G. T. NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) IN this group of palliations the petitioners are challenging the validity of Rule 4 of the Gujarat Civil Services Recruitment (Examination) Rules 1980 and Schedule II thereto and also the selec- tion of candidates by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC for short ). ( 2 ) IN September 1983 the GPSC hold Part I written examination for selecting candidates for making appointments to 155 of Gujarat Administrative Service Class I and Gujarat Civil Serv- ice Class II. It was a combined examination for Class I and Class II posts Part I written examina- tion consisted of three compulsory subjects viz. Gujarati General English and General Studies and one optional subject each subject carrying 100 marks. In all 8147 candidates appeared at the examination. Only those candidates who got minimum qualifying aggregate marks were per- mitted to appear in Part 11 written examination which consisted of two papers carrying 100 marks each They were in all 1121. As candidates numbering about five times the number of posts required to be filled in were called for Part III examination consisting of Viva Voce and Per- sonality test when the previous examination was hold this time also the GPSC decided to call candidates numbering about five times and therefore fixed the qualifying standard as 301 marks in Parts I and Part II of the written examination. Standards fixed for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates were 300 marks and 250 marks respectively. Applying these stan- dards 372 candidates were called for Viva Voce and Personality test consisting of 200 marks. As some of them had become ineligible because of the age limit the GPSC held interviews of 841 eligible candidates The interviews were conducted between 10/12/1984 and 15/03/1985 and on 18/04/1985 and 10/06/1985. Total marks for the whole examina- tion was 300. ( 3 ) THE GPSC then published the result of the examination in two parts Part I showed the names and seal numbers of candidates arranged according to their merits showing total marks obtained by each candidate; and who wore recommended for appointment Part II showed the namos and seal numbers of candidates according to merit showing total marks obtained by each candidate and who were to be kept in the waiting list. ( 4 ) KIRAN Maharaja petitioner in Special Civil Application No 5111 of 1985 and M D. Shukla petitioner in Spl. Civil Appln. No 4480 of 1985 have been selected for appointment to Class II posts; but for Class I posts their names are shown in the waiting list As they have not been se- lected for appointment to Class I posts they have thought it fit to challenge the entire selec- tion made by the GPSC. It is their case that if there had been proper qualification of marks at the oral test they would have been selected for appointment to Class I posts. Other petitioners have not been selected for appointment nor their names appears in the waiting list; and therefore they have filed petitions challenging the selection made by the GPSC The selection is chal- lenged on the ground that it is vitiated because of excessive weightage given to the oral test and the improper manner in which the interviews were held They all want this court to quash the selec- tion and direct the GPSC to hold afresh the oral test of all the eligible candidates in accordance with the procedure which is not arbitrary and which would serve the object of holding an oral test. ( 5 ) THOUGH the petitioners are represented by different Advocates actually the arguments were advanced by Mr. Tanna and Mr. Patel and others have adopted their arguments The learned Coun- sel have mainly raised three contentions before us First contention is the excessive weightage has been given to the oral test by Rule 4 of the rules and therefore the said rule should be re- garded as arbitrary and bad particularly because it is likely to open hood gates of favouritism Second contention is that the method adopted for calling candidates for oral test was irrational because different standards were adopted at different stages of the examination and that candidates as many as numbering five times the number of posts required to be filed in were called for oral test Third contention is that the assessment has not been done in a proper manner and therefore the selection made by the GPSC stands vitiated. ( 6 ) IT is submitted that assigning 300 marks to Viva Voce compared to 500 marks to the written test must be regarded as excessive arbitrary and bad as it would not only open hood gales of favouritism but is also contrary to what the Supreme Court has held in this behalf in the case of Ashokkumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 454 It is submitted that the GPSC ought not to have given 25% weightage to the oral test in view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court that marks allocated to the Viva Voce test should not exceed 12. 2%. As the marks allocated to Viva Voce and Personality test are more than 12. 2% Rules which fixes the standard of the examination should be regarded as arbitrary and bad ( 7 ) IN Ashok Kumar Yadavs case (supra) the Supreme Court was concerned with the selec- tions made by Haryana Public Service Commission for recruitment to the posts in Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied services Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules 1930 governed the recruitment and according to the said Rules the written examination carried on aggregate of 700 marks and the Viva Voce examination carried 200 marks. A contention was raised on behalf of the petition ers in that case that allocation of 200 marks for the Viva Voce test out of a total of 900 marks was arbitrary and excessive and it had the effect of dis- torting the entire process of selection by introducing in a preponderant measure subjective element which could facilitate arbitrariness and manipulation and it was accordingly uncon- stitutional as involving denial of equal opportunity in public employment Dealing with that contention the Supreme Court after considering the report of the Kothari Committee in regard to the selection to Indian Administrative Service and other allied services and noting that conse- quent upon the Kothari Committee report the percentage of marks allocated for the Viva Voce lost in the competitive exam intention for the Indian Administrative Service and other allied services was brought down still further to 12. 2% accepted that percentage as fair and just and as striking a proper balance between the written examination and the Viva Voce left. 2% accepted that percentage as fair and just and as striking a proper balance between the written examination and the Viva Voce left. It held the where the competitive examination consists of a written examination followed by a Viva Voce test the marks allocated for the Viva Voce test should not exceed 12. 2% of the total marks taken into account for the purpose of selection The Supreme Court decided that case on 10-5-85 and the State Government after coming to know about it and after studying the same on 15-10-86 has amended the rules by allocating only 80 marks for Viva Voce and the Personality test The rule has now been brought in line with the decision of the Supreme Court and therefore the challenge to the validity of Rule 4 does not now survive in the sense that it cannot now be re- garded as contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadavs case. ( 8 ) WHAT is now required to be considered is whether as a result of excessive weightage given to the oral test the selection made by the GPSC should be regarded as ineffective and whether it should be directed to lake the oral lost consisting of 80 marks afresh In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadavs case. (supra) it cannot now be disputed that if 25% marks are allocated to Viva Voce test then that may tend to become determining factor. In the process of selection being the scales in favour of one candidate for the other according to the marks awarded to him in the Viva Voce test and higher percentage of marks allocated to Viva Voce test would create a wider scope for arbitrariness. But merely because percentage of marks allocated for Viva Voce test is found excessive in the sense that it is more than 12. 2% it cannot by itself be regarded as sufficient for the purpose of invalidating the selection already made on the basis if it is not shown that because of the excessive weightage given to the Viva Voce test the result of the examination has got distorted and that less deserving candidates have stolen a march over those candidates who have performed very well at the written examination. Whether as a result of more weightage given to the oral test in this case any distortation has taken place in the result will be considered by us when we will deal with the third convention raised on behalf of the petitioners. At this statge we only refer to the other decisions of the Supreme Court on this point with a view to show that excessive percentage of marks allocated to Viva Voce examination has not been regarded by itself as a vitiating factor. ( 9 ) IN Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 1777 the Supreme Court held that the selection for the posts of Munsifs could not be struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview test in that 25 marks wore allotted to Viva Voce under the rules and thus the selection was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in that case observed:. . . . it cannot be said that twenty-five per cent for the interview test is on the high side especially when the interview test was conducted by a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court the Chairman and a member of the Public Service Commission and a special invitee-expert. . . . The Supreme Court also pointed out that the source-material is also a determinative factor for the purpose of deciding whether an exaggerated weightage has been given to the oral test. The Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions in Periakaruppan v. State of T. N. AIR 1971 SC 2303 and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi AIR 1961 SC 437 observed that the weightage to be given to the interview test should depend on the requirement of the service to which recruitment is made the source-material available for recruitment the composition of the inter- view Board and several like factors. It thereafter made the following observations which are quite material for our purposes:. . . ORDINARILY recruitment to public services is regulated by rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and we would be usurping a function which is not ours. if we try to redetermine the appropriate method of selection and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests. . . ORDINARILY recruitment to public services is regulated by rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution and we would be usurping a function which is not ours. if we try to redetermine the appropriate method of selection and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests. If we do that we would be rewriting he Rules but we guard ourselves against being understood as saying that we would not interfere even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. . . . These observations of the Supreme Court clearly go to show that unless unreasonably ex- cessive weight is given to an oral lost that factor by itself should not be regarded as sufficient for the purpose of invalidating the selection made on that basis. Unless it is shown that there was some oblique motive in providing like that the Court may not interfere. So also the Court may not interfere if it is not shown that as a result of excessive weight given to the oral test the result of the examination has become disforted or manifest injustice has been caused to those who faired well in the written test. ( 10 ) IN Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 662 the Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions in A. Pearaikaruppans case (supra) Nishi Magha v. State of J and K (1980) 4 SCC 95 Ajay Hasias case and Lila Dhars case Ajay Kumar Yadavs case Rafiquaddins case and Mohmood Alam Tariq and Ors. v. State of Rajashthan AIR 1988 SC 1451 has held that it would not be reasonable to have the percentage of Viva Voce marks more than 15 percent of the total marks in the selection of candidates fresh from college/school for public employment by direct recruitment where the rules provide for a composite process of selection namely written examination and interview. In that case percentage of marks for Viva Voce test was 25. It was held to be excessively high yet the Supreme Court did not interfere with the selec- tion but gave certain directions for appointment of those candidates who stood fairly good chances of being selected in case the selections were made on the basis or 15 per cent marks in the Viva Voce. This decision also makes it clear that more than 12. This decision also makes it clear that more than 12. 2% weightage given to an oral lost by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient to vitiate the selection made on that basis. Whether exces- sive weightage has that effect or not would depend upon the extent of excessiveness composi- tion and status of the authority to which the function of taking the oral test is assigned and other relevant factors. Considering the fact that till 1986 there was no definite pronouncement by the Supreme Court or this Court as regards the proper percentage of marks to be allotted to Viva Voce examination the distinction pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case Lila Dhar and the fact that the oral test was taken by the GPSC it is not possible to say that because 25 per cent marks wore allocated to the oral lost the selection made by the GPSC has been vitiated. ( 11 ) IT was submitted that though the said factor may not by itself be regarded as sufficient to vitiate the selection. If it is considered along with another defect viz. irrational method adopted for the purpose of calling candidates for oral interview then it should be held that the se- lection made by the GPSC is arbitrary and invalid. According to the learned Advocates for the petitioners admittedly the GPSC had called candidates numbering five times the posts re- quired to be filled in and it was for that reasons that they had arbitrarily fixed 301 marks as the qualifying standard for the oral interview. It was also submitted that when the candidates wore called for appearing in the Second Part of the examination the same test was not applied. Thus the GPSC applied different standards at different stages and arbitrarily decided to call all those candidates who obtained 301 marks in aggregate in the written examination. Rule 16 provides for holding the examination in three parts and leaves it to the Commission to fix the minimum qualifying aggregate marks to be obtained by a candidate in Part I examination and to fix the qualifying standards for Viva Voce test in respect of those candidates who have appeared in Part I and Part II examination. Validity of this rule is not challenged. Validity of this rule is not challenged. It was therefore obligatory for the Commission to fix the qualifying aggregate marks to be obtained in Part I examination becoming eligible to appear in Part II examination and also to fix the qualifying for becoming eligible for the Viva Voce test. The rule does not provide that the qualifying standards should be the same on both the occasions. It is left to the discretion of the GPSC and there is nothing on the record to show that the GPSC had fixed the standards either arbitrarily or with some bad motive. It is therefore not possible to aggree with the Contention that in fixing different standards assuming that the GPSC had done so the GPSC acted in an im- proper manner. ( 12 ) AS a second limb of the contention it was submitted that the GPSC should have called candidates numbering only three times the number of posts required to be filled and in calling candidates numbering five times the GPSC unreasonably widened the zone of consideration and acted in an arbitrary manner. In support of his contention the learned Advocates heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav. In that case the Supreme Court has held that whore there is a composite test consisting of a written examina- tion followed by a Viva Voce lost the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination should not exceed twice or at the highest three the number of vacancies to be filled. The Supreme Court held like this as calling larger number of candidates for interview would reduce the Viva Voce test to a farce. The Supreme Court observed that if a Viva Voce test is to be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner as it must be in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a candidate the interview must lake anything between 10 to 30 minutes In fact Herman Finer in his book on Theory and Practice of Modern Government points out that the interviews should last at leas half an hour. The Union Public Service Commission making selections for the Indian Admin- istrative Service also interviews a candidate for almost half an hour. The Union Public Service Commission making selections for the Indian Admin- istrative Service also interviews a candidate for almost half an hour. Only 11 to 12 candidates are called for interview in a day or 5 1/2 hours. It is obvious that in the circumstances it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory Viva Voce test if such a large unmanageable number of over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed. The interviews would then tend to be casual superficial and sloppy and the assessment made at such interviews would not correctly reflect the true measure of the personality of the candidate. The Supreme Court further observed that such a course would widen the area of arbitrariness for even a candidate who is very much lower down in the list on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination can gatecrash into the range of selection if he is awarded unduly high marks at the Viva Voce examination. In that case he Haryana Public Service Commission had called 1300 candidates for fitting up 61 vacant posts. A the number of candidates called was more than 20 times the number of available vacancies it was held by the Supreme Court that Haryana Public Service Commission did not act properly in call- ing such a large number of candidates but even then the Supreme Court further held that as the Haryana Public Service Commission was nc actuated by any mala fide or oblique motive the defect was not such which invalidated the selections. The Supreme Court also observed the something more than merely calling an unduly large number of candidates for interview must be shown in order to invalidate for selections mad It also sounded a caution by observing that the Court cannot sit in judgment over the made. awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly a indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly a indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. Though allegations have been made the petitions that large number of candidates were called by the GPSC with a view to favour those in whom the members had interest no ma- terial has been produced in support of such allegations and in view of the affidavit filed by the Chairman himself it is not possible to accept the at legations made by the petitioners that the GPSC had decided to fix 301 marks as qualifying standard with an oblique motive that is with a view to favour those candidates who could not have been called for interview had they not fixed 301 marks as a qualifying standard. We therefore cannot accept the contention that the method adopted by the GPSC for calling the candidates for oral interview was irrational and that the said defect has either individually or alongwith the other defect pointed out earlier vitiated the selec- tion. ( 13 ) THE last contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is with respect to the actual assess- ment of marks at the time of interview. It was submitted that the GPSC acted arbitrarily in not fixing the norms for the purpose of interviewing the candidates circulating them in advance to the candidates and the members of the GPSC and dividing the total marks under different sub- heads with a view to evaluate the different qualities of the candidates for which they were re- quired to be interviewed. It was also submitted that the questions which were put to some of the candidates were irrelevant. According to the learned Advocates for the petitioners all this was done with a view to show favour to less meritorious candidates in whom the members of the GPSC had some interest and that would become apparent if large variations in the result of the first 15 candidates at the written and oral tests taken into consideration. In support of that contention the learned Advocates relied upon the decision of this Court in A. K. Shimpi and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors 1983 (1) 24 Guj L. R. 398 (= 1983 GLH 36 ). In support of that contention the learned Advocates relied upon the decision of this Court in A. K. Shimpi and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors 1983 (1) 24 Guj L. R. 398 (= 1983 GLH 36 ). In that case this Court observed that performance at the interview being one of the tests it was essential to have evolved in advance some rational and relevant norms and to make them known to all the members of the Selection Committee so that the performance of each candidate at the interview could be tested upon the uniform application of such norms. Besides time sufficient enough to adjudge the suitability of the interviewed candidate by reference such norms was required to be devoted and relevant ques- tions which might have brought forth answers indicating whether or not the norms were satis- fied were required to be addressed to the interviewed candidates. As no precise norms or guide- lines were laid down to adjudge the suitability of the candidate when tested at the oral interview and as the interview did not last for more than three to four minutes on an average and the questions asked had no bearing on the factors required to be taken into account this Court hold that the infirmity alongwith other infirmities noticed by the Court was sufficient to vitiate the selection process. That was the case where head consolable who had undergone Head Constable Training Course wore tested by taking interview by the Selection Committee which consisted of high ranking Police Officers. After noticing various glaring defects in the selection process this Court held that the same was vitiated because of arbitrariness non-application of mind and taking into consideration irrelevant factors. In the present case what is required to be borne in mind is that the oral interviews wore held by the GPSC which is an expert body constituted for the pur- pose of taking examinations for the purpose of recruitment to various Government posts. ( 14 ) AS rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General the examination which was taken by the GPSC was combined examination for different posts. Class I posts were: the Gujarat Administrative Services District Registrars of Cooperative Societies Superintendents of Prohi- bition and Excise and Deputy Superintendents of Police. ( 14 ) AS rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General the examination which was taken by the GPSC was combined examination for different posts. Class I posts were: the Gujarat Administrative Services District Registrars of Cooperative Societies Superintendents of Prohi- bition and Excise and Deputy Superintendents of Police. Class 11 posts were the posts of Mam- latdars District Inspectors of Land Records Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies Sales Tax Officers Government Labour Officers Taluka Development Officers or Block Develop- ment Officers Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise and Section Officers in Secretarial Departments and allied officers. The written test was common for all those posts and so also the oral test. In Schedule II or the Examination Rules it is clearly stated that the object of the Viva Voce and Personality Test is to assess suitability of the candidate for appointment to the post concerned and his caliber including intellectual social and moral traits of personality such as critical power of assimilation clear and logical exposition judgment variety and depth of interest and capacity for leadership. No doubt it is also stated that no attempt should be made to test general or special- ised knowledge but at the same time it is further stated that the test shall seek to elucidate how far the candidate has taken an intelligent interest in the things happening within India and Gujarat or any part of it. It is also significant to note that one of the papers for Part I of the written examination is General Studies and the subjects which are permitted are: (1) Mathematics (2) Statistics (3) Physics (4) Chemistry (5) Botony (6) Zoology (7) Geology (8) Geography (9) any of the fol- lowing: (1) Hindi Literature (ii) Gujarati Literature (iii) English Literature and (iv) Sanskrit Literature (10) Indian History (11) World History (12) Economics (13) Political Science (14) Philosophy (153 Psychology (16) Law (17) Commerce and Accountancy (18) Sociology in- cluding Social Anthropology (19) Labour Laws and Labour Welfare (20) Microbiology (21) Agriculture (22) Applied Mechanics (23) Business Organisation and Management and (24) Banking. When the subjects are so varied and when the recruitment is to be made for different posts requiring different qualities it is difficult to appreciate how norms could have been fixed and circulated in advance to the candidates or to the members. When the subjects are so varied and when the recruitment is to be made for different posts requiring different qualities it is difficult to appreciate how norms could have been fixed and circulated in advance to the candidates or to the members. As the GPSC may have to hold an examination for recruitment to different posts at the same time and as the subjects which can be offered by the candidates can be so different the oral test looking to its object will have to be of general character and it will be very difficult to compartmentalise the same or put it under special heads or sub-heads. Another thing to be noted is that the Rules do not provide for allocation of marks under different heads. The Supreme Court in the case of Lila Dhar (supra) clearly held that it is for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under differ- ent heads or to award marks in a single lot. The award of marks under different heads may lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more accurate picture of the candidates personality. It is for the interviewing body to choose the appropriate method of mark- ing at the selection to each service. There cannot be any magic formula in these matters and courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive. As stated above no material has been produced or pointed out by the petitioners to show that thus particular method was adopted by the GPSC with a view to favour certain candidates. In A. K. Shimpis case (supra) this Court observed that when the rules do not provide for the allocation of marks under differ- ent heads prescribed for a single test it would be for the interviewing body to take a general deci- sion whether to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. The Chairman of the GPSC in his affidavit has pointed out that the Commission is authorised to dis- charge its functions in Committee. Oral interviews in these cases were taken by the Chairman and Dr. Vasava. The Chairman of the GPSC in his affidavit has pointed out that the Commission is authorised to dis- charge its functions in Committee. Oral interviews in these cases were taken by the Chairman and Dr. Vasava. The practice which has been followed by the Commission is to allot marks on an overall assessment of the performance of the candidate. After the interview of the candidate is completed the members of the Commission taking interview deliberate between themselves and decide about the number of marks to be allotted to the candidate. Such number of marks is re- corded by the Chairman on behalf the Commission and by each member in the tabular state- ments furnished to them. It is further pointed out by him that he had remained absent only for four days and the number of marks which wore awarded by Dr. K. D. Vasava who interviewed the candi- dates on the said four days wore intimated to him by Dr. Vasava and the same were copied out by him in the tabular statement maintained by him. On the basis of the statements detailed minutes were then drawn up indicating inter alia who were adjudged suitable for appointment and their order of merit. He had also pointed out that Mr. Mankad was not a member when the written test was taken as he was appointed in the year 1984. He had not taken part in the oral test as his son had appeared in that examination. Similarly Dr. Munim had not taken part at any stage of the examination as his daughter had appeared in that examination. The interviews were thus held by the Chairman and Dr. Vasava and there is no material on the basis of which it can be said that they were interested in any candidate and therefore they had neither fixed the norms in advance nor decided to divide the marks for the oral test under different heads. On the contrary we find that the practice which was followed earlier was followed this Lime also. It is therefore not pos- sible to agree with the learned Advocates for the petitioners that in not fixing the norms in ad- vance circulating them amongst the candidates and the members taking the oral test and dividing the marks under different and specific subheads the GPSC committed any impropriety or acted arbitrarily in holding the oral test. It is therefore not pos- sible to agree with the learned Advocates for the petitioners that in not fixing the norms in ad- vance circulating them amongst the candidates and the members taking the oral test and dividing the marks under different and specific subheads the GPSC committed any impropriety or acted arbitrarily in holding the oral test. ( 15 ) IL was submitted by Mr. Girish Patel that the GPSC ought to have fixed certain minimum marks as a standard for passing the oral test and those who had obtained less than the minimum ought to have been regarded as ineligible for being included in the select list. He also gave an Illustration of a candidate getting only say 10 marks being selected by the GPSC on the basis of his performance at the written test. As pointed above the rule do not permit fixing of such minimum marks for the oral test for the purpose of being regarded as eligible for being included in the select list. The GPSC therefore could not have fixed such a minimum standard at that stage. Moreover it is for the rule making authority and for the authority taking interview to decide which method should be followed. The authorities have to strike a balance as far as possible between the written test and the oral test and it will not be proper to judge the reasonableness of the method adopted by considering extreme examples. ( 16 ) THE learned Advocates also submitted that if marks of the first 15 candidates obtaining highest marks in the written examination and the oral examination are compared with each other and if they are considered alongwith the list of first 15 selected candidates then that would show that there are very large variations in the result of the written last and the oral test and that has happened as a result of calling very large number of candidates for oral interview not fixing the norms and sub-dividing the marks of the oral test under various sub-heads. In view of the conten- tion raised by the learned Advocates for the petitioners that there are wide variations in the result of the written test and the oral test we had directed the learned Advocate General to prepare three different statements showing (1) the names of the first 15 successful candidates in the we had rest (2) first 15 successful candidates at the oral interview and (3) the candidates whose names are shown at Sr. Nos. 1 to 15 in the result of combined competitive examination. The learned Advocate General got prepared such statements and submitted these to the Court. In those state- ments the ranks obtained in the merit list for Class I and Class 11 are also shown. What we find from those statements is that there are certain variations. For example a candidate who ob- tained the highest number of marks in the written examination (407 out of 600) got only 45 marks out of 200 marks in the oral test. This candidate thus got only 22. 5% marks in the oral test as against 68 marks in the written test with the result that he is shown at Sr. No 9 in the combined result. This candidate did suffer even though he had obtained highest marks in the written test. But it is not possible to say generally that all the 15 candidates securing more marks in the written test got very less marks in the oral test. For example the candidate who secured fourth rank in the written test got 80 marks in the oral test. So also the candidate whose name appears at Sr. No. 13 in the result of the written test got 60 marks in the oral test. It is therefore not possible to say that all those who had performed well at the written test were deliberately given less marks at the oral test with a view to favour those who were to be favored. IL is also not possible to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the result shows a definite pattern on the basis of which we can say that the candidates who obtained very good marks at the written test were deliberately given less marks in the oral test. IL is also not possible to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the result shows a definite pattern on the basis of which we can say that the candidates who obtained very good marks at the written test were deliberately given less marks in the oral test. It is also not possible to accept the allegation that who got very less marks at the written examination were given more marks in the oral test with a view to help them. Except the bare allegation there is nothing to show that either the Chairman or Dr. Vasava was interested in any particular candidate who obtained more marks in he oral test. ( 17 ) HAVING failed to prove their allegations the learned Advocates relied upon the possibil- ity that because of calling as many candidates as five times the number of posts those who would not have been in the zone of consideration if three times the number had been called for oral test have been able to jump the queue and that has been done with a view to help them. From the statement of candidates whose namos are shown at Sr. Nos. 1 to 15 in the list of candidates obtaining highest marks in the oral test we find that candidate whose marks in the written test were 552 560 583 792 and 815 were called for interview and they have been included in the select list. What is required to be borne in mind is that the recruitment was to be made for 155 posts Ordinarily the GPSC not only prepares a list of candidates to be recommended for recruitment but also prepares a waiting list for that purpose As a matter of fact this time the GPSC prepared a waiting list of 106 candidates. If in view of this practice the GPSC thought it fit to call more number or candidates than 455 (155 x 3 = 465) it cannot be said that it had done so with an oblique motive or with a deliberate intention of seeing that those whose ranks in the merit list prepared on the basis of written examination were lower than 455 were called for or interview. No doubt as a result of calling candidates more than throe times the number of posts those whose rank in the written examination was lower as stated above were in fact called for interview and they got selected for the purpose of recruitment to either Class I or Class II posts. It should not be forgotten that their names have been included in the select list because of their merit and not because of any other consideration Moreover it cannot be said that those who obtain more marks at the written examinations would ordinarily get more marks in the oral test also The nature of test taken at the two examination is quite different and there cannot be any co- relation between the number of marks obtained in the written examination and marks obtained at the Viva Voce and Personality lost The object and purpose of Viva Voce and Personality test being different a can- didate obtaining very high marks in the written examination may not be able to fair that well in the oral test and there can be wide varieties in the result of his written test and the oral test on such comparison the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ashok Kumar Yadavs case had come to the conclusion that the selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission was vitiated by arbitrariness or by reasonable likelihood of bias. The Supreme Court did not agree with such a con- clusion drawn by the High Court. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in that case such a compari- son may create a suspicion in ones mind that some element of arbitrariness might have entered the assessment in the Viva Voce examination But suspicion cannot take the place of proof and the Court cannot strike down the selections made on the ground that the evaluation of the merits of the candidates in the Viva Voce examination might be arbitrary. As observed by the Supreme Court in that case the Court cannot sit in judgment over marks awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. As observed by the Supreme Court in that case the Court cannot sit in judgment over marks awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. Only when the assessment is patently arbitrary or the risk of arbitrariness is so high that reasonable person would regard arbitrariness as inevitable that the assessment of marks at the Viva Voce test may be regarded as suffering from vice of arbitrariness In our opinion the peti- have miserably failed in discharging the burden of proving arbitrariness on this court. ( 18 ) EVEN though more weightage was given to the oral test and even though candidates numbering five times the posts required to be filled in were called for interview it cannot be said that the selection made by the GPSC has been vitiated on the ground that it was arbitrary In our opinion it is not possible to say that these factors have distorted the true assessment of the candidates and that undeserving candidates have been able to jump the queue It is also not possible to say that deserving candidates have been left out because of the method and proce- dure followed by the GPSC. For these reasons hose petitions will have to be dismissed ( 19 ) IN the result these petitions are dismissed Rule issued in Special C. A. Nos. 4418 44 4551 4834 5110 5111 5450 and 4381 of 1985 and notice issued in Special C A Nos. 5290 4654 5574 of 1985 and 5450 of 1985 are discharged with no order as to costs. .