ORAL JUDGMENT Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. Writ Petition No. 201 of 1988 has been filed by the Upper Division Clerks in the office of the Commissioner of Excise, Government of Goa. The petitioners in this petition are posted as Upper Division Clerks at various Excise Stations situate at Taluka level and also in the office of the Commissioner of Excise at Panaji. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 and 14 are graduates while the remaining, are under-graduates. 2. In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged, inter alia, the Recruitment Rules of 1986, in so far as they deal with the posts of Excise Inspectors, which were the next promotional posts available to the petitioners prior to the Recruitment Rules, 1986. They have also challenged in this writ petition the promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 to the post of Excise Inspectors. 3. The Administrator of Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu as it then was, pleased to make recruitment rules for recruitment to Class III (Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted) posts in the department of Excise and the post of Superintendent of State Excise and Excise Officer, by a notification dated 16th June, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules of 1966). Under these Rules the recruitment to the post of Excise Inspector was both by direct recruitment and by promotion. The Upper Division Clerks and the Sub-Inspectors of Excise having at least 3 years standing in their respective grades were eligible, for promotion to the post of Excise Inspector, provided they had qualified for such promotion by passing a departmental examination. Under these Recruitment Rules of 1966, therefore the petitioners were eligible for promotion to the posts of Excise Inspectors provided they had passed the qualifying departmental examination and had 3 years standing in their grade. As per these rules 50 per cent of the posts of Excise Inspectors were to be filled in by direct recruitment and 50 per cent were to be filled in by promotion. 4. By a notification dated 31st May, 1969 Rules were framed for conducting departmental examination in the Department of Excise. These Examination Rules prescribed the syllabus for the departmental examination, the number of chances which a candidate was to be given for passing the examination qualifying marks for passing the examination and other relevant matters. 4. By a notification dated 31st May, 1969 Rules were framed for conducting departmental examination in the Department of Excise. These Examination Rules prescribed the syllabus for the departmental examination, the number of chances which a candidate was to be given for passing the examination qualifying marks for passing the examination and other relevant matters. Rule 7 of these Rules relating to the qualifying marks is as follows : (i) A candidate will be declared to have passed the examination by the highest standard if he secures a minimum of 45% of the marks in each of the papers as prescribed under Rule 4 and also secures 55% of the marks in aggregate; (ii) A candidate will be declared to have passed the examination by lower standard if he secures 40% of the marks in each paper as prescribed under Rule 4, and also secures 50% of the marks in aggregate. There were also certain rules for exemption from appearing in certain papers with which we are not concerned. 5. After the publication of these Examination Rules, the Excise Department conducted a departmental examination in August 1969, inter alia for upper Division Clerks to enable them to qualify for promotion to the post of Excise Inspectors. Ten upper Division clerks appeared for this examination. Only two were declared successful. None of the petitioners could appear for the examination as they had not completed 3 years in their grade of upper division clerks and were not eligible to appear for the examination. The next examination which was announced thereafter was only in February 1981 for which a circular was issued on 27th December, 1980. However, for reasons which we need not examine in this writ petition, none of the upper division clerks appeared for this examination. Thereafter although examination were announced in August, 1985 as well as in September, 1986, the examinations were in fact postponed or not held. 6. It is an accepted position that prior to the Recruitment Rules of 1986 both Upper Division Clerks as well as Sub-Inspector of Excise were eligible fore promotion to the posts of Inspector of Excise, provided they had completed 3 years of service in their respective grade and had passed the departmental promotion examination. 6. It is an accepted position that prior to the Recruitment Rules of 1986 both Upper Division Clerks as well as Sub-Inspector of Excise were eligible fore promotion to the posts of Inspector of Excise, provided they had completed 3 years of service in their respective grade and had passed the departmental promotion examination. Under a notification dated 9th September, 1969, for the purpose of promotion as Excise Inspectors 66-2/3% of the posts were to be given to Upper Division Clerks and 33-1/3% were to be given to the Sub-Inspectors of Excise. This was because there were about 24 Upper Division Clerks as compared to about 6 Sub-Inspectors of Excise. As between departmental promo tees and direct recruits to the posts of Excise Inspectors, the ratio which was initially fixed was 50 : 50. 7. By the Goa Government Excise Department Superintendent of State Excise, Excise Officer and Class III (Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted posts) Recruitment (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1974 dated 8th August, 1974, the quota as between the promotees and direct recruits was revised. The quota for promotees was enhanced to 75% and the quota of direct recruits was reduced to 25%. We do not have any material before us to indicate why the proportion of direct recruits to departmental promotees was thus reduced. 8. As stated earlier, no departmental examination were held between the years 1969 and 1986. In the meanwhile in October, 1974, 6 Upper Division Clerks and 1 Sub-Inspectors of Excise were promoted to the posts, of Excise Inspector, although they had not passed the departmental examination. According to the petitioners it was as a protest against these promotions that they did not appear for the departmental examination which was announced in February 1981. Thereafter by an order dated 31st August, the 3rd respondent, who was working as an Upper Division Clerk has been promoted on an ad-hoc basis as an Excise Inspector, similarly by an order dated 15th April, 1985 respondent No. 4, also an Upper Division has been promoted to the post of an Excise Inspector on an ad-hoc basis. 9. By a notification dated 20th August, 1985 Rule 13 of the Departmental Examination Rules, 1969 was, inter alia, amended. 9. By a notification dated 20th August, 1985 Rule 13 of the Departmental Examination Rules, 1969 was, inter alia, amended. As a result, any official promoted on an ad-hoc basis/regular basis to a higher post without passing the departmental examination prior to the notification of these Rules was regularised in the promotional post if he had otherwise successfully completed the probationary period. As a result of this amendment, the promotions which had been made to the post of Excise Inspectors prior to 1985 were regularised. The amendment, however, did not come to the rescue of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who had not completed their probationary period at the times when the amendments were effected. The promotions of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. Subsequently respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who were Sub-Inspector of Excise have also been promoted to the post of Excise Inspector on an ad-hoc basis by an order dated 7th December, 1987, although they have not passed the departmental examination. Their promotions are also challenged in the present petition. 10. On 23rd October, 1986 new Recruitment Rules were promulgated in super-session, inter alia, of the Recruitment Rules of 1966. The new Rules of 1986 have made a substantial change in the Rules relating to promotion to the posts of Excise Inspectors. As a result, now only Sub-Inspectors of Excise with 3 years regular service in the grade and having qualified in the departmental examination are eligible for promotion to the posts of Excise Inspectors. The Upper Division Clerks are no longer eligible for promotion to the post of Excise Inspector. Secondly, only 12-1/2% of the posts of Excise Inspectors are to be filled in by promotion and 87-1/2% are to be filled by direct recruitment. There is thus a drastic change in the promotional avenues available to the departmental candidates under the new Recruitment Rules of 1986. The petitioners have prayed in this petition that the Recruitment Rules of 1986, to the extent that they reduce the quota of promotion to 12-1/2% and exclude the Upper Division Clerks from promotion to the posts of Excise Inspectors should be quashed. 11. There is no doubt that as a result of the Recruitment Rules of 1986, the petitioners and other Upper Division Clerks have been denied the channel of promotion to the post of Excise Inspectors. 11. There is no doubt that as a result of the Recruitment Rules of 1986, the petitioners and other Upper Division Clerks have been denied the channel of promotion to the post of Excise Inspectors. The respondents in their affidavit have sought to justify this exclusion by submitting that the Upper Division Clerks have another channel of promotion available to them; they are eligible for promotion as Head Clerks. Previously they had two channels of promotion one to the post of Head Clerks and the other to the post of Excise Inspectors. Only the second channel is sought to be curtailed. The Upper Division Clerks are, therefore, not denied a promotional avenue and therefore, there is nothing unreasonable in the Recruitment Rules of 1986. This submission of the respondents, although prima-facie, attractive, is in fact unacceptable on further examination. 12. There are in the Excise Department about 24 Upper Division Clerks as against about 4 Sub-Inspectors of Excise. There are about 24 promotional posts of Excise Inspectors. Hence both the Upper Division Clerks and Sub-Inspector of Excise were considered as eligible for promotion to the posts of Excise Inspectors. As against these 24 posts of Excise Inspectors, there are only 2 posts of Head Clerks. As a result of the Recruitment Rules of 1986, now 4 Sub-Inspector of Excise are eligible for promotion to 24 posts of Excise Inspectors. In contrast the 24 Upper Division Clerks have only 2 promotional posts as Head Clerks available to them. We are told that now 12 more posts of Excise Inspectors are about to be created. As a result of the Recruitment Rules of 1986, therefore, we have this unusual situation where a very small number of Sub-Inspectors of Excise have a very large avenue open to them for promotion to superior posts. The promotional posts exceed the lower posts 4 to 6 times. The curtailed the quota of promotees only to 12-1/2%. This has resulted in a situation where 87-1/2% of available promotional posts are now sought to be filed by direct recruits. The reason for this drastic change has not been given. 13. It was contended by Mr. Bhobe, learned advocate, for the respondents that the Upper Division Clerks form an administrative cadre of the Excise Department. Therefore, it has been decided that they should not be promoted as Excise Inspectors. The reason for this drastic change has not been given. 13. It was contended by Mr. Bhobe, learned advocate, for the respondents that the Upper Division Clerks form an administrative cadre of the Excise Department. Therefore, it has been decided that they should not be promoted as Excise Inspectors. The petitioners however, have pointed out that the Upper Division Clerks have for decades been promoted to function as Excise Inspectors on an ad-hoc basis from time to time. Upper Division Clerks in the office of the Commissioner of Excise including a majority of the petitioners have been discharging not only clerical or administrative duties but also field duties. Whenever these Upper Division Clerks are posted at taluka officers they have been discharging the functions of Excise Inspectors. This has been constantly going on for the last more than 20 years. In the process a majority of the petitioners have acquired experience as Excise Inspectors for a period ranging from 3 to 10 years. The delegation of duties of Excise Inspectors to Upper Division Clerks has been specifically permitted by the Government. The last such order of the Government is dated 31st December, 1976 under which the Commissioner or Excise was authorised to empower the Upper Division Clerks to act as Excise Inspectors as and when the occasion demanded. In contrast, none of the powers of Excise Inspectors have been as a matter of fact, exercised by the Sub-Inspectors of Excise in the Excise Department. Sub-Inspectors of Excise have been generally appointed to assist the work of a distillery, brewery or winery under the provisions of Rule 49 of the Excise Duty Rules, 1964. The functions they perform are of a supervisory and administrative nature. They are not invested with the powers of discharging field duties at the excise stations. As a result, while the Upper Division Clerks have acquired experience as Excise Inspectors, the Sub-Inspectors of Excise do not have such experience. In these circumstances, to deny to Upper Division Clerks a promotional avenue to the post of Excise Inspectors appears to be wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. 14. In the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Shukla, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1041 , the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Rule 7-A and 7-B of the U.P. Promotion by Selection in Consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970. 14. In the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Gopal Shukla, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1041 , the Supreme Court considered the provisions of Rule 7-A and 7-B of the U.P. Promotion by Selection in Consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970. The Supreme Court observed that though the rules regulating the conditions of service are within the executive power of the State or its legislative power under the proviso the Article 309, such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust, if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the case before the Supreme Court, a rule which contemplated that unless the list of 300 persons is exhausted no other person can be selected, was considered by the Supreme Court to be obviously unjust, as it deprived other persons in the same situation of the opportunity of being considered for promotion. 15. In the case of Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1402 , the Supreme Court said that even in matters which are purely administrative in nature there should be fairness in administrative action. The duty to act fairly may arise in widely different circumstances and whether the administration had acted fairly or not would depend on the circumstances of each case. 16. In the present case, the Recruitment Rules of 1986, in so far as they deny to a large body of Upper Division Clerks the existing channel of promotion to the post of Excise Inspectors and confine their channel of promotion only to the two posts of Head Clerks, appear to be wholly unfair and unreasonable. The importance of promotional avenue has been repeatedly emphasised by the Supreme Court. In the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1033 the Supreme Court has said that reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. 17. Similarly in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1972 the Supreme Court observed that a person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must be given an opportunity to advance. 17. Similarly in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1972 the Supreme Court observed that a person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must be given an opportunity to advance. In the case before the Supreme Court the respondent had stagnated in the same post for about 20 years due to a defective promotional policy. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the relief granted to him by the Tribunal. Tested in the light of norms laid down by the Supreme Court, the denial of promotional channel to the Upper Division Clerks in the present case appears to be arbitrary and unreasonable. We have not been shown any administrative reasons for making a drastic change in the Recruitment Rules whereby promotion to the post of Excise Inspector is denied to the Upper Division Clerks. Nor are we given any administrative reasons for reserving 87-1/2% of these promotional posts to direct recruits. Looking to all the circumstances of the present case and looking to the number of Upper Division Clerks as against the number of Sub-Inspectors of Excise, the number of the promotional posts now made available to the Sub-Inspectors of Excise as compared to the number of such posts made available to the Upper Division Clerks, the changes made under the Recruitment Rules of 1986 appear to be wholly unfair and arbitrary. Undoubtedly, there cannot be any mathematical equation between lower posts and promotional posts. But when an existing promotional avenue is sought to be denied to the members of a lower cadre in circumstances such as the present, there should be adequate reasons which would justify such a denial, for it to be considered as fair or just. Such is not the present case. 18. In the premises, the Recruitment Rules of 1986 in so far as they deny to the Upper Division Clerks promotion to the post of Excise Inspectors are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and are, therefore, set aside. The Recruitment Rules of 1986, in so far as they limit posts of Excise Inspectors available to departmental promo tees to only 12-1/2% are also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and are, therefore, set aside. 19. The Recruitment Rules of 1986, in so far as they limit posts of Excise Inspectors available to departmental promo tees to only 12-1/2% are also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and are, therefore, set aside. 19. The respondents are directed to frame appropriate Recruitment Rules for the posts of Excise Inspector granting to the Upper Division Clerks a channel of promotion to the post of Excise Inspectors and to fix an appropriate quota between direct recruits to the post of Excise Inspectors and promo tees to the post of Excise Inspectors as also to fix the proportion in which departmental promotions shall be made as between Upper Division Clerks and Sub-Inspectors of Excise. Until such Rules are framed, the Rules in existence prior to the Recruitment Rules of 1986 shall continue to apply. For promotion, however, to the post of Excise Inspectors, the Upper Division Clerks as well as the Sub-Inspectors of Excise will have to qualify by passing the departmental examination as per the Rules in force. For this purpose, the respondents are directed to hold a departmental examination within six months from today and to hold such a departmental examination periodically as may be determined by the respondents. 20. In this writ petition the petitioners have also challenged the promotion of respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been promoted in 1985 on an ad hoc basis while respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have been promoted in 1987 on an ad hoc basis. Letters of promotion clearly set out that such promotion on an ad hoc basis does not bestow upon them any claim for regular appointment nor will the service rendered by them in the post of Excise Inspector count for the purpose of seniority in the grade and eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. It is pointed out on behalf of respondent No. 3 that she has been promoted in a reserved category for which she is the only candidate. Respondent No. 4 is the senior most Upper Division Clerk and hence he has been granted ad hoc promotion. In these circumstances, there can be no question of reverting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Upper Division Clerks. Respondent No. 4 is the senior most Upper Division Clerk and hence he has been granted ad hoc promotion. In these circumstances, there can be no question of reverting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of Upper Division Clerks. On their qualifying for promotion as Excise Inspectors as per the Rules in force, it will be open to the respondents to give them a regular appointment to the post of Excise Inspector. Similarly, the appointment of respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who are Sub-Inspectors of Excise is also ad hoc. On their qualifying for, the post of Excise Inspector as per the rules in force it will be open to the respondents to grant them regular appointment. 21. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances there will no order as to costs. Writ Petition No. 1 of 1990 : 22. The petitioner is a graduate in Arts. His name is duly registered in the Regional Employment Exchange of Government of Goa. His registration number is 6598/78. 23. Under an order dated 22.9.1988, 12 new posts of Excise Inspectors were created by the Government of Goa. 24. With a view to fill up 11 of the additional posts by direct recruitment, the office of the Commissioner of Excise requisitioned the names of eligible candidates from the Regional Employment Exchange, Panaji. By the first week of January 1989, a total of about 102 names were received by the Office of the Commissioner of Excise from the regional Employment Exchange, Panaji. By the first week of January 1989, a total of about 102 names were received by the Officer of the Commissioner of Excise from the regional Employment Exchange. The name of the petitioner was one of the names so forwarded. 25. Vide Letter dated 16.3.1989, the office of the Commissioner of Excise informed the candidates whose names had been received by it from the Regional Employment Exchange that they were required to appear for a written test in General English and General Knowledge on 27.3.1989, and thereafter for an interview on 30.3.1989. The petitioner appeared for the written test on 27.3.1989. When he visited the office of the Commissioner of Excise on 30.3.1989 for an interview he was informed that the test had been cancelled and the interviews were adjourned sine die. The petitioner appeared for the written test on 27.3.1989. When he visited the office of the Commissioner of Excise on 30.3.1989 for an interview he was informed that the test had been cancelled and the interviews were adjourned sine die. Thereafter by a letter dated 26.9.1989 from the office of the Commissioner of Excise, the candidates were informed that the examination held on 27.3.1989 had been cancelled and a fresh examination would be held on 8.10.1989. Accordingly the petitioner along with other candidates appeared for the written test on 8.10.1989. Those who passed the written test were called for an interview on 30.10.1989. It seems that out of about 100 candidates who appeared for the written test, 40 candidates passed the written test. These 40 candidates were interviewed. A total of 13 candidates were selected after the interview 10 in the open category and 3 in the reserve category. The petitioner failed in this written test and was therefore, not called for an interview. He secured 9 marks out of 100 in the written test. In the present writ petition, he is challenging the process of selection and has asked for cancellation of the select list prepared. 26. His first submission relates to the nature of the question paper which the candidates were required to answer at the written test which was held on 8.10.1989. The question paper has been produced before us. It contains questions of elementary mathematics and questions which test general intelligence of a candidate. According to the petitioner, this cannot be considered as a test of a candidate's general knowledge or knowledge of English. There was an identical challenge to the same question paper in a writ petition filed before this Bench being writ petition No. 363 of 1989. Mohta and Dr. Couto, JJ. who heard the writ petition, by an order dated 16th November, 1989, have negatived this challenge holding that it would not be proper to hold that the question paper was not properly set. They have also observed that the argument that the test paper related only to Mathematics is not correct because it related to several other topics also. Having gone through the question paper, we agree with this finding of the learned Judges. The question paper appears to be a test of candidate's general intelligence and in a broad sense of his general knowledge. 27. Having gone through the question paper, we agree with this finding of the learned Judges. The question paper appears to be a test of candidate's general intelligence and in a broad sense of his general knowledge. 27. It was also submitted that this test had no nexus to the post of Excise Inspector. Hence, the test was bad in law. The test, however, was not for the purpose of testing a candidate's knowledge relating to the requirements of the post of Excise Inspector. It was a test to decide whether the candidate had the general equipment and reasonable IQ for being selected as an Excise Inspector. The test was devised by the Goa University, an independent authority to whom this task was entrusted by the department of Excise. Since the candidates who were so tested were all direct recruits, they cannot be expected to have any working knowledge of a post to which they are yet to be recruited. In these circumstances, the test by the its very nature, has to be general. We do not see any reason for holding that the test which was held was not a proper test for screening suitable candidates. 28. It is next submitted that the Recruitment Rules do not prescribe any such screening test for direct recruits. Hence, such a screening test is bad in law. This contention also has no substance. The Recruitment Rules do not proscribe any procedure for selection. We have, therefore, to consider whether the procedure which has been followed for selection of candidates in the present case is fair and reasonable or not. As stated by the Supreme Court in Km. Neelima Misra's case (supra), AIR 1990 SC 1402 , the duty to act fairly may arise in a wide range of contexts. The administrative action setting up the procedure for selection has to be• fair judging from this point of view. Setting up a screening test which candidates are required to pass before they can be called for an interview appears to be a fair method of eliminating unsuitable candidates. Administrative work of selecting candidates would become unduly burdensome and time consuming if every single candidate who applies for a post is required to be called for an interview, irrespective of such candidate's suitability for the post. Administrative work of selecting candidates would become unduly burdensome and time consuming if every single candidate who applies for a post is required to be called for an interview, irrespective of such candidate's suitability for the post. If a test is devised to eliminate at the threshold unsuitable candidates or candidates who do not possess the requisite mental d equipment for the post, such a test cannot be considered as unreasonable or unfair. 29. Mr. Lotlikar, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the case of Shri Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2267 . The Supreme Court was then required to consider Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964. Under Rule 16, the Public Service, Commission was required to summon for the viva voce test, all candidates who had secured in the written examination not less than the minimum qualifying marks obtained in all subjects taken together. Under Rule 18 the marks obtained at the viva voce test were to be added to the marks obtained in the written examination for the purpose of selection. The Commission, however, decided to have qualifying marks in the viva voce test also. Those who failed in the viva voce were not selected. The Supreme Court held that the procedure was not in accordance with Rules. As per Rules 16, 17 and 18 the candidates who had qualified by passing the written examination were required to appear for the viva voce test. Rule 18 did not prescribe any passing marks for the viva voce test. On the contrary, it required that the marks obtained at the viva voce test, whatever they may be, were to be added to the marks obtained at the written examination, for the purpose of selection. Candidates, therefore, could not be eliminated on the ground that they had failed in the viva voce test. 30. We fail to see how this case helps the petitioner. In the case before the Supreme Court also there was a written test which a candidate was required to pass before he could be called for the viva voce test. This rule was not even challenged. The challenge was confined only to the elimination of candidates at the viva voce test if they had failed in the viva voce test. The challenge was uphold in view of the Rules. This rule was not even challenged. The challenge was confined only to the elimination of candidates at the viva voce test if they had failed in the viva voce test. The challenge was uphold in view of the Rules. This case has no application to the case before us. The Supreme Court only laid down that when the Rules prescribe the procedure for selection, the selecting body cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection, either as to eligibility or as to suitability. Hence, the decision of the Commission to prescribe minimum marks to be secured at the viva voce test was illegal and without authority. In the present case, there are no Rules which prescribe the procedure for selection of direct recruits. Hence, we have only to consider whether the procedure which the Selection Committee has followed is fair and reasonable. Asking the candidates to pass a screening test in General Knowledge and General intelligence is, in our view, a fair procedure for selecting candidates who are required to appear for an interview. 31. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Kamat and Ratnaparkhi, JJ. in their judgment dated 12th September, 1990 in writ petition No. 59 of 1988 (Shri S.V. Puranik v. Indian Airlines), has after examining various Supreme Court decisions on the point, held that holding of a written examination and a group discussion for evaluation of candidates who could be called for an interview is valid and proper. They have also negatived the contention that the marks given to a candidate in the written examination and group discussion must be added to the marks obtained by a candidate at the interview so as to remove any arbitrariness in the selection of candidates. The Division Bench held that it was not necessary that every candidate must be interviewed after a written test and group discussion. It was permissible to eliminate unsuitable candidates on the basis of a written examination and group discussion and call only those who qualified for an interview. We respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench in that case. 32. In the case of Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1777 , the Supreme Court considered (in para 5) how a competitive examination should be devised. We respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench in that case. 32. In the case of Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1777 , the Supreme Court considered (in para 5) how a competitive examination should be devised. It cited the Kothari Committee on Recruitment Policy and Selection Methods to the effect that the recruitment procedures should be such that we can select candidates who assimilate knowledge and sift material to understand the ramifications of a situation or a problem, and have the potention a to develop an original or innovative approach to the solution of problems. The Supreme Court said that while a 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. Judging from this point of view, the written test which was given to the candidates was suitable to assess their intellectual ability and general knowledge. Those who qualified have been interviewed. This procedure, in our view, is reasonable and fair. The submission of the petitioner that every candidate must be called for an interview and his marks obtained at the test and at the interview should be b added for selection in order to avoid arbitrariness, must be rejected. 33. The procedure devised in the present case is, in our view quite suitable and it cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. 34. Mr. Sonaic was allowed to intervene in the present case on behalf of one Radhakirshna Tucaram Naik. Radhakirshna Tucaram Naik was also one of the candidates whose name had been forwarded by the Regional Employment Exchange to the Excise Department. He was called for the first written test which was held on 27.3.1989. According to Mr. Sonaic, the intervener received this intimation a day after the examination was held. Hence, he could not appear for the examination. However, when he went for an interview, he was informed that the written examination had been cancelled and a fresh date of examination would be intimated to him. The intervener however, did not receive any intimation of a fresh examination which was held on 8.10.1989. Hence, he could not appear for the examination and was naturally, thereupon not called for an interview. He has, therefore, asked for cancellation of the selection which has been made. Mr. The intervener however, did not receive any intimation of a fresh examination which was held on 8.10.1989. Hence, he could not appear for the examination and was naturally, thereupon not called for an interview. He has, therefore, asked for cancellation of the selection which has been made. Mr. Bhobe, learned advocate for the respondents, explained that because the intervener did not appear for the first written test on 27.3.1989 he was not given an intimation of the new date of the written test. It is indeed unfortunate that the intervener in these circumstances could not participate in the written test and thereby lost the chance of being selected for the post of Excise Inspector. But, in our view, that by itself cannot invalidate the entire selection process which has already taken place. 35. The intervener has also come at a later stage. The application for intervention was made only on 22.1.1990. %The intervener did not inform the Excise Department that he did not receive any intimation regarding the examination to be held on 27.3.1989 on time and hence, was unable to appear for the examination. He has also not stated in the petition anything about steps which he took to ascertain either from the concerned Employment Exchange or from the Department of Excise as to the holding of the second written examination. He has merely stated that he read a newspaper report on 18.1.1990 about the filing of a writ petition and thereupon he learned about the selection of candidates for the post of Excise Inspectors. In any case, there are a no allegations of mala fides on the part of the respondents against the intervener. In these circumstances, in our view, adequate grounds are not made out by the intervener for setting aside the selection already made. The intervener may be considered as having suffered a bit of bad luck. 36. In the premises, no order is called for in this writ petition. In view, however, of the directions given by us in Writ Petition No. 201 of 1988, the respondents shall fix the quota of direct recruits as against the departmental promo tees, for selection to the post of Excise Inspectors. They shall accordingly determine the number of posts which are available to direct recruits and shall appoint the candidates already selected in order of merit to the posts so determined. 37. They shall accordingly determine the number of posts which are available to direct recruits and shall appoint the candidates already selected in order of merit to the posts so determined. 37. With the above direction, the rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.