merits of the candidates for those of the committee. Nor does this court ordinarily scrutinise the award of marks under the various items. It may even be that when marks are awarded in a lump instead of for the individual considerations separately, the court may not be justified in interfering, unless manifest illegality or abuse of power is made out. Nor does this court ordinarily scrutinise the award of marks under the various items. It may even be that when marks are awarded in a lump instead of for the individual considerations separately, the court may not be justified in interfering, unless manifest illegality or abuse of power is made out. But, in a case like the present, where candidates who were qualified and eligible and who passed the written examination are eliminated only on the basis of an oral test or interview conducted by the selection committee without prescribing any guidelines for selection or elimination, without any evidence indicating the deliberations of the committee and even without any marksheet signed by all the members of the committee, entirely different considerations arise. Provision of an oral test or interview shall not be a device for random selection or rejection of eligible. It must be evident from the records that there were overriding factors of relevance which resulted in the elimination of eligible candidates with marks, ranks or grades, awarded to them in the practical test. Elimination of eligible and qualified candidates can be justified only if it is manifest from the records, that the committee adverted to the relevant facts and circumstances and that an assessment was made in bona fide exercise of power with reference to the relevant and ascertainable standards. On a perusal of the materials produced by the respondents and the pleadings and arguments which were addressed before me, I am not in a position to hold that the committee applied its mind to the relevant considerations on the basis of any set procedure or relevant guidelines evolved by it or ascertainable standards which are discernible from the records. I am therefore, of the opinion, that the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 by elimination of the petitioners have to be set aside. 11. Counsel for the respondents submitted, that three candidates were appointed, but only two were impleaded as parties in O.P. No. 8108 of 1987. It is submitted further, that the select list contained six names, but only three persons were impleaded even in O.P. No. 2567 of 1987. Counsel, therefore, submits that the select list cannot be set aside or a fresh selection cannot be ordered, since the parties, who are likely to be affected, are not in the party array. I am not impressed by this submission. Counsel, therefore, submits that the select list cannot be set aside or a fresh selection cannot be ordered, since the parties, who are likely to be affected, are not in the party array. I am not impressed by this submission. It is beyond dispute, that one of the vacancies was earmarked for a candidate belonging to the scheduled caste. The first appointment was offered to her. Neither of the petitioners belonged to scheduled caste in whose favour that vacancy is reserved. Their claim can only be against the remaining two vacancies. Two candidates were appointed against those vacancies. They are parties in these original petitions. Petitioners seek to avoid only the appointments of those two persons. Non-impleadment of the scheduled caste candidates whose appointment is not challenged does not disable the petitioners to seek relief in these proceedings 12. Non-impleadment of the three remaining candidates in the select list also cannot be material. It is not the case of the respondents, that the select list was published in any manner. The select list was produced before me only when it was called for by the petitioners. They have not been offered appointment. They are not in any manner prejudiced by the reliefs which I propose to grant in these Original Petitions. 13. In view of my findings as above, I hold that the selection of candidates and the consequent appointment of respondents 4 and 5 in O.P. No. 8108 of 1987 has to set aside. The selection committee duly constituted in accordance with the bye-laws of the second respondent may interview all the candidates who were found eligible and qualified in accordance with the notification inviting applications. The committee shall evolve definite procedure and guidelines for conducting oral test/interview to eliminate/select candidates for appointment. Award of marks/grading/ranking of the candidates shall be on the basis of ascertainable standards, discernible from the proceedings of the committee. The committee shall record proceedings evidencing the ranking of candidates. The committee shall prepare a select list as directed above. Candidates so selected may be appointed in the notified vacancies. 14. In view of the fact that respondents 4 and 5 had been continuing in employment, status quo as on today shall continue for a period of three months as a purely ad hoc arrangement. Respondents will finalise the fresh selection and effect appointment within the above period of three months from today. 14. In view of the fact that respondents 4 and 5 had been continuing in employment, status quo as on today shall continue for a period of three months as a purely ad hoc arrangement. Respondents will finalise the fresh selection and effect appointment within the above period of three months from today. The Original Petitions are allowed as above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.