Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “ For the reasons stated, in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 3.1.1989 made B.SR.B.S.P.O.11. R.88.81410001, quash the same and direct the second respondent select and appoint the petitioner in the post Code No.4, Financial Analyst as advertised Advertisement No.3/88 dated 18.4.1988 notified for the Scheduled Caste....... ” 2. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as follows: The petitioner belongs to Pallan community, which is notified as the Scheduled Caste passing the B.Com., degree in first class the petitioner completed P.G.D.M. (Post Graduate Diploma in Management) Course, which is considered to be superior to M.B.A. course second respondent caused an advertisement bearing advertisement No.3/88, 18.4.1988 in all leading newspapers. Through the said advertisement applications invited from Indian Citizens for appointment to the posts mentioned therein which includes the appointment to the post of Financial Analyst in the participating banks Canara Bank, Syndicate Bank, Vijaya Bank and Corporation Bank. The post of Financial Analyst was categorised under post Code No.4 and the following educational qualification prescribed for the said post. M.B.A. in finance or equivalent qualification from IISC/IIM M.B.A. in finance from any recognised university. Previous experience was not considered essential. The total number of vacancies in the post of Financial Analyst was mentioned out of which 8 posts and 4 posts were to be filled only by appointing Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe candidates respectively and the remaining 20 posts were to be filled up general. According to the procedure prescribed for selection as notified in the advertisement given in the newspapers there will be a written test of objective and descriptive type such of those candidates who rank sufficiently high in the preliminary examination will called for an interview. Final selection would be on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and in the interview and shall be strictly according to merit. The petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form for post of Financial Analyst and he was assigned with roll No.81410001. Along petitioner approximately 45 candidates competed for the vacancies notified for Caste candidates. The petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form for post of Financial Analyst and he was assigned with roll No.81410001. Along petitioner approximately 45 candidates competed for the vacancies notified for Caste candidates. The petitioner appeared for the written examination held on The second respondent published the roll number of the -candidates who were qualified be called for interview for the various posts. The petitioner was also called for interview the post of Financial Analyst and he was called upon to appear for interview on 30.11.1988. Subsequently by the impugned proceedings dated 3.1.1989 made in Ref.No.P.S.R.D., S.B.O.II/R-88- 81410001, the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that he come within the required ranking prescribed for the post and, therefore, he was not for the post of Financial Analyst, In the above circumstances, the petitioner has present writ petition seeking the relief referred to in the opening paragraph of this. 3. The second respondent filed a counter contending that the petitioner appeared written test and secured 86 marks out of 200 marks in the written test and hence called for the interview and in the interview he secured only 15 marks, out of 100 and therefore, in the aggregate the petitioner had secured only 101 marks out of further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Chairman of the Board has fixed mark of 125 out of total marks of 300 for the SC/ST candidates and 150 for the candidates and since the petitioner did not secure the required cut-off appointment to the post of Financial Analyst he was not selected. 4. Mr.S.Elamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following two in this, writ petition: i. The petitioner was not selected for the post of Financial Analyst because he secure . the required cut-off marks viz., 125 marks out of 300 marks prescribed SC/ST candidates by the Chairman of the Board; The Chairman of the Second respondent Board has no power to fix any cut-off mark particularly when the prescription marks for selection to the post of Financial Analyst was not indicated in the procedure given in the advertisement and, therefore, the reason given by the respondent in the impugned order for not selecting the petitioner for the post of Analyst is illegal and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ii. ii. In this case, admittedly 200 marks are reserved for the written examination marks for viva voce. Reserving 100 marks for viva voce out of 300 is excessive and arbitrary powers to the second respondent in the matter of selection and selection candidates on the basis of such high percentage of marks reserved for interview and therefore, the entire selection made by the second respondent is bad and is liable set aside. 5. Let us examine the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner one by far as the first contention is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted admittedly in the procedure prescribed for selection for the post of Financial Analyst advertisement issued in the newspapers calling for applications, it is not mentioned candidate in order to get Selected must secure a minimum cut-off mark. All that is the advertisement calling for applications, under the heading: “selection procedure” is as follows: “For posts 1, 2, 3 and 4: All the candidates who apply with the requisite fee and applications are received on or before the prescribed last date will be called for a written which will be both objective and descriptive type. Such of those candidates who sufficiently high in the preliminary examination will be called for an interview. Final selection will be on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates in the examination and interview and shall be strictly according to merit.” The prescription of a minimum cut-off mark is not at all indicated in the selection procedure given in the advertisement. The learned counsel for the second respondent is also not position to point out any rule or regulation which gives power to the Chairman of the to fix the minimum cut-off mark for selecting candidates particularly when it is not indicated in the procedure prescribed for the selection of candidates. In Durgacharan v. State Orissa, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2267, the Apex Court was considering a case where the Service Commission itself, while preparing the select list for the post of Munsifs prescribed minimum qualifying marks for viva voce test and did not select a candidate for not securing the minimum qualifying mark so prescribed and selected candidates securing less number aggregate marks in written test and viva voce than the candidate in question. In circumstances, the Apex Court held as follows: “The Rule making authorities have provided a scheme for selection of candidates appointment to judicial post. Rule 16 prescribes the minimum qualifying marks to be by candidates in the written- examination. It is 30% of the total marks in all the papers. candidates who have secured more than that minimum would alone be called for test. The Rules do not prescribe any such minimum marks to be secured at the test. After the viva voce test, the Commission shall add the marks of the viva voce the marks in the written examination. There then, Rule 18 states: “The names of candidates will then be arranged by the Commission in the order of merit.” This is the mandate of Rule 18. The Commission shall add the two marks together, matter what those marks at the viva voce test. On the basis of the aggregate marks in the tests, the names of candidates will have to be arranged in order of merit. The prepared shall be forwarded to the Government. The Commission has no power to the name of any candidate from the select list merely because he has secured less marks the viva voce test. “In the above decision the Supreme Court held that the action of the Public Commission prescribing a minimum qualifying marks for a viva voce in the absence rule to that effect and excluding a candidate for not securing the minimum marks prescribed is illegal. The ratio of the above decision of the Supreme Court applies to the of the present case. When the prescription of minimum cut-off mark was not indicated anywhere in the procedure prescribed for selection and when the second respondent is a position to point out any rule or regulation which gives the power to the Chairman to minimum cut-off mark, the-reason given by the respondents in the impugned order para 5 of the counter-affidavit for not selecting the petitioner for the post of Financial cannot be sustained and the impugned order is liable to be set Mr.M.R.Narayanaswami, learned senior counsel for the second respondent drew my attention to paragraphs 4.4 to 4.7 of the Recruitment Scheme for Public Sector Banks, which thus: “4.4. The Selection will be made on the basis of a written examination, in which all eligible candidates will be invited to appear, followed by an interview by the Recruitment Board. 4.5. The Selection will be made on the basis of a written examination, in which all eligible candidates will be invited to appear, followed by an interview by the Recruitment Board. 4.5. The written examination should be of a high standard and should inter alia aim at testing the specific skills required of a bank officer to meet the changing demands of the banking system. 4.6. The pattern and standard of the written examination should be uniform for all groups banks. For this purpose guidelines will need to be prepared. The Chairman of all Recruitment Boards will meet to evolve common guidelines and may seek the assistance the National Institute of Bank Management in this exercise. 4.7. The All India merit list of the successful candidates shall be drawn up or the basis of the aggregate performance of the candidates the written test and interview. The weightage to be given for the written examination interview marks should be uniform for all groups of banks and will be as prescribed common guidelines as agreed upon by the Chairman of all Recruitment Boards." I carefully examined paragraphs 4.4. to 4.7 of the scheme relied on by the learned for the second respondent. The said paragraphs do not in any way advance the case 2nd respondent because they do not speak about the power of the Chairman of the respondent Board to fix the minimum cut-off mark for selecting the candidates. 6. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, admitted that the 2nd respondent prescribed 200 marks for the written examination and marks for viva voce The learned counsel’ for the petitioner relying on the decision Supreme Court in Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and others, J.T. (1990)4 S.C. would contend that it would not be reasonable to have more than 15% of the total marks viva voce in the selection of candidates and as in the present case 33.33% of the marks, was reserved for viva voce the entire selection is bad and is liable to be set aside. the other hand, Mr.M.R. Naraya-naswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if special circumstances exist it is open to the parties to prescribe highest percentage of marks exceeding 15% of the total marks for viva voce. the other hand, Mr.M.R. Naraya-naswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if special circumstances exist it is open to the parties to prescribe highest percentage of marks exceeding 15% of the total marks for viva voce. The counsel for the second respondent further contended that inasmuch as the petitioner raised these points in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition he is not entitled raise the contentions for the first time in the course of the arguments. 7. In Ashok Kumar Yadhav and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1985)1 (Supp.) 657, the Apex Court held that it would be prudent and safe to follow the percentage adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in case of selection to Indian Administrative Service and other allied services. The percentage of marks allotted for the viva voce the Union Public Service Commission in the above service was 12.2% and that has found to be fair and just as directing a proper balance between examination and the voce test. 8. In Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and others, J.T. (1990)4 S.C.704, Lordships of the Supreme Court after referring to Ashok Kumar Yadhay’s case, S.C.R. (Supp.) 657 and other decisions of the Apex Court has. held as follows: "Even if Ashok Kumar Yadhav’s case, (1985)1 S.C.R. (Supp.) 657, may not in terms the cases before us to the extent of laying down 12.2% of the total marks for viva which was made applicable for selections to be made by U.P.S.C, we deem it proper down after taking in view the dictum of all the authorities decided so far that the percentage of viva voce test in the present case at 25% of. the total marks was arbitrary and excessive. the total marks was arbitrary and excessive. There could be no gainsaying that viva voce test cannot be totally dispensed with, but note of the situation and conditions prevailing in our country, it would not be reasonable have the percentage of viva voce marks more than 15 per cent of the total marks selection of candidates fresh from college/school for public employment by direct recruitment where the rules provided for a composite process of selection namely written examination and interview." Recently on 11.10.1991 the Supreme Court in Sri Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and v. State of Karnataka, (1991)4 S.C. 160, dealing with the rules provided 33.33% marks interview out of the total marks, held us follows: "It is not necessary to examine the matter in detail inasmuch as 50 marks for interview of 150 are clearly in violation of the judgment of this court in Ashok Kumar Yadhav others v. State of Haryana and others, (1988) 1 S.C.R. (Supp.) 657 and Mohinder Sain v. State of Punjab and others, J.T. (1990)4 S.C. 704." Applying the ratio of the decision of the highest court of the land, it has to be held reservation of 100 marks for viva voce put of 300 marks in the present case is and, therefore, the entire selection made by the 2nd respondent-Board pursuant Advertisement No.3/88 dated 18.4.1988 is bad. 9. In this case, we are faced with a situation that election for the above post of Analyst has already been madeand the selected candidates have already joined the posts long back. The selected candidates have also not been impleaded as parties in the writ petition. In the above circumstances, it would be doing injustice to such candidates who have already been selected and have joined the post and who are not impleaded as parties in the writ petition to quash their selection even if it is held that 33.33% marks kept for viva voce excessively high. 10. However, it is seen from the counter-affidavit that 8 posts of Financial Analyst are reserved for Scheduled" Caste candidates and that the petitioner and 5 other Scheduled Caste candidates were called for interview and the petitioner and four other Scheduled Caste candidates attended the interview. Only one Scheduled Caste candidate was selected. The petitioner alone, out of other 4 Schedule Caste candidates who attended the interview but not selected has filed the present writ petition challenging the selection. Only one Scheduled Caste candidate was selected. The petitioner alone, out of other 4 Schedule Caste candidates who attended the interview but not selected has filed the present writ petition challenging the selection. In these circumstances, as the petitioner alone was vigilant in making a grievance it is proper to a Writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to select and appoint the petitioner the post Code No.4 Financial Analyst as advertised in the Advertisement No.3/88dated 18.4.1988, if the petitioner is otherwise found suitable for the post. I am unable to the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that without raising point in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner entitled to argue that selection is bad in this case, because, high percentage of marks prescribed for the interview, in view of the fact that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the selection made by the second respondent is bad on the ground high percentage of marks reserved for viva voce is based on the decision of the Apex and also on the basis of the admitted facts available in this case. 11. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 3.1.1989 made Ref.B.SR.B.S.P.O. II R.88.81410001 challenged in the writ petition is set aside and second respondent is directed to select and appoint the petitioner in the post Code Financial Analyst-as advertised in Advertisement No.3/88 dated 18.4.1988. respondents. shall take suitable steps to pass the appropriate orders for appointing petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will order as to costs. Petition allowed.