Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J.: These writ petitions are by the non-selectees with regard to of District Munsif, hereinafter called the posts, the selection in respect, of which was May-June, 1988. The non-selectees in the case of W.P.Nos.7480, 7518, 7993, 8166, and 8708 of 1988 are the members of the Bar. The non-selectees in the W.P.Nos.8834 of 1988 and 162 of 1989 are service candidates. The quota for the Bar out of 128 vacancies; the balance 58 vacancies having had been required to be filled recruitment by transfer from amongst service candidates. 2. The grounds of attack or in other words, the grounds of grievance over the non are being expressed in the following manner: Firstly, it is contended that during the interview or oral examination, held for the selection for the posts, the Chairman of Nadu Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, was not at all, he having gone on leave and on account of the absence of the Chairman Commission, the selection process gone through oral examination, was incompetent stood vitiated. There is a controversy with reference to the actual period during Chairman of the Commission went on leave. But, that aspect is not of much consequence, once the principle is settled over the same. To appreciate the submissions made learned counsel for the non-selectees, we are obliged to refer to the concerned Articles Constitution of India as well as the Rules and Regulations that could be relevantly looked on this question. 3. Art.315 speaks about the Public Service Com-mission for each State. Art.316 about the appointment of the Chairman and other Members of the Public Service Commission of a State. 3. Art.315 speaks about the Public Service Com-mission for each State. Art.316 about the appointment of the Chairman and other Members of the Public Service Commission of a State. Art.316(1A), which is being very much relied on by the learned counsel non-selectees, reads as follows: “ (1-A) If the office of the Chairman of the Commission becomes vacant or if Chairman is by reason of absence or for any other reasons unable to perform the his office, those duties shall, until some person appointed under Clause (1) to the office has entered on the duties thereof or, as the case may be, until the Chairman resumed his duties, be performed by such one of the President, in the case of the Commission or a Joint Commission, and the Governor of the State in the case of Commission, may appoint for the purpose.” Art.318 contemplates making of regulations determining the number of Members Commission, number of members of the staff of the Commission and their condition service. Art.320(1) days down that it shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct examinations for appointment to the services of the Art 320(3) speaks about consultation with the Commission on specified matters. specifically speaks about appointments of persons other than District judges to the Service of a State. Since this Article will have reference to the posts, it needs extraction follows: “Appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court jurisdiction in relation to such State. ” There are special rules made pursuant to this Article, and they bear the nomenclature Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules, and they shall hereinafter be referred to Special Rules. Rule 5 of the Special Rules is relevant, since it relates to the posts, reads as follows: “5. ” There are special rules made pursuant to this Article, and they bear the nomenclature Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules, and they shall hereinafter be referred to Special Rules. Rule 5 of the Special Rules is relevant, since it relates to the posts, reads as follows: “5. Preparation of approved list of candidates: The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, after holding such examinations, if any, as the Governor may think necessary shall, time to time, out of the candidates for appointment to posts of District Munsifs in the make a list or lists of the persons considered fit for appointment thereto in accordance the rules and regulations as may, from time to time, be made by him.” Rule 5 of the Special Rules; as we could see from the above extract, calls upon Commission to hold examinations and make a list or lists of persons considered appointment to the posts. 4. There are what is called the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, which have come to be formulated pursuant powers conferred by Art.318 and the proviso to Art.320(3). Regulation 2(b) ‘Commission’ means the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Regulation 2(c) ‘Member’ means Member of the Commission and includes the Chairman thereof. Regulation 3 says that the Commission shall consist of a Chairman and the specified number Members. 5. There are Tamil Nadu Service Commission Rules of Procedure, hereinafter referred the Rules, and the relevant Rules have to be adverted to, for the purpose of assessing contention that without the Chairman, the Commission could not function to go through selection process by holding examinations. Rules 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 13-A (as amended 10.5.1988) are relevant and they run as follows: “ 9. In the exercise of its functions under Clause (3) of Art.320 of the Constitution the Commission shall observe the rules, if any, made by the State Government regarding the Constitution of, or recruitment to, the State or Subordinate Service concerned. 10. Every question at a meeting of the Commission shall be determined by a majority votes of the members present and voting on the question, and in the case of an division of votes, the Chairman shall have and exercise a second or casting vote. 11. 10. Every question at a meeting of the Commission shall be determined by a majority votes of the members present and voting on the question, and in the case of an division of votes, the Chairman shall have and exercise a second or casting vote. 11. If the Chairman is unable to be present at a meeting of the Commission, appoint one of the other Members to act for him, and the Members so appointed shall all the powers of the Chairman at that meeting: Provided that, unless the Chairman otherwise directs, no action shall be taken upon any decision arrived at in a meeting which he was not present until he has been informed of such decision; and upon informed, he may direct that any such decision shall be reconsidered at a meeting at he is present. 12. The proceedings of the Commission shall not be invalidated by reason of any vacancy the office of the Chairman or other Member. 13. The quorum for a meeting of the Commission shall be two-thirds of the Members, including chairman in position, but the Chairman may adjourn any business at a meeting he is of opinion that it cannot conveniently be transacted owing to the non-attendance any Member. 13-A The Commission may, subject to such directions as it may think fit, delegate individual Member or to a Committee constituted from among its Members, any functions under the Constitution; Provided that the Chairman shall nominate the Member or Members who will constitute Selection Board/Boards.” 6. From a reading of none of the above provisions of the Constitution or the Specific or the Regulations or the Rules, we are persuaded to say that the absence of the Chairman will make the Commission a defunct body incapable of transacting any business internally or with reference to the process of selection to the services by examinations. Art.316(1A) contemplates a vacancy in the office of the Chairman Commission or inability of the Chairman to perform the duties of his office by reason absence or for any other reason and in such a contingency the Article says that the Governor of the State may appoint one or the other Members of the Commission to perform duties. Art.316(1A) contemplates a vacancy in the office of the Chairman Commission or inability of the Chairman to perform the duties of his office by reason absence or for any other reason and in such a contingency the Article says that the Governor of the State may appoint one or the other Members of the Commission to perform duties. But, without the Chairman of the Commission, there could not be a process selection through conduct of examinations by the Commission is a proposition that could be straightway spelt out from this Article, relied on by the learned counsel for the selectees. 7. Art.320(1), as already noted, says that it shall be the duty of the Commission to examinations for appointment to the services of the State. Art.320(3), as noted speaks about consultation with the Commission on specified matters, and they are stated clauses occurring therein which take in, as per Clause (a), matters relating to methods recruitment to civil services and for civil posts and as per Clause (b) principles to be in making appointments to civil services and posts. The scope of Art.234 is plain and not admit of any ambiguity or permit any expansion of the same beyond its language. It lays down that the Rules have to be made by the Governor of the State govern appointments of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial Service of a and such rules should be made by him after consultation with the State Public Commission and with the High Court, exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. Article does not, by its express terms, refer to the Chairman of the Commission and Commission getting disabled by the absence of the Chairman. 8. None of the Regulations specifically lays down that the absence of the Chairman will the Commission a defunct body. The Special Rules and in particular Rule 5 thereof helpful to the non-selectees to support their theory that without the Chairman, Commission could not discharge its obligations and functions under that Rule. Coming Rules, Rule 9 speaks about the observance by the Commission of the Rules, if any, made the State Government regarding the constitution of or recruitment to the services referred Rules 10 to 13 deal with the internal meeting of the Commission. Coming Rules, Rule 9 speaks about the observance by the Commission of the Rules, if any, made the State Government regarding the constitution of or recruitment to the services referred Rules 10 to 13 deal with the internal meeting of the Commission. While dealing with meeting of the Commission, where voting should take place with regard to the matter of the internal business of the Commission, Rule 11 enables the Chairman to one of the other Members to act for him. Rule 12 says that the proceedings Commission shall not be invalidated by reason of any vacancy in the office of the Chairman or other Member. Rule 13 lays down the quorum from a meeting of the Commission shall be two-thirds of the Members, including the Chairman in position and it does that without the Chairman there shall not be a meeting of the Commission. With regard the process of selection, Rule 13-A, as amended on 10.5.1988, alone is relevant and terms, it contemplates that the Commission may delegate to an individual Member, its functions under the constitution and further the Chairman shall nominate the Member Members to go to constitute the Selection Board/Boards. Nowhere in the Rules, it is that the Commission could function, discharge its obligation and perform its duties through and with the presence of the Chairman. The functions will also take in the process selection through conduct of examinations. Hence, we are not able to appreciate accept first contention put forth by the learned counsel for the non-selectees. 9. Secondly, it is contended that the entire body of the Commission should act and should have acted on the question of selection of the candidates for the posts. We have already seen that the role of the Commission as per Art.320(1) is to conduct examinations appointments to the service of the State. Rule 5 of the Special Rules, formulated pursuant powers under Art.234 enjoins, upon the Commission to hold the examinations and make list or lists of the persons considered fit for appointments to the posts. The factual position that we are able to get from the records produced is, the entire body of the Commission its total strength did not take part in this process. But then the question is, will this vitiate the process of selection for the posts, gone through in the instant case. The factual position that we are able to get from the records produced is, the entire body of the Commission its total strength did not take part in this process. But then the question is, will this vitiate the process of selection for the posts, gone through in the instant case. Neither the Constitution nor the Regulations, nor the Special Rules, nor the contemplate that the entire body of the Commission with its total strength should act reference to the conduct and holding of examinations. As already seen, Rule contemplates an individual Member or a Committee of Members of the Commission, functioning for and on behalf of the Commission and discharging the duties and obligations. The vires of the Rule is not being put in issue in these cases. It is expressed by the learned counsel for the non-selectees that though the Commission may delegate its functions to of its Members or a Committee of its Members, yet the final deliberations with reference selection and approval of the list or lists must be done by the entire body of the Commission. In the face of Rule 13-A and in the absence of any specific provision enjoining upon entire body of the Commission with its total strength to deliberate over the making of the or lists of approved candidates after the examinations are held, we would be putting premium on the functions, of the Commission through delegation to one of its Members Committee of its Members, if we say, that the entire body of the Commission should function in the drawing up of the approved list or lists. In this behalf, learned counsel for the selectees drew our attention to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Raj Dulari Razdan, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 586, where Sec.133(2) of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which is similar to Art.320(3)(b) of the Constitution India, was construed and the method of selection through a Committee of Members of Public Service Commission was approved. However, there is an observation that Commission should reserve to itself the right to approve or disapprove the Committee report and actually discharge that Constitutional responsibility. It was found that there such an approval. In that decision, there was no occasion to construe rules of the nature and hence that pronouncement is distinguishable. However, there is an observation that Commission should reserve to itself the right to approve or disapprove the Committee report and actually discharge that Constitutional responsibility. It was found that there such an approval. In that decision, there was no occasion to construe rules of the nature and hence that pronouncement is distinguishable. Learned counsel for the selectees would also, in this connection, refer to the pronouncement of a Bench of this in T.O.M.Sariba Bagum v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, (1985)7 Writ L.R. 137, While dealing with a case under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, the method of obtaining the opinion of the Members Advisory Board individually and acting according to the majority opinion was deprecated it was said that the Advisory Board has to function as one unit and the decision will be arrived at consensus. Here again, this case is distinguishable because the Bench Court had no occasion to deal with the Rules of the present nature, which permit functioning of the Commission through an individual Member or a Committee of its Members. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhatia, 1976 Lab.I.C. 1603, the very case relied on by the counsel for the non-selectees, a Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan countenanced provision permitting the powers, duties and functions of Rajasthan Public Commission, being performed through one or more of its members, and that retrospective legislation. The other pronouncement in Registrar, High Court of Madras Rajiah, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1388, is also distinguishable, because there was no rule cognizing delegation. Hence, the second contention is repelled. 10. The third ground urged by the learned counsel for the non-selectees is that in the of appointments to the posts, there ought to be a consultation both with the Commission the High Court by the Governor and these bodies could not/ have a less significant confining them only to the process of selection and drawing up the list or lists and not reference to actual appointments. The inspiration for this ground has been drawn Art.234 of the Constitution of India, the language of which has been already noted. our view, this inspiration is the result of a misconception and misconstruction of the and implications of this Article. The consultation required under this Article is only reference to the Rules to be made by the Governor of a State and not with reference very appointments. our view, this inspiration is the result of a misconception and misconstruction of the and implications of this Article. The consultation required under this Article is only reference to the Rules to be made by the Governor of a State and not with reference very appointments. The appointments will be made by the Governor. The endeavour learned counsel for the non-selectees to put a different interpretation on this Article that it contemplates the consultation by the Governor with the Commission and the Court for making the very appointments to the posts cannot be countenanced. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., as he then was in N.Devasahayam v. State of Madras, (1958)1 M.L.J. 38 : 1958 Mad. 158: A.I.R. 1958 Mad. 53, accepted the inter-pretation on this Article consultation, referred to in this Article, is only in relation to the making of the Rule in the following terms: "The absence of a comma, or other punctuation mark in the Article which could serve specify ‘the appointment ’ as the event which requires the consultation appeared to me significant. In the absence of any punctuation mark the grammar of the Article seemed point to the consultation referred to being in relation to the making of the rule." We are in respectful agreement with the above interpretation. It was also indicated by learned counsel for the non-selectees that Clause (a) of Art.320(3) speaks about consultation with the Commission on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to Civil Services for Civil Posts, and Clause (b) of Art.320(3) speaks about consultation with the Commission on the principles to be followed in making appointments to Civil Services and Posts, and consultation must be done for the very making of appointments. First of all, it is permissible to read something into this Article which is not explicit there. Even otherwise, provisions of this Article have been construed to be not mandatory and non-compliance them have been held not to afford a cause of action to the person concerned in a Court Law. Vide State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal, 1958 S.C.J. 150: 1957 S.C.A. 1022: 1958 S.C.R. 533: A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 912; and Ram Gopal v. State of M.P., (1970)2 S.C.T. 257: (1970)1 Lab.L.J. 567: (1970)1 S.C.R. 472 : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 158. Thus, we are obliged to repel third ground of attack put forth by the learned counsel for the non-selectees. 11. Thus, we are obliged to repel third ground of attack put forth by the learned counsel for the non-selectees. 11. Fourthly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the non-selectees that this Court, whatever role assigned to it, must function as a whole body and in the instant case that not happen. It must be pointed out that strictly speaking, neither by the force of Constitutional provisions, nor by the force of the Special Rules, this Court is supposed to part in the process of holding examinations and thereafter making a list or lists of approved candidates for the posts. It is only by virtue of the Rules, there is an invitation extended by the Commission to a Judge or Judges of this Court to take part in the Selection process, Here again, it is not possible to read something into the provisions, which is there to say that the entire strength of this court should be there in the process of selection. 12. The fifth contention raised by the learned counsel for the non-selectees is that ought to have been a conduct of written examinations; and the holding of oral examinations alone, as happened in the instant case, could not be commended and deprecating that entire selection must be struck down by this Court. According to the learned counsel for non-selectees, the holding of the written examinations alone will prove an effective measure for the selection. It is contended that written examination is a process conducive to proper selection. This submission, if properly assessed in the light of the pronouncements of highest court in the land, cannot be accepted. 13. In R.Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1823: (1964)3 S.C.R. 25 , validity of the orders made by the Government of Mysore in respect of admissions Engineering and Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore, was questioned, and there broad argument that Selection by interview is inherently repugnant to the doctrine equality embodied in Art.14 of the Constitution of India and this is how, the Supreme dealt with the question. "But learned counsel for the appellants raised a larger question that selection by interview inherently repugnant to the doctrine of equality embodied in Art.14 of the Constitution, whatever may be objective tests laid down, in the final analysis the awarding of marks is to the subjective satisfaction of the selection Committee and, therefore, it gives ample for discrimination and manipulation. We cannot accept such a wide contention and condemn one of the well accepted mode of selection in educational institutions. James Hart in his Introduction to Administrative Law’ observes, at page 180 thus: "A test or examination, to be competitive, must employ an objective standard of measure. Where the standard or measure is wholly subjective to the examiners, it differs in effect respect from an uncontrolled opinion of the examiners and cannot be termed competitive." The field of education, there are divergent views as regards the mode of testing the capacity and calibre of students in the matter of admission to Colleges. Orthodox educationists by the marks obtained by a student in the annual examination. The modern trend of opinion insists upon other additional tests, such as interview, performance in extra curricular activities, personality psychiatric tests etc. Obviously we are not in a position to judge which method is preferable or which test is the correct one. If there can be manipulation or dishonesty in allotting at interviews, there can equally be manipulation in the matter of awarding marks in written examinations. In the ultimate analysis, whatever method is adopted, its success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting the Selection Committee their sense of objectivity and devotion to duty. This criticism is merely a reflection on examiners than on the system itself. The scheme of selection, however, perfect it may paper, may be abused in practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing So long as the order lays down relevant objective criteria and entrusts the business selection to qualified persons, this Court cannot obviously have any say in the matter. 14. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court in A.Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2303: (1971)2 S.C.J. 222: (1971)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 85. 14. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court in A.Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2303: (1971)2 S.C.J. 222: (1971)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 85. ” In most cases, the first impression need not necessarily be the best impression, but the existing conditions, we are unable to accede to the contentions of the petitioners that system of interview as in vogue in this country is so defective as to make it useless. 15. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981)1 S.C.C. 723: (1981)1 Lab.L.J. 103: A.I.R. S.C. 487, after recapitulating what has been said in its above pronouncements, the Supreme Court, on the question of validity of viva voce examination as a permissible test for Selection of candidates for admission to a college, observed as follows: “It is therefore not possible to accept the contentions of the petitioners that the interview test is so defective that selecting candidates for admission on the basis interview in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The oral interview undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and 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 irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influenced many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, like to point oat in the matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of public employment, the interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test but it resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and more over, great care must taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are high integrity, calibre and qualification.” 16. In Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1777: (1981)4 S.C.C. 159 : Lab.L.J. 297, it was pointed that the Cases in Periakarup-pan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1971 S.C. 2303 and Ajay Hasia v. Kalid Mujib Sehravardi, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487, of admission to Colleges and the provision for marks by interview test need not and be the same for admission to colleges and entry into public services. In that context, observed. In that context, observed. ” On the other hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic essential academic and professional recruitments being satisfied. To subject such persons a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an cruelty to those persons. There are, of course, many services to which recruitment is from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and show signs of great promise, and the discerning may in an interview test, catch a glimpse the future personality. 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 great weight, to the interview test. There cannot be; any rule of thumb regarding the weight to be given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements service, the minimum qualifications prescribed, the age group from which the selection be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not for courts to pronounce it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives. 17. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 454, commending propriety of holding oral test in the matter of recruitment to public services, this is what been observed: “It is now admitted on all hands that while a written examination assesses the candidates knowledge and intellectual ability, a viva voce that seeks to assess a candidate 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 candidate’s initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities can be evaluated perhaps with degree of error, by a viva voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board. Some of these qualities can be evaluated perhaps with degree of error, by a viva voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board. Glenn Stahl has pointed out in his book on public personal Administration that viva voce test does suffer from certain disadvantages such as the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral test, the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test public suspicion of the oral test as a channel for the exertion of Political influence and, pointed out by this Court in Ajay Hasia’s case, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487, also of other corrupt, nepotistic or extraneous considerations, but despite these acknowledged disadvantages, viva voce test has been used increasingly in the public personnel testing and has become important instrument whenever tests of personal attributes are considered essential. Glenn Stahl proceeds to add that ‘no satisfactory written tests have yet been devised measuring such personnel characteristics as initiative, ingenuity and ability to elicit operation, many of which are of prime importance. When properly employed, the oral today deserves a place in the battery used by the technical examiner, ‘ There can therefore be no doubt that the viva voce test performs a very useful function in assessing personnel characteristics and traits and in fact, tests the man himself and is therefore regarded important tool along with the written examination.” 18. Reliance was placed before us on the following definition annexed to the expression ‘examination’ in the Law Lexicon -P.Ramanatha Aiyar, Reprint Edition 1987: examination A weighing, balancing, search, minute inspection; investigation; inquiry; investigation made in order to form a judgment.” That definition, though worth noting, is not of any aid at all to find a solution on contention in favour of the non-selectees. Hence, we cannot hold, as a universal rule that the matter of recruitment to public services, written examination is the only method adopted. 19. In the instant case we have the proviso to Rule 2(ii) of the Rules and it contemplates competitive examination comprising interview only. Hence, we cannot hold, as a universal rule that the matter of recruitment to public services, written examination is the only method adopted. 19. In the instant case we have the proviso to Rule 2(ii) of the Rules and it contemplates competitive examination comprising interview only. Not only that, paragraph 3, as on the date of issuance of the Notification calling for applications to the posts, 15.10.1986 of the Revised Instructions issued to the Commission in G.O.No.603, and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-M) Department, dated 12th June, 1985, hereinafter referred as the Revised Instructions, while dealing with services classified as Technical State Services, which takes in Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, lays down that when recruitment has to be made to any of the services, which have been classified as technical, shall be made on the basis of a competitive examination, comprising only an oral test shape of an interview, conducted by the Commission with the assistance of the Head Department concerned or a representative nominated by him. Paragraph 3 of the Instructions has been subsequently substituted on 27.11.1987, and the substituted paragraph 3 contemplates the competitive examination, comprising a written examination and an oral test in the shape of an interview. But on the date of the Notification calling applications, namely, 15.10.1986, this change was not there. The interview communications issued to candidates, specifically referred to oral test only obviously taking note position at the time of calling for applications. It will not be proper to give a go by position and suggest adherence to a subsequent change, as endeavoured by the counsel for the non-selectees. It would and would have drawn adverse comments. This aspect is not a procedural one, as opined by the learned counsel for non-selectees. It is a norm and method of selection already declared at the time of for applications and it cannot be changed at the time of examinations. Learned counsel the non-selectees would also submit that under the Special Rules, there ought to have been holding of written examinations. Rule 5 of the Special Rules, which has relevance the posts, does not in terms say that written examinations should be held. Rule 12 Special Rules contemplates an examination, or an interview, to be conducted by Commission. Learned counsel the non-selectees would also submit that under the Special Rules, there ought to have been holding of written examinations. Rule 5 of the Special Rules, which has relevance the posts, does not in terms say that written examinations should be held. Rule 12 Special Rules contemplates an examination, or an interview, to be conducted by Commission. There was also an attack on the Revised Instructions, on the ground that were formulated by the Governor, without consultation with the Commission and this as laid down by Art.234 of the Constitution of India. This is a puerile and a desperate thinking. The Special Rules got formulated pursuant to powers and in accordance with prescriptions under Art.234 of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the Special empowers the Governor to make rules and regulations for holding such examinations, if as he may think necessary, from time to time. The Revised Instructions can fit in and within such powers. For them, once again there need not be consultation with Commission and this Court. Hence, we must hold that it cannot be complained that there any breach of the provisions of law with regard to the conduct of the examinations by voce only. 20. Sixthly, learned counsel for the non-selectees would contend that there no norms, no questionnaire and no guidelines formulated for oral interview and the formulation of such norms, questionnaire and guidelines vitiates the selection process through oral interview. According to the learned counsel for the non-selectees, without norms, questionnaire and guidelines fixed to steer the oral interview, the oral interview not be stated to have proved a standard, common and effective measure to make the proper selections. While examining this contention, we must once again remember the passage occurring in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1823, that, “ In the ultimate analysis, whatever, method is adopted its success depends on the standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of objectivity and devotion to duty. This criticism is more a reflection on the examiners than on the system itself. ” Furthermore, it is stated by the respondents and there is no rebuttal of the same by the selectees that before the commencement of the oral test, there was a discussion as to to evaluate the fitness of the candidates, who appear for the interview. This criticism is more a reflection on the examiners than on the system itself. ” Furthermore, it is stated by the respondents and there is no rebuttal of the same by the selectees that before the commencement of the oral test, there was a discussion as to to evaluate the fitness of the candidates, who appear for the interview. The records relating to interview have been produced before us. The records bear out that before commencement of the interview, there was a discussion by the members of the Commission on the method of interview and marking system; and with regard to each candidate marks have been awarded and only on the basis of the marks awarded, the list of approved candidates has been drawn up. It is stated by the respondents that the assessment of candidate was made by the Honourable Judges of this Court, who participated in interview. As pointed out in Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1777, “ the object of any process of selection for entry into public service is to secure the best the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful efficient.......public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services. But the question is how should competitive examination be devised? The competitive examination may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be based exclusively on oral interview or it may mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given case. To quote the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J. In the very nature of things it would not be within the province or even the competence the Court and the court would not venture into such exclusive thickets to discover ways when the matters are more appropriately left ” to the wisdom of the experts. It is not for court to lay down whether interview test.....should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test. Of course, the comments. This aspect is not a procedural one, as opined by the learned counsel for selectees. It is not for court to lay down whether interview test.....should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test. Of course, the comments. This aspect is not a procedural one, as opined by the learned counsel for selectees. It is a norm and method of selection already declared at the time of applications and it cannot be changed at the time of examinations. Learned counsel non-selectees would also submit that under the Special Rules, there ought to have holding of written examinations. Rule 5 of the Special Rules, which has relevance posts, does not in terms say that written examinations should be held. Rule 12 of the Rules contemplates an examination, or an interview, to be conducted by the Commission. There was also an attack on the Revised Instructions, on the ground that they formulated by the Governor, without consultation with the Commission and this Court, down by Art.234 of the Constitution of India. This is a puerile and a desperate thinking. Special Rules got formulated pursuant to powers and in accordance with the prescriptions under Art.234 of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the Special Rules empowers Governor to make rules and regulations for holding such examinations, if any, as think necessary, from time to time. The Revised Instructions can fit in and come within powers. For them, once again there need not be consultation with the Commission Court. Hence, we must hold that it cannot be complained that there was any breach provisions of law with regard to the conduct of the examinations by viva voce Sixthly, learned counsel for the non-selectees would contend that there were no questionnaire and no guidelines formulated for oral interview and the non-formulation such norms, questionnaire and guidelines vitiates the selection process through interview. According to the learned counsel for the non-selectees, without the questionnaire and guidelines fixed to steer the oral interview, the oral interview could stated to have proved a standard, common and effective measure to make the selections. While examining this contention, we must once again remember the occurring in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Chitralekha v. State of A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1823, that, “In the ultimate analysis, whatever, method is adopted its success depends on standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of and devotion to duty. While examining this contention, we must once again remember the occurring in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Chitralekha v. State of A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1823, that, “In the ultimate analysis, whatever, method is adopted its success depends on standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of and devotion to duty. This criticism is more a reflection on the examiners than on the itself.” Furthermore, it is stated by the respondents and there is no rebuttal of the same by selectees that before the commencement of the oral test, there was a discussion to evaluate the fitness of the candidates, who appear for the interview. The records to interview have been produced before us. The records bear out that before commencement of the interview, there was a discussion by the members of the Commission on the method of interview and marking system; and with regard to each candidate have been awarded and only on the basis of the marks awarded, the list of candidates has been drawn up. It is stated by the respondents that the assessment candidate was made by the Honourable Judges of this Court, who participated interview. As pointed out in Liladhar v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1777, “the object of any process of selection for entry into public service is to secure the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful efficient.......public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be almost universally as the gateway to public services. But the question is how should competitive examination be devised? The competitive examination may be based on written examination or it may be based exclusively on oral interview or it mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given case. To quote the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J. In the very nature of things it would not be within the province or even the competence the Court and the court would not venture into such exclusive thickets to discover ways when the matters are more appropriately left ” to the wisdom of the experts. It is not for court to lay down whether interview test.....should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test. It is not for court to lay down whether interview test.....should be held at all or how many marks should be allowed for the interview test. Of course, the marks must be minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not necessarily There may be posts and appointments where the only proper method of selection may a viva voce test. Even in the case of admission to higher degree courses, it may sometimes be necessary to allow a fairly high percentage of marks for the viva voce test. That rigid rules cannot be laid down in these matters and not by Courts. The expert bodies generally the best judges. The Government aided by experts in the field may appropriately decide to have a written examination followed by a viva voce test." The members of the Commission were aided by experts in the field, in the person Honourable Judges of the Apex Court in the State; and in the absence of better and scientific materials exposed before us and acceptable to us, to demonstrate that element of caprice or arbitrariness entered the process of assessment made knowledgeable men of high judicial calibre, we cannot frown upon their selection. complained that at the discussion regarding norms all the Honourable Judges of this who participated in the interview were not present. That is of no consequence at all, it is not claimed that the said norms were ignored by the other Honourable Judges, they had occasion to participate in the interview on the subsequent dates. 21. The seventh contention is that different Boards conducted interviews on different and hence there was no possibility for applying a common standard for measuring quality of the candidates. Though there were different Boards, in all the Boards there participation of the Honourable Judges of this Court. In the present case, apart from allegations, it has not been substantiated to our satisfaction by positive and acceptable materials that on account of the selection being made by different Boards, the adopted by one Committee differed from that adopted by others and therefore applicants ’ ability was not tested by a uniform standard. We have already noted that beginning of the interview, there was a consensus as to how to evaluate the fitness candidates, who appear for the interview, the method of interview and marking system. We have already noted that beginning of the interview, there was a consensus as to how to evaluate the fitness candidates, who appear for the interview, the method of interview and marking system. not stated that there was a variation of these norms, whenever there was a change Selection Board. Furthermore, the non-selectees were duly put on notice that Boards were constituted to do the interviewing and non-selectees did not demur and took chance and having failed, they are raising this voice of protest. It is only in this the plea of waiver and acquiescence is being advanced by the respondents. We shall to this aspect presently. 22. Eighthly, learned counsel for the non-selectees would contend that even as per A of the Rules, as it stood at the time of calling for the applications, the Selection should consist of two Members of the Commission; and only on the eve commencement of the interview, this rule was amended on 10.5.1988 so as to enable constitution of the Selection Board through an individual Member and according learned counsel for the non-selectees the position, as it prevailed on the date of the for the applications above, must prevail. In our view, the constitution of the Selection is the business of the Commission and it would not lie in the mouth of any candidate posts to say as to the strength of the Selection Board. In the matter of its administration and allocation of work, the Commission was and is well within its powers make any appropriate constitution of the Selection Board depending upon the exigencies faced. Prior to the date of the commencement of the interview, Rule 13-A has been so as to enable the constitution of the Selection Board with an individual Member, of the Honourable Judges of this Court participating by invitation. No cause of any could be stated to have failed or lost on account of this feature. This objection appears to have only an ethical facet without any substance in it. 23. No cause of any could be stated to have failed or lost on account of this feature. This objection appears to have only an ethical facet without any substance in it. 23. On behalf of the respondents, Mr.K.Alagiri-swamy, learned Advocate General for them, would submit that in respect of the contentions, put forth on behalf of selectees that written examinations ought to have been held and there ought to have only a common Board, the non-selectees could not raise such a voice before this because they had full notice of these factors at all relevant points of time and participated in the interview without any demur and only after their participation failure they are raising this voice Of protest. In this connection, learned Advocate brings to our notice the following pronouncements: In Dr.G.Sarana v. University of Lucknow, (1977)1 L.L.J. 68 , it was noted that the appellant knew all the relevant facts about the constitution of the Selection Committee and he before appearing for the interview raise his little finger against the constitution Selection Committee and it was opined that having voluntarily appeared before Committee and taken his chance of having a favourable recommendation, it was not open the appellant to challenge the constitution of the Committee. In I.L.Honnegouda v. The of Karnataka, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 28, the appellant before the Supreme Court acquiesced Rules by applying for the post of the Village Accountant, appearing before the Recruitment Committee for interview and having taken a chance for selection and later he questioned constitutionality of the Rules, it was held that the appellant cannot do that. In Om Prakash Akhilesh Kumar, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1043, the party had appeared for examination protest; he moved the petition only after he realised that he would not succeed examination. Even in that contingency, the Supreme Court held that the party should granted any relief. One salient principle, which this Court, exercising jurisdiction Art.226 of the Constitution of India, takes note of is the party who complains of any violation of any rule with reference to selection for appointments should not be permitted to raise a grievance after having participated and taken his chance in the selection process following only that rule. This will come within the mischief of the rule that the party should allowed to approbate and reprobate. This also comes within the purview of waiver. This will come within the mischief of the rule that the party should allowed to approbate and reprobate. This also comes within the purview of waiver. communications for the interview fully notified that only an oral test would be held and would be before different Boards of Selection. Knowing fully well that such was the with reference to the conduct of the examinations for selection, the non participated in the selection process. After having acquiesced in that position and having gone through the process of selection, as per the said position, and now not come out successful, it is not permissible for the non-selectees to challenge either holding of the oral test or the constitution of different Selection Boards. 24. The learned Advocate General would also advance a contention that in most of the writ petitions, the selectees have not been impleaded and the selectees are vitally interested and in case the writ petitions are to be allowed, it is only their interest that will be affected and hence this Court, even assuming that merits have been made out, should not accord any relief to the non-selectees in the absence of the selectees and their voice being heard support of their case. In this behalf, learned Advocate General relies on a pronouncement the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 167. However, learned counsel for the non-selectees would bring to our notice, a pronouncement of the Bench of this Court in Mohamed Ali, M.N.etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, etc., 1988 Writ L.R. 1, to say that failure to implead selected candidates is not a ground to deny relief to the petitioner. We have refrained from going into this aspect in detail, because on merits have found that the non-selectees have no case. 25. No other point was urged before us on behalf of the non-selectees. The result of our above discussion is that these writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Today we have disposed of the writ petitions and we direct that the Interview Records be returned to the learned Advocate General, who produced them earlier. It further directed that the respondents shall preserve them for a period of six months, at least, if not for a larger period, if that should be the prescription. Petitions dismissed.