Judgment ( 1 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether minimum qualifying marks can be prescribed for the viva voce in the matter of promotion of clerk/typist to the Junior Management Grade in State Bank of Travancore, hereinafter referred to as "the Bank", which is a subsidiary of State Bank of India. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the promotion policy laid down by the Bank, there is a written test followed by viva voce. 100 marks are prescribed for the written test and 33 marks are prescribed for viva voce. A candidate is required to obtain 6 1/2 marks in the viva voce in order to qualify for selection. The respondent was employed as clerk/typist in the Bank. For the purpose of promotion to the Junior Management Grade she appeared in the written test and thereafter she was called for viva voce where she secured 5 marks. Since she failed to secure the qualifying marks in viva voce she was not selected. She moved the High Court of Kerala questioning her non-selection by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said writ petition of the respondent was allowed by a learned Single Judge who held that prescription of minimum marks for viva voce introduced arbitrariness in the process of selection and was not valid. The learned Single Judge directed that the respondent be selected with the aggregate total marks in written and oral tests and that the authority should proceed on the basis that there are no qualifying minimum marks prescribed for the interview. The said decision of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) SHRI Viswanatha Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that prescription of minimum marks for interview is permissible and has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan and State of U. P. v. Rafiquddin wherein this Court has upheld the provisions prescribing minimum marks for interview in a selection. In view of the decisions aforementioned, the requirement of 6 marks for qualifying in the viva voce as prescribed in the promotion policy of the Bank cannot be held to be invalid and the judgment of the High Court taking a contrary view cannot be upheld. In view of the decisions aforementioned, the requirement of 6 marks for qualifying in the viva voce as prescribed in the promotion policy of the Bank cannot be held to be invalid and the judgment of the High Court taking a contrary view cannot be upheld. ( 4 ) WE, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that in view of the decision of the High Court in her favour whereby it has been directed that the respondent should be treated as selected if the aggregate total marks both in written and oral tests exceed that of anyone who is now selected, the respondent did not appear in subsequent tests. She should not be made to suffer on account of the pendency of the appeal in this Court for more than 10 years. We, therefore, consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to direct that the decision of this Court reversing the view of the High Court with regard to the validity of requirement of minimum marks for qualifying in viva voce should not operate to the prejudice of the respondent and she should be given the benefit of the decision of the High Court. ( 5 ) BEFORE we part with this case it may also be mentioned that the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the requirement of 33 marks for viva voce is not in consonance with the norms laid down by this Court for the marks to be prescribed for viva voce and for the written test in a selection. Since we have not disturbed the decisions of the High Court insofar as the respondent is concerned, we do not propose to go into this question. It is left to the Bank, if so advised, to take necessary steps and review its promotion policy in the light of the decision of this Court. ( 6 ) THE appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court quashing the requirement of minimum marks for qualifying in viva voce in the promotion policy of the Bank, is set aside subject to the direction that insofar as the respondent is concerned, she would be given the benefit of the judgment of the High Court. No order as to costs.