JUDGMENT : N.L. Ganguly, J. The Petitioners completed their training as Aurvedia Pharmacist from Aurvedic Pharmacist Training Centre, Jaunpur which is a registered and recognized Institution by the Indian Medicines Board, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow. After qualifying as Aurvedic Pharmacist, the Petitioners also completed their practical training from the said Institution. Both the Petitioners were registered as Aurvedic Pharmacist by the Indian Medicines Board, Uttar Pradesh An advertisement was published inviting applications for the appointment of Aurvedic Pharmacist 85 posts and two posts for Unani Pharmacist. 2. The Petitioners are of Backward Class. Both have applied for selection and appointment as Aurvedic Pharmacists. The Petitioners since belong to Backward class are also entitled for reserved quota for backward class candidates also The Petitioners were called for appearing before the interview Board and the opposite party 1 the Director of Aurvedic and Unani Services Uttar Pradesh had taken the interview of the Petitioners. After appearing in the interview, the Petitioners waited for their appointment letters for a petty long time and could not get any Information. The Respondent No. 1 neither published the list of selected candidates nor any information about the result of the interview was sent by the Respondent No. 1. 3. The Petitioners learnt that Respondent No. 1 although had advertised for 87 vacancies, had already issued about 200 appointment letters without preparing list of successful candidates who had appeared in the interview. The allegation in the writ petition that the opposite party No. 1 was making appointment arbitrarily, corruptly and confidentially. The Petitioners stated names of Sri Kailash Singh, Sri Sanjai Shukla, Sri Dinesh Chand Gupta and Sri Jai Prakash Singh belonging to Districts Varanasi and Jaunpur, who were representatives of unemployed Aurvedic Pharmacists Association had started agitation before the opposite party No. 1 and had also gheroed him and raised slogans against him. The opposite party No. 1 in these circumstances to cover up his own latches, issued letters of appointments to those four persons irrespective of the fact that their names were also not published for appointment nor there was any other cogent reasons for taking them in service. The opposite party No. 1 in these circumstances to cover up his own latches, issued letters of appointments to those four persons irrespective of the fact that their names were also not published for appointment nor there was any other cogent reasons for taking them in service. The appointment letters issued to them since was under duress and coercion, and the letters of appointments were issued to them The Petitioners stated that aforementioned appointments were given by the opposite party No. 1 without preparing any merit list of the candidates, who had applied for the post. The appointments were given as a result of some extraneous considerations or under pressure and coercion or threat extended by the aforesaid four persons. 4. The Petitioners also stated that one Satti Ram Yadav, who bad done his training in 1987 and had obtained 662 marks in Aurvedic Pharmacist course was given appointment by the Respondents ignoring Petitioner No. 1's claim who had completed his training in 1985 with higher marks of 766 obtained by him. The Petitioner has annexed copies of the certificate of Satti Ram Yadav and the appointment letter issued to him. 5. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Respondent No. 1 was making appointments wholly illegally, arbitrary and without consideration of the merit in excess of the number of vacancies as annexed in the advertisement The manner in which appointments were given to certain persons on the basis of interview alone was highly objectionable and against the settled norms. The Petitioners claimed that they are better candidates on merit, and are also entitled for the appointments on the basis of reservation of backward classes. 6. The prayer in the writ petition is that the Respondents be directed to publish the list for appointment of Aurvedic Pharmacist and a direction be issued to the Respondent No. 1 restraining him from issuing any appointment letter to any other person. Further writ of mandamus has been claimed directing the Respondent No. 1 to appoint the Petitioners on the posts of Aurvedic Pharmacists. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties through Sri Ram Niwas Singh, a Senior Assistant in the office of Director of Aurvedic and Unani Pharmacist. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the Petitioner. 8. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties through Sri Ram Niwas Singh, a Senior Assistant in the office of Director of Aurvedic and Unani Pharmacist. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the Petitioner. 8. In the counter affidavit, the Respondents have stated that list of select candidates was pasted duly on the notice board of the office of the Respondent No. 1 for general information according to practice and procedure followed from earlier time. The allegation of the Petitioners that the list of select candidates was not published was denied. It has been seated that it is neither essential nor there is any requirement of any rule to publish the list of select candidates in the news paper nor to send the selection list of the select candidates. It has been stated on behalf of the opposite parties that the Petitioners names do not find place in the select list. As such, they were not given any appointment letters or further information to them. 9. It is not disputed that the post of Aurvedic Pharmacist is a public office and the appointments are to be made from the entire State. A copy of the list of candidates appeared in the earlier years annexed by the Petitioner shows that candidates from all parts of the state had applied and were given appointments also. The case set up by the Respondents that it was not necessary nor any Rules provide for publishing the list of select candidates in the news paper. It was merely pasted on the notice board of the opposite party No. 1. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not accept the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel that placing of the select list on the notice board of the office of Respondent No. 1 was sufficient publication of the select list. It cannot be expected that candidates from all over the State who appeared in the interview would come to see the notice board at the office of the opposite party No. 1 every now and them. It was not announced at any point of time by the Respondents that result of the selection was to be published on a particular date. It was not announced at any point of time by the Respondents that result of the selection was to be published on a particular date. Thus, it would be most unfair on the part of the Respondents if the result of select list was not published in any news paper or communication to all candidates who had appeared in the interview by post. Thus, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sufficient force that the alleged pasting of the result of the interview was a fake publication of the result of the interview. 11. The second submission of the learned Counsel far the Petitioner is that the appointments were given by the opposite party no without preparing any merit list of all candidates who had applied for being selected for appointment nor the Petitioners were given the benefit of reservation as a backward class-candidates. The Petitioners state that the appointments were given arbitrarily for certain extraneious considerations, without considering the seniority of the persons, who had applied for being selected. 12. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit stated that the Petitioners were not in the select list and it was not possible to send the select list to each and every candidate. The Respondents have categorically stated that the appointment letters were dully issued to the candidates who were selected and whose names find place in the select list. It is stated that the selected candidates have since joined their services and the posts have been filled. The Respondent No. 1 pleaded that since the training of Aurvedic and Unani Pharmacists is imparted by the private Colleges, therefore, the question of considering the merit on the basis of the marks obtained or on the basis of the training in the respective private college is of no consideration for appointment and assessing the merit of the candidate. The Respondent No. 1 pleaded that the appointment orders were issued to those candidates who were found suitable for the past of pharmacist After conducting the interview of the candidates called for a merit list was prepared on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in the interview and accordingly the appointment orders were issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the selected candidates for posts at various hospitals, dispensaries having vacancies. 13. 13. It has been stated by the opposite party No. 1 that since training of Aurvedic and Unani Pharmacists is being imparted by private institutions, therefore the marks obtained by the candidates in the training is not the basis for considering the merit at the time of interview. On the other hand, the training of Allopathic and Homeopathic are imparted by the Government Institution and their seniority is prepared on the basis of their registration and marks obtained at the time of training After interview which were conducted by the selection committee, having five members, a list of selected candidates were prepared by the Respondent No. 1 on the basis of marks obtained by each candidates and list of selected candidates were posted on the notice board of the office, the reply of the opposite party No. 1 makes it clear that the selection for appointment of Aurvedic Pharmacist was made by him on the basis of marks allotted solely in the interview before the Selection Committee. This much is also clear that the opposite party No. 1 had not conducted any test of any of the applicants who had applied for being selected as Aurvedic/Unani Pharmacists. The opposite parties had not taken into consideration the marks of each candidate obtained in the examination conducted at the time of award of the Pharmacists Diploma. The Respondents have conveniently given an explanation for ignoring the marks allotted by the colleges which are admittedly approved and recognized by the Board of Indian Medicines on the ground that all pharmacists training colleges for Aurvedic and Unani are private colleges. Hence the marks obtained by each candidate from the colleges from where they qualified themselves as pharmacists was not taken into consideration at all. 14. The Petitioner annexed a copy of the advertisement as Annexure 7 inviting applications for appointment of Aurvedic Pharmacists and Unani Pharmacists fixing 25th July 1989 as a last date for submission of the applications. 85 vacancies of Aurvedic and 2 vacancies of Unani Pharmacists were published in the said advertisement. The Petitioners categorically stated in the writ petition that Respondent No. 1 has issued about 200 letters for appointment quite confidentially, corruptly and arbitrarily. 85 vacancies of Aurvedic and 2 vacancies of Unani Pharmacists were published in the said advertisement. The Petitioners categorically stated in the writ petition that Respondent No. 1 has issued about 200 letters for appointment quite confidentially, corruptly and arbitrarily. The opposite party in his reply stated that 167 vacancies of pharmacists were available at the time of publication of the advertisement and 60 vacancies for the post of pharmacists were created in the financial year 1989-90. It was also clearly mentioned that the number of posts can be increased or deceased. The Respondent further stated that the appointment letters have been issued in accordance with the vacancies available under the control of Respondent No. 1 according to select list. The Respondent No. 1 appears to have treated the appointment of Pharmacists Aurvedic as a domestic affair from the record, It appears that the Respondents have not made any rule for selection and appointment of pharmacists for Aurvedic and Unani. The Respondents appear to have treated the matter of appointment to the public office of pharmacists in the State very lightly and they hate not cared to follow the settled norms for appointment to public offices. 15. The Supreme Court in Banarsi Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1956 ALJ 517, was pleased to observe: Article 16 of the Constitution is an instance of application of the central rule of equality laid down in Article 14 with special reference to the opportunity of appointment and employment under the Government.... ...The selection for appointment in the Government service has got to be on a competitive basis.... 16. The law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be strictly complied with and followed. 17. In The District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhimavarm Vs. Labour Court, Guntur and Another, AIR 1980 AP 132 , the learned Judges observed that: The right to public employment is undoubtedly, as indicated above, a new form of property, it is rot only a vast source of patronage for the Government but also a great source of living and happiness to unemployed millions. 18. The view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrabhan Tale, (1983) 3 SCC 387 . 18. The view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrabhan Tale, (1983) 3 SCC 387 . It was observed by Hon. Varadarajan, J.: I agree with the view of the learned Judge regarding the public employ meat being property of the information which has to be shared equally specially of course to the qualification necessary for holding the office or the post. 19. The aforesaid principle of law, as propounded by the Supreme Court further shows that the Government while offering the appointment to the citizen are supposed to take such adequate precautions and measures so that the citizen may be afforded equal opportunity for employment on the basis of merit and efficiency alone, and there being no scope for discrimination or arbitrary action on the part of the authority. 20. The Petitioners have categorically stated that for selection of Homeopathic and Allopathic pharmacists, the criteria for appointment and selection is the seniority of the registration. The selection' list according to norms prescribed for appointment of Allopathic and Homeopathic pharmacists, seniority in registration is the main guiding factor. In such circumstances, there is no scope of chance of any arbitrary act at the end of the appointing authority. The Respondents have neither framed any rules nor there is any guidelines prescribed by the Department for preparing a selection list for Aurvedic and Unani Pharmacists the Respondents categorically stated that the marks obtained by the Aurvedic and Unani Pharmacists for the qualifying examination is conducted by the private colleges. As such, those marks are not taken into account or consideration for preparation of the merit list. It is not denied that the colleges imparting training and preparing for the pharmacists diploma in Aureedic and Unani are approved and recognized by the State Government Candidates qualifying from those institutions are duly registered by the Indian Medicines Board, Uttar Pradesh It sounds funny and peculiar that the Government for the purpose of registration of a pharmacist accepts the candidates qualification and training from privately managed, approved and recognized Aurvedic/Unani Pharmacists college. But for the purpose of giving employment, the marks and merit of candidates in the examination conducted by the Indian Medicines Board are completely ignored as not relevant at all for determining the merit. But for the purpose of giving employment, the marks and merit of candidates in the examination conducted by the Indian Medicines Board are completely ignored as not relevant at all for determining the merit. The Respondents states that in view of the aforesaid fact, the merit list is prepared by the Selection Committee on the basis of interview itself. The marks obtained by a candidate in the interview by the Selection Committee is the sole and only merit to be judged for appointment as Aurvedic/Unani pharmacists. 21. The opposite parties have chosen an erroneous procedure for preparation of selection list solely on the basis of marks allotted in the interview. The law on the point is clear and settled. 22. The Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 722 , quoting the book on "Public Administration in Theory and Practice" by M.P. Sharma which voices a fair and balanced criticism of the oral interview method held; The oral test of the interview has been much criticised on the ground of its subjectivity and uncertainty. Different interviewers have their own notions of good personality. For some, it consists more in attractive physical appearance and dress rather than anything else, and with them the breezy and shiny type of candidate scores highly while the rough uncut diamonds may go unappreciated. The atmosphere of the interview is artificial and prevents some candidates from appearing at the his best. Its duration is short, the few questions of the hit or miss type, which are put. may fail to reveal the real worth of the candidate It has been said that God takes a whole life time to Judge a man's worth while interviewers have to do it in a quarter of an hour. Even at its best the common sort of interview reveals but the superficial aspects of the candidate's personality like appearance, speaking power and general address. Deeper traits of leadership, tact, forgetfulness, etc. go largely undected. The Supreme Court further in the case held: We would, however. Even at its best the common sort of interview reveals but the superficial aspects of the candidate's personality like appearance, speaking power and general address. Deeper traits of leadership, tact, forgetfulness, etc. go largely undected. The Supreme Court further in the case held: We would, however. like to point out that in the matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of public employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity, calibre and qualification.... ...The marks allocated for the oral interview were 50 as against 100 allocated for the written test, so that the marks allocated for the oral interview came to 33 1/3% of the total number of marks taken into account for the purpose of making the selection. The Supreme Court further observed: Having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing in the country, particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase, allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the Court as free from the Vice of arbitrariness. 23. In the present case, the position is that the Respondents created a mess of the affair. There is no Rules or guidelines for selection of a candidate for appointment to the post of pharmacists. The Respondents have failed to publish the result of the interview in any news paper circulated widely. The Respondent No. 1 never prepared any select list on merits on the basis of marks obtained by the candidate in the last qualifying examination, nor they conducted any test examination on competitive basis for giving opportunity to all the candidates applying for appointment to the post. The entire selection was based on full marks to be allotted on the basis of oral interview. The entire selection was based on full marks to be allotted on the basis of oral interview. The allegations of the Petitioner that persons with lesser marks, later date of registration of pharmacists were given appointment on threats of strikes and dharna by the Respondents The allegation of the Petitioners that appointment letters were being issued on approaches by candidates themselves and for certain illegal considerations by the Respondent No. 1. The Respondents have been issuing appointment letters according to their own discretion exceeding number of appointments than shown in the advertisement for appointment annexed by the Petitioners. 24. The allegations made in the writ petition referred in short in the above paragraph have been vaguely denied by a Senior Assistant of the office of the opposite party No. 1. The affidavit of the Senior Assistant Sri Ram Niwas of the office of Director of Aurvedic & Unani Services, U.P., cannot be relied implicitly. The opposite party No. 1 has not placed any details or annexed any documentary evidence in support of the allegations and counter version placed in the counter affidavit. The Petitioners version that they belong to backward class and entitled for the reserved quota was denied vaguely on the ground that relevant documents were not placed before the opposite party No. 1. The fact that the relevant document, certificates of their being backward from Competent Authority was already fied with the application for appointment itself and the Petitioners have the original certificates with them at the time of interview The vague denial on behalf of the opposite parties that documents were not available cannot be believed. This Court is not of the view to decide the factual controversies on the basis of affidavit alone. The court considers certain admitted facts between the parties which clearly show that there was no Rules or guidelines framed for selection to the post of Pharmacists Aurvedic & Unani by the opposite party No. 1. The selection was made solely on the basis of marks allotted in the interview. The Respondents have never published the result of the selection in the news paper having wide publication in the State for information to the candidates about the result. No competitive test in writing was held for giving marks to the candidates and no competition was held for selection to the post amongst the candidates applying for the post. The Respondents have never published the result of the selection in the news paper having wide publication in the State for information to the candidates about the result. No competitive test in writing was held for giving marks to the candidates and no competition was held for selection to the post amongst the candidates applying for the post. These facts are not denied or not disputed by the opposite parties. 25. In The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Ramakrishna Rao and Others, (1972) 4 SCC 830 , it was held that "all actions taken under invalid law, cannot be allowed to stand." 26. After considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel, I am of the clear view that the selection and appointments made by the opposite party No. 1 in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed. 27. While quashing the appointments made by the opposite party No. 1, all appointments given to persons in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), it has to be considered whether those persons who have joined or taken over are to continue in service or their appointments also shall stand cancelled. I have already held in following the decision of the Supreme Court, referred above, that the office of a pharmacists under the State Government is a public office. Every citizen of the State has a legal right and a fundamental rights to be treated equally and alike Any arbitrary or partisan act of the State is unfair and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. The irresponsible act of the Respondent No. 1 in proceedings to make large number of appointments as pharmacists of Aurvedic and Unani which admittedly is public office without framing any Rules, guidelines and norms leaves a wide scope for arbitrary, unfair and whimsical action on the part of the Respondents. From the facts and allegations made in the petition, it has come on record that various modes were adopted by number of candidates seeking appointments with the result letters of appointment were issued in large numbers for reasons not to be further elaborately mentioned. From the facts and allegations made in the petition, it has come on record that various modes were adopted by number of candidates seeking appointments with the result letters of appointment were issued in large numbers for reasons not to be further elaborately mentioned. A person, who secures an appointment and joins the post, cannot be said to have acquired legal right to continue only because he was successful having access to the office by any means whatsoever. 28. The moment it is shown that in the matters of public employment, there has been a violation in equality of opportunity. Action taken by the Respondents cannot be allowed to stand which are also liable to be quashed. In the circumstances after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is pleased to direct the Respondents to frame guidelines and Rules for selection and appointments of Aurvedic/Unani pharmacists, conduct written test after giving opportunity to all candidates applying for the post and to allocate not more than 15% marks for oral interview. The Respondents are directed to republish the advertisement for appointments for the post of Aurvedic/Unani Pharmacists, total number of vacancies, reservation permissible, age, qualification etc. as required for appointment to the public offices. All appointments made by Respondent No. 1 in pursuance of advertisement Annexure 7 of the writ petition are held to be illegal and are hereby quashed. However, the Respondents shall permit all such candidates who have been given appointments in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) to appear in the test and compete in the examination test to be held along-with other irrespective of the fact that some of them may have crossed the maximum age fixed for such employment. Any salary paid to the appointees in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), shall not be recoverable back from those appointees. 29. The Petitioners shall also be given opportunity to appear in the test to be held as directed by this judgment and shall also be entitled to the benefit of reservation if permissible irrespective of the fact that they also have crossed the age bar for such appointment. The Respondents shall take all necessary steps for recruitments to the posts of Aurvedic/Unani pharmacists within next three months and finalize the selection in another three months, if possible. 30. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Respondents shall take all necessary steps for recruitments to the posts of Aurvedic/Unani pharmacists within next three months and finalize the selection in another three months, if possible. 30. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Respondents are directed to comply with the directions, as indicated in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment. The parties to bear cost.