JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - Whether or not the petitioner has suffered breach of her fundamental right if the she was not called for interview for the post of Lecturer in Mediaeval History in Tilakdhari Post-graduate College, Jaunpur is a short and interesting point which falls for determination of this court in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner in pursuance of an advertisement notice dated 3. 8. 1988 was appointed as adhoc lecturer in Mediaeval History of the institution in question on 27.9.1988. The appointment letter contained a condition that and when a candidate for the post is selected by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, the appointment of the petitioner on the said post shall come to an end automatically. The petitioner has passed M.A. In II Division. As per the norms she is eligible for being considered on regular basis also as a lecturer. She claims that she has a brilliant academic record and has now acquired two years experience as adhoc lecturer in the said institution, 3. The Respondent No. 1 is said to have advertised the post for regular appointment and the petitioner is said to have applied for being selected as a lecturer. The petitioner was not called for interview though she waited for being called for interview for last one year. The petitioner has learnt that some other candidates were called for interview for appointment against the said post and in all probability she will not be called for interview . She has challenged her exclusion from interview as arbitrary, illegal and violative of her rights. It is stated that any criteria of norms for excluding the petitioner from interview is violative of her fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further stated that the person of lesser experience, acumen, and proficiency have been called for interview and have been recommended for posting as lecturer in Mediaeval History in place of the petitioner by the Commission. The petitioner says that she has been discriminated and the process of selection is vitiated by the arbitrary action of the respondents. The petitioner further stated that the person of lesser experience, acumen, and proficiency have been called for interview and have been recommended for posting as lecturer in Mediaeval History in place of the petitioner by the Commission. The petitioner says that she has been discriminated and the process of selection is vitiated by the arbitrary action of the respondents. On the aforesaid grounds the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint any other person on the post of lecturer which is held by her in the institution on the basis of arbitrary, unjust and illegal selection held by the respondent No. 1 she also prays for quashing of the selection of any other candidate recommended by the respondent No. 1 for appointment. 4. Upon this petition coming up for consideration on 22.8.1990 the counsel for the respondent No. 1 appeared before the court and sought lime to file counter-affidavit within three days. After that counter-affidavit was filed, the petitioner also filed rejoinder-affidavit and the learned counsel prayed that the petition be decided finally as the pleading were complete. The request was granted and the petitioner was heard in details. 5. In defence to the assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition it is contended by the respondent No. 1 that under Section 31 of the Commission the respondent No. 1 has power to make regulations prescribing the procedure for holding interview and conducting examinations etc. Which power was previously exercised by the Committee of Management and appointments made by them were to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor in order to be valid. After coming into force of the Commissioner Act the procedure of appointment of teachers for the various colleges was changed. Regulation 6 framed under Section 31 of the Commission Act is relied upon. It empowers the Commission to fix the number of candidates to be called for interview. The respondent can limit the number of candidates for being called for interview even though a large number might have applied for a post and for theirs purpose they conduct preliminary screening on the basis of academic qualifications of candidates who would apply for any particular post. On the basis of educational qualifications and on the merit of die candidates the respondent No. 1 can categorise the candidates in various groups. On the basis of educational qualifications and on the merit of die candidates the respondent No. 1 can categorise the candidates in various groups. The respondent No. 1 is said to have advertised 32 posts of lecturers in the subject of Mediaeval History by advertisement No. 14 of 1989 published on 20- - 1989. The Commission in pursuance of the said advertisement notice received 827 applications. The Commission has called 160 candidates and the rest of the candidates have been screened out. The petitioner on the basis of her academic qualification and merit was placed in category V(b). The academic qualification of the petitioner is given as under : (i) Intermediate 1st class (ii) B.A. 1st class (iii) M.A. IInd Class No Ph. D. Degree 6. It is contended that no candidate with IInd class marks in M. A. has been called for interview. Those who were called for interview have passed M. A. and B.A. in 1st Division. Therefore, the candidates called for interview are more meritorious and no candidate who had equal merit with the petitioner has been called for interview. 7. The respondents do not deny the petitioner's appointment on adhoc basis till regular selection could be made. They have pleaded lack of knowledge in this regard. It is slated that all the 827 candidates fulfilled the minimum qualification mentioned in the advertisement notice No. 14 Since a large number of candidates, numbering thousands were to be appointed as teachers, therefore, the Commission framed regulations and for calling any candidate for interview guidelines are framed which are consistent with regulation 6. In the Mediaeval History 32 candidates were be selected, therefore, the number of candidates who were called for interview were limited to eight times lo the vacancies. Regulation 6 for the sake of facility is reproduced hereunder: "6. In the Mediaeval History 32 candidates were be selected, therefore, the number of candidates who were called for interview were limited to eight times lo the vacancies. Regulation 6 for the sake of facility is reproduced hereunder: "6. Procedure for selection-(1) The Commission shall scrutinise the ; application and call for interview such number of candidates as it may consider proper: Provided that, if on account of excess number of applications or for any other reasons, the Commission considers desirable to limit the number of candidates to be called for interview, it may - (1) in the case of post of a teacher, not being the post of principal, either hold preliminary screening on the basis of academic record or hold a competitive examination, so however, that no competitive examination shall be held before the recruitment year 1984. (ii) in the case of the post of Principal, hold preliminary screening on the basis of academic record, teaching the administrative experience : Provided further that the number of candidates to be called for interview for any category of post shall, as far as possible, be between three to eight times the vacancies as the Commission may consider proper. (2) The Commission shall interview the candidates in accordance with the criteria, minimum standards and guidelines set out by it. The Commission may, if it considers necessary, hold practical test also as part of interview. (3) No candidate shall be recommended unless at least one expert concurs with the selection. (4) The Commission shall prepare two separate lists of selected candidates,one of the women candidates only and the other a 'general list' of all the candidates (including women candidates included in the first list). The names of women candidates who specifically opt. not to be posted in womens colleges shall not be included in the list of women candidates. The names of the candidates in the two lists shall be arranged in order of merit and the number of names shall not be more than three times the number of vacancies or the number of vacancies plus four, whichever is more." 8. Accordingly to the respondent No. 1 it was impossible to interview thousands of candidates at a given time, therefore, they could limit the number of candidates for being called for interview. Accordingly to the respondent No. 1 it was impossible to interview thousands of candidates at a given time, therefore, they could limit the number of candidates for being called for interview. The screening is done on the basis of academic merits of the candidates and after placing the candidates in various categories those who are superior in merit are called for interview having regard to the number of vacancies available at a particular, time. 9. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that regulation 6 is not consistent with the object of the Act as it travels beyond the scope of the powers of the Commissions under Section 31 of the Act. Under Section 31 of the Act Powers of the Commission are to prescribe the fee for holding selection, procedure to be followed for discharging their duties and performing functions writ the Act. Any regulation made under sub clause (i) of Section 31 shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the rules made under Section 32. 10. Selection, according to the petitioner, is not to be made merely on academic record. The purpose of selection is to find out talented teachers who can communicated with the students and who can teach better. Good academic qualification is not necessarily a condition for making a good teacher. A teacher, who is inferior in merit, may prove a better teacher to those who are superior to him in academic qualification. Framing of categories on the basis of record is said to be violative of the spirit of the Act. Too much emphasis on academic qualification is nothing but taking lop-sided view of the situation. If academic qualification was lo be taken into consideration then interview would be unnecessary. Commission's right to call only 160 candidates or interview was also challenged. The screening of candidates at the interview stage is said to be violative of the Act. The petitioner tries to draw a distinction between merit and talent. The contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the petition are reaffirmed as correct. The Commission's contention that it was practically impossible to interview all the candidates who had applied for the post and who possessed the minimum qualification is refuted. Such a procedure is unreasonable and against the provisions of the Act. The contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the petition are reaffirmed as correct. The Commission's contention that it was practically impossible to interview all the candidates who had applied for the post and who possessed the minimum qualification is refuted. Such a procedure is unreasonable and against the provisions of the Act. Reference is made to a writ petition pending in the Lucknow Bench in which an ad-interim stays is granted. 11. Arguing for the petitioner Mr. A.D. Prabhakar made two-fold submissions.His first submission was that regulation 6 was inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act and under the said regulation the Commission was not authorised to screen out the candidates and limit the number of candidates for being called for interview. The second contention, though not pleaded by him in the writ petition or rejoinder affidavit, is about the validity of interview as an exclusive lest for determining merit for public appointment. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent was also heard at length. I will take the first argument first for consideration. 13. As to whether Regulation 6 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act is to be examined in the light of the provisions of the main Act. Section 11 of the Act deals with the powers and duties of the Commission. Among other duties it has a duty to conduct examination, where considered necessary, hold interview's and make selection of candidates for being appointed as such teacher. 14. According to Mr. Prabhakar it is obligatory for the Commission to conduct examination where it is necessary and hold interview of all the candidates for being appointed as a teacher. Section 11 does not give any right or power to the Commission for screening out the candidates at interview stage. Regulation 6 empowers the Commission to limit the number of candidates for being called for interview. This is said to be opposed to the duties of the Commission envisaged in Section 11 (b) of the Act. Section 31 does not permit the Commission to frame regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Doing away with the written examination and limiting the number of candidates to be called for interview is said to be violative of the Act, therefore, the petitioners exclusion from interview is said to be violative of her fundamental right. 15. Section 31 does not permit the Commission to frame regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Doing away with the written examination and limiting the number of candidates to be called for interview is said to be violative of the Act, therefore, the petitioners exclusion from interview is said to be violative of her fundamental right. 15. Regulation 6 has come up for scrutiny in writ petition No. 17316 of 1989 titled Ashutosh Kumar v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, decided on 10-5-1990 by a Divisional Bench of this Court. It was held that the Commission has got the power to prepare its won guidelines on matters relating to recruitment of teachers in the Colleges. Regulation 6 framed under Section 31 contemplates the procedure for selection. The Commission's power to limit the number of candidates to be called for interview w;as upheld. It was also held that the vires of regulation 6 has already been upheld by this court. Therefore, the action of the Commission to limit the number of candidates to be called for interview was not found defective or bad. As regards the guidelines, it was stated in the judgement that there is no obligation cast on the Commission to publish the guidelines and categories, for issuing interview letters. In the case before the Division Bench the grievance of the petitioner was that he was not called for interview though he had the minimum qualification for being called. The Division Bench held that if there are highly qualified and educated candidates available to the Commission and the petitioner in that case with inferior merit could not be called for interview, the commission's act for not calling the petitioner for interview was valid. The regulations framed under Section 31 were held to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and also fair and free from vice of any arbitrariness. Similarly in the case of Km. Kavita Srivastava v. State of U.P. and other, writ petition No. 19710 of 1986, decided on 4-12-1986 by a Division Bench of this Court, the vires of the regulations were upheld. There is a catena of authorities of this Court which has upheld the vires of regulation 6. 16. The respondents have also invited my attention to the case of S.B. Mathur and. There is a catena of authorities of this Court which has upheld the vires of regulation 6. 16. The respondents have also invited my attention to the case of S.B. Mathur and. others v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2073 . The zone of selection was restricted by prescribing that out of the total number of candidates who satisfy the eligibility requirement, the zone of consideration will be limited to a multiple of 3 to 5 times of the number of vacancies and the persons to be considered will be determined on the basis of the their seniority in the combined seniority list. The Supreme Court observed that ''there was nothing unreasonable in this restriction. It went on to say that 'it was open to the Delhi High Court to restrict the zone of consideration in any reasonable manner and limiting the zone of consideration to a multiple of the number of the combined seniority list, in out view, it cannot be regarded as arbitrary or capricious or malafide". 17. From the close scrutiny of regulation 6 it appears that the Commission has competence to scrutinise the applications of those candidates who had minimum eligible qualification and for interview only such number of candidates as it may consider proper. The Commission has also the power to limit the number oi candidates to be called for interview, if on account of excess number of candidates the Commission considers it desirable to do so. It can also hold, in case of a teacher, preliminary screening on the basis of academic record or hold competitive examination, it can limit the number of candidates to be called for interview for any category of posts between 3 to 8 times of vacancies. It can also hold practical teslas part of interview. Regulation 6, is a procedural regulation and is not substantive one which prescribes academic qualification or any other qualification for determining eligibility of a candidate for the post of lecturer. It regulates the procedure for selection and in addition to interview if it considers necessary it may hold practical test as part of interview. How many candidates are to be called for interview, how the candidates are to be screened at preliminary stage before interview is envisaged by this regulation. It regulates the procedure for selection and in addition to interview if it considers necessary it may hold practical test as part of interview. How many candidates are to be called for interview, how the candidates are to be screened at preliminary stage before interview is envisaged by this regulation. Therefore, if is incorrect to suggest that regulation 6 prescribes the qualifications for being appointed as a lecturer, as contended by Mr. Prabhakar. The academic record has a co-relation with preliminary screening. For a teacher, who has to impart education, academic merit is the pre-requisite and without good academic record merit cannot be judge. The interview lest may be for judging the candidate's over-all capacity of leaching students, but good academic record is sine qua non for considering the talent of a teacher. Candidates with minimum eligibility qualification are put in categories and thereafter on the basis of categorisation they are interviewed. The petitioner was placed in category V(b) on the basis of her academic record. She cannot, therefore, claim equation with the candidates with higher academic merit who are placed in other categories from whom teachers were selected. If the petitioner's case was that from category V(b) any candidate inferior lo her was.selected, such selection could have been struck down for it would be against the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. We are dealing with a case where the petitioner cannot claim equation with those candidates who posses merit and academic record than her. If the preliminary screening permitted by the regulations for ascertaining as to which of the candidates is to be called for interview among the bulk of candidates is done, that cannot be said to be unreasonable. The Principle for conducting preliminary screening and for limiting the zone of consideration is upheld by the Supreme Court in AIR 1988 SC 2073 (supra). Therefore, it must be held that regulation 6 does not suffer from any vice of unconstitutionality and is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. 18. The next argument, which was advanced without any factual basis, was about the interview as an exclusive test for selecting the candidates, and the Commission has not conducted any written examination or practical test as it was obliged to under the provisions of the Commission Act. 18. The next argument, which was advanced without any factual basis, was about the interview as an exclusive test for selecting the candidates, and the Commission has not conducted any written examination or practical test as it was obliged to under the provisions of the Commission Act. This argument is based on some observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 , and Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1777 . In Ajay Hasia s case the selection of the candidates to the B. E. Course in the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar was challenged, among other grounds, on the ground that the interview conducted for the selection was a force and a pretence. The written examination earned 100 marks in that case whereas 50 marks were reserved for interview. The interview was not objective but was subjective, in asmuch as the interview committee did not take more than three minutes for interviewing a candidate. It was not possible for the selection committee to judge the merit of a candidates by taking into consideration various factors necessary for determining the merit. Marks for interview were given in such a manner which would change merit into demerit and plumb up inferior students over the superior students. By adopting this method the merit had become a casualty. The result was that a large number of deserving candidates were excluded from selection. The interview was held relevant for determining suitability based on personnel character. Method of interview of the kind which was resorted to in Ajay Hasia's case was deprecated critised and viewed with suspicion on the ground dial assessment of merit of a candidate with reference to judging his various facilities within 2 or 3 minutes on an average was not possible and within the short span of time no question must have been put lo a candidate which had bearing on the relevant factors. The oral interview test was, therefore, held to be vitiated. However, the selection of the candidates was saved by making suitable directions in favour of those who were excluded from selection. Another reason for holding the selection bad in Ajay Hasia's case was that the interview carried 33.?% marks of the total marks. The oral interview test was, therefore, held to be vitiated. However, the selection of the candidates was saved by making suitable directions in favour of those who were excluded from selection. Another reason for holding the selection bad in Ajay Hasia's case was that the interview carried 33.?% marks of the total marks. The unusual high percentage of marks reserved for oral interview was held to be bad and was held that this percentage should slashed down to 15% in futures. However, this judgement was in subsequent judgment held to be as per incuriam in Lila Dhar's case. In this case 25% marks allotted to vivace under die rules were held to be neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 and 16 ( AIR 1981 SC 1777 .) 19. In the present case the petitioner has not laid down any factual basis on which it could be considered that the method of interview resorted to in the present case would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Mr. Prabhakar only made academic discussion against adoption of oral interview as exclusive method of selection. This argument cannot be considered unless it is substantiated by the requisite pleadings and data. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to opine on the question of selection being rendered bad for it was based exclusively on oral interview and was not accompanied by any written test. There is no base in the writ petition for consideration of this arguments. 20. The petitioner is adhoc appointee. She has not right to continue on the post after expiry of the period for which she was appointed. A writ to mandamus restraining the employer from making regular appointment will not be competent. Her appointment will terminate on the happening of the contingency which is laid down in her appointment order. Merely she is not called for interview will not vitiate the selection when such a selection is held in accordance with regulation 6 of the regulations. 21. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in the petitioner's petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order was to costs. The interim order dated 22.8.1990, extended from time to time, is hereby vacated.