Nutan, Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar — 1994 DIGILAW 393 (PAT)

Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. These three writ petitions involving the same dispute with respect to selection of the private respondents for appointment to the post of Fisheries Extension Officer have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Governor of Bihar has framed rules entitled The Animal Husbandry and (Fisheries) Service Recruitment Rules, 1993 (in short the Recruitment Rules) for appointment of, amongst others, Fisheries extension Officers in the State of Bihar. The said rules were notified on january 14, 1993. On March 2, 1993 the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and fisheries Department sent requisition to the Bihar Public Service Commission to make advertisement and selection with respect to 33 posts of the Fisheries extension Officer to be filled by direct recruitment. The advertisement was published on April 4, 1993. Candidates were called for interview which was held from March 21 to 23, 1994. The selection list in respect of 20 candidates was sent to the Government on March 24, 1994. No recommendation was made with respect to the remaining 13 posts as suitable candidates of the concerned categories were not available. The petitioner participated in the interview/selection process but failed to find berth in the selection list. They have come up to this Court challenging the process of recruitment. 3. The selection process has been assailed mainly on two grounds- (a) Consideration of the academic performance of the candidates at various examinations and (b) Illegality in constitution of the Interview Board. The selection of respondents Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Manoranjan Kumar has been additionally questioned on the ground of lack of prescribed qualification. 4. As regards the first ground it is said that in terms of Recruitment rules, selection is to be made on the basis of oral interview alone. The merit list, however, has been prepared taking into account also the academic performance of the candidates, allocating it as high 30% marks, besides the oral interview. The inter se allocation of marks/points between the different examinations has also been challenged as being arbitrary. 5. Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules provides that the recruitment procedure, age limit, qualification and other concerned matters of service shall be as in columns 5 to 11 of the schedule. The provisions as contained in the schedules appended to the Rules, therefore, have to be read as substantive provisions. 5. Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules provides that the recruitment procedure, age limit, qualification and other concerned matters of service shall be as in columns 5 to 11 of the schedule. The provisions as contained in the schedules appended to the Rules, therefore, have to be read as substantive provisions. Column 10 of Schedule 5 dealing with the method of recruitment for the post of the Bihar Fisheries Service including the Fisheries extension Officer runs as follows:- "50% direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Direct recruitment-will be made on the basis of oral interview by the Bihar Public service Commission. After interview, the Commission will prepare merit list of the selected candidates and send their recommendation to the State Government. Recruitment will be made from the recommended candidates. Reservation Rules issued by the State Government from time to time will be observed. Note-Director of Fisheries or his nominee not below the rank of joint Director, Fisheries will be member as expert in the interview. " It is not in dispute that in terms of the Recruitment Rules selection is to be made on the basis of oral interview alone. The Commission, however, has taken the stand that "almost in all the cases where selection for appointment is to be done on the basis of oral interview (personality test) only, the procedure of awarding marks on the academic achievement of the candidates performance in the interview is being followed for past many years. It is needless to emphasise here that in the present case there is no deviation from the prevailing practice. The above-named procedure of selection through direct recruitment has also been examined and approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5520 and 5521 of 1993 (Paragraph 8 of the affidavit of the BPSC in CWJC 7198 of 1994) The point for consideration in this regard is whether the Commission has acted arbitrarily in deviating from the Recruitment Rules by taking into account also the academic performance of the candidates, besides the oral interview. 6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5520 and 5521 of 1993 referred to in the counter-affidavit of the Commission (supra)is (Anzar Ahmad and anr. v State of Bihar and Ors) reported in (1994)1 SCC 150 . 6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5520 and 5521 of 1993 referred to in the counter-affidavit of the Commission (supra)is (Anzar Ahmad and anr. v State of Bihar and Ors) reported in (1994)1 SCC 150 . That was a case of appointment for the post of Unani medical Officer It would appear from paragraph 5 of the judgment that as oer the letter of the State Government the selection was to be made on the basis of interview. The selection, however, was made on the basis of marks given for both viva voce and the academic performance allocating 100 marks to each This Court had taken the view that allocation of 100 marks i. e.50% for viva voce was arbitrary. The Supreme Court took notice of similar stand of the Commission stated in paragraph 7 of the judgment) "that in all cases where the recommendation is made only on the basis of interview conducted by the Commission and no written qualifying examination is conducted, it has always been the practice of the Commission to fix 50% marks for interview/viva voce" and held that as the academic performance of the candidates has been taken into consideration "in accordance with the past practice", the procedure cannot be said to "suffer from the vice of arbitrariness" Counsel for the respondents have placed heavy reliance on the observations as contained in paragraph 19 of the judgment (Page 158 of SCC) which may usefully be quoted as hereunder :- "in the instant case we find that the State Government in its letter dated September 20, 1990 has clearly stated that the selection should be made on the basis of interview. On the basis of this letter the Commission should have made the selection wholly on the basis of marks obtained at the interview. But in accordance with the past practice, the Commission has made the selection on the basis of interview while keeping in view the academic performance and with that end in view of the Commission has allocated 50% marks for academic performance and 50% marks for interview. It cannot be held that the said procedure adopted by the commission suffers from vice of arbitrariness By giving equal weight to academic performance the Commission has rather reduced the possibility of arbitrariness " 7. It cannot be held that the said procedure adopted by the commission suffers from vice of arbitrariness By giving equal weight to academic performance the Commission has rather reduced the possibility of arbitrariness " 7. Mr Tarakant Jha, appearing for the petitioners in C. W. J. C. No.7198 of 1994, and Mr Umesh Prasad Singh, appearing for the petitioner in c W J C. No 3463 of 1994, submitted that in the case of Anzar Ahmad (supra) there was no statutory rule laying down the method of recruitment. The selection was to be made on the basis of interview as per the executive instructions of the Government and not any statutory rule to that effect. It was contended that where the mode and method of recruitment is laid down by statutory rules, there cannot be any deviation. The effect of deviation from the statutory rules cannot be the same as in the case of executive instructions. Counsel, in fact, submitted that where such a statutory rule is violated nothing else is to be seen and the selection has to be held to be null and void on that ground alone. According to the counsel, therefore, the ratio of the decision in Ansar Ahmads case has no application in the present case. Counsel invited us to examine the question as to whether it is permissible for the Commission to deviate from the statutory rules and lay down its own method of selection. 8. The point in the manner urged by the counsel for the petitioners at the first, instance, no doubt, seems attractive. Normally, it cannot be denied that where any rule has been framed laying down the mode and method of recruitment, the selection has to be made in that manner by following the mode and method prescribed. The selection, however, cannot be nullified only on the ground of non-observance or non-compliance of the prescribed procedure without considering the effect of the non-observance. In other words, what is to be seen is whether the non-observance has resulted in any illegality or has caused any prejudice or injustice to the persons aggrieved by the selection process. It should also be considered as to whether the rule prescribing selection to be made only on the basis of oral interview itself is valid or not. The petitioners have not challenged the validity of the rule. It should also be considered as to whether the rule prescribing selection to be made only on the basis of oral interview itself is valid or not. The petitioners have not challenged the validity of the rule. Naturally so, as according to them, the selection should have been made only on the basis of interview. The private respondents have also not questioned the validity of the rule for the obvious reason that they have already been selected and any challenge to the validity of rule would amount to challenging their own selection. The question nevertheless is whether the above rule laying down that the selection will be made (only) on the basis of oral interview is fair and reasonable 9. Counsel for the respondents submitted that in catena of decisions on the point the Supreme Court deprecated high allocation of marks and weightage to the viva voce because allocation of a high percentage of marks for viva voce has portens of arbitrariness, restricting the ratio of viva voce marks to somewhere in the range of 15% or so of the total marks vis-a-vis the written marks. Ashok Kumar Yadav V/s. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 ; mohinder Sain Garg V/s. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 662 ; Munindra Kumar V/s. Rajiv Govil, (1993) 3 SCC 368. It was urged that if viva voce marks are to be kept within permissible limits vis-a-vis the written marks to reduce the chances of arbitrariness, selection on the basis of oral interview alone would only increase the chance of arbitrariness. Pointed reference was made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Anzar Ahmed (quoted above) the "by giving equal weightage to academic performance the Commission has rather reduced the possibility of arbitrariness". Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, appearing on behalf of the selected candidates, submitted that the rule providing for selection on the basis of oral interview with the assistance of the expert should be construed as enabling and not restricting the power of the Commission to make selection in the best possible manner in public interest. According to counsel enabling provisions are generally held to be directory and not mandatory, as held in Ajit Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 494 at p.498. Reference was also made to Montreal Stree Railway Co. According to counsel enabling provisions are generally held to be directory and not mandatory, as held in Ajit Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 494 at p.498. Reference was also made to Montreal Stree Railway Co. V/s. Nomandin, AIR 1917 Privy Council l52;stateof U. P. y. Manbotian Lal Shrivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 , and Raza Buland Sugar Co. V/s. Rampur Municipality, AIR 1965 sc 895 10. That the Commission has made deviation from the method of recruitment prescribed in the rule is not in dispute. The question for consideration is what is the effect of the deviation. Is it same or similar to the case of Anzar Ahmad or different In Anzar Ahmhds case there was executive instruction, which was deviated from "inaccordance with the practice". In the present case there is statutory rule which had been deviated from, again purportedly in accordance with the past practice. In the well-known case of Sant Ram Sharma V/s. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1910), the supreme Court had the occasion to consider the effect of administrative instruction where statutory rules have not been framed. At page 1914 of the report it was observed :- "it is true that there is specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officer to selection grade post. But that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade post. It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by executive instruction but if the rules are silent on any particular point the Government can fill up the gap and supplement the rules and issue instruction not inconsistent with the rules already framed. " There are decisions on the point that even administrative instructions are meant to be followed As the Apex Court has held where the rules have not been framed it is open to the Government to issue Administrative instructions. Thus, simply because there were no rules of recruitment for the post of Unani Medical Officer and the Government had by administrative instructions laid down the mode of recruitment it would make little difference because, in the ordinary course, even that instruction was required to be followed. Thus, simply because there were no rules of recruitment for the post of Unani Medical Officer and the Government had by administrative instructions laid down the mode of recruitment it would make little difference because, in the ordinary course, even that instruction was required to be followed. After all, it is the Government, the appointing authority, which has to decide the mode or method of the recruitment. If the Commission in its wisdom, purportedly in accordance with the past practice, also took into account the academic performance of the candidates and thereby deviated from the instructions and the same has been held to be permissible by the supreme Court, it would be difficult to make any distinction between the two cases and hold otherwise. In my view, so far as this point is concerned, the case is squarely covered by the decision in Anzar Ahmads case (supra ). 11. In this connection it would be worthwhile mentioning that 51 candidates in all were called for interview which was held from March 21 to 23, 1994, i e. on three days.17 candidates were thus interviewed every day. As is well known, the entire interview session is not devoted to asking textual questions. The candidates are usually asked general questions in the beginning to make them feel comfortable. Considering that 17 candidates were interviewed every day one can imagine that on an average, the Interview Board would not have devoted more than 15 minutes to each candidate. It is difficult to visualise how the merit of the candidate for the post of Fisheries Extension Officer, a post of technical nature, could be found within those 15 minutes or so. Where, thus, the selection is to be made for a post without any written test, and the Commission decides to also take into account the academic performance of the candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them at the various examinations for judging their inter s e merit, no arbitrariness can be attributed. If one has to go by the test of arbitrariness I have no doubt in my mind that taking into account also the academic performance of the candidate would reduce the possibility of arbitrariness while selection on the basis of oral interview alone would increase the possibility. If one has to go by the test of arbitrariness I have no doubt in my mind that taking into account also the academic performance of the candidate would reduce the possibility of arbitrariness while selection on the basis of oral interview alone would increase the possibility. If one has to choose between the two, surely it would be difficult to prefer a method of selection which would rather increase the possibility of arbitrariness than reduce it. I, accordingly, hold that the action of the Commission in making selection by taking into account also academic performance of the candidates was not arbitrary and does not vitiate the selection process. 12. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh also took the plea that inter se allocation of marks for the different examination was arbitrary. We have examined the records of the Commission which were produced during course of hearing. From the records it transpired that the two members of the Commission proposed the allocation of marks in the following manner, which was agreed by the other members including the Chairman by circulation t 1. Maximum of 10 marks for secondary examination.2. Maximum of 10 marks for Intermediate examination.3. (i) Maximum of 7 marks for Bachelors Examination (Pass course), (ii) Maximum of ten marks for Bachelors Examination (Honours ).4. Maximum of 70 marks for two years Diploma in Fisheries science. OR maximum of 80 marks forgthose who have not done B. Sc. with zoology but possess the B. Sc. Degree in Fisheries Science (B. F. Sc ). It may be mentioned here that rule 5 (viii) of Chapter IV of the Rules of Procedure, 1994 framed by the Commission provides that the mode of distribution of marks for academic achievements shall be decided by committee consisting of the Chairman and two members to be nominated by the Chairman and the decision of the committee shall be deemed to be the decision of the Commission. As noticed above, the members of the commission did not object to the proposal regarding the inter se allocation j or break up of marks (points) of the different examinations as suggested by two members. The procedure envisaged under rule 5 (viii) appears to have been more than complied. 13. According to Mr. As noticed above, the members of the commission did not object to the proposal regarding the inter se allocation j or break up of marks (points) of the different examinations as suggested by two members. The procedure envisaged under rule 5 (viii) appears to have been more than complied. 13. According to Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh inter se allocation of marks was arbitrary inasmuch as there was no rationale in allocating maximum of 70 marks (points) for two years Diploma in Fisheries Science and 80 marks (points) for Bachelors Degree in Fisheries Science. It was pointed out that for admission to the Diploma course the minimum qualification is B. Sc. Degree and, therefore, the above distinction and allocation of lower marks for the Diploma in Fisheries Science was not correct. 14. It is not in dispute that for admission to Bachelors course in fisheries Science (B. F. Sc.) the candidate need only be Intermediate (Science) pass but for admission to Diploma in Fisheries Science course, he must have B. Sc. degree with Zoology. As per the qualifications prescribed in column 7 of the Schedule of the Recruitment Rules, the candidate must possess B. Sc. (Zoology) Degree with 2 years Diploma in Fisheries Science or Bachelors Degree in Fisheries Science (B. F. Sc.) of a recognised University it would appear from the above allocation of marks (points) that the merit of the candidates who join the B. F. Sc. course after passing the intermediate Examination was to be judged on the basis of (i) maximum of ten points in the Secondary Examination, (ii) 10 points for Intermediate Examination and (iii) 80 points for the B. F. Sc. examination, in all 100 points. The merit of the candidate who possess the alternative qualification of diploma in Fisheries Science, on the other hand, was to be judged on the basis of. (i) maximum of 10 points for Matriculation Examination, (ii) 10 points for Intermediate Examination, (iii) 10 points for the B. Sc. (Hons.) Examination, and (iv) 70 points for two years Diploma in Fisheries science Examination, in all 100 points. Thus for both the sets of candidates possessing either the Diploma in Fisheries with B. Sc. (Zoology)or Bachelors (B. F. Sc.) Degree in Fisheries Science, which are alternative qualifications prescribed in the rules, their merit was to be judged on the basis of 100 points in all. Thus for both the sets of candidates possessing either the Diploma in Fisheries with B. Sc. (Zoology)or Bachelors (B. F. Sc.) Degree in Fisheries Science, which are alternative qualifications prescribed in the rules, their merit was to be judged on the basis of 100 points in all. A candidate might have done the Degree course in Fisheries Science (B. F. Sc.)after doing B. Sc. (Zoology) but in that case the B. Sc. Degree would be an additional qualification, nor required for admission to the B. F. Sc. course and, therefore, was not to be taken into account for judging his merit. It would, thus, appear that both the qualifications, namely, B. Sc. (Zoology) with two years diploma and Bachelors Degree in Fisheries Science (B F. Sc.)have been treated at par, and allocated maximum of 80 points and, therefore, it cannot be said that the inter se allocation of marks was arbitrary. It cannot also be said that non-allocation of marks separately for the B. Sc. (Zoology) Degree to the candidates possessing the alternative qualification of Bachelors degree in Fisheries Science (B. F. Sc.) has caused them any injustice. As stated above, B. Sc. (Zoology) Degree not being essential qualification for admission to the B. F. So course the same was rightly ignored for the purpose of allocation of points. It may be mentioned here that the candidates them-selves work out the persentage or points which they were entitled to as per the above inter se allocation of points and signed the sheet, which was checked and counter-signed by an officer of the Commission. In view of the facts stated above i do not find any substance in the grievance regarding inter se allocation of points as being arbitrary or causing injustice to the petitioners or giving undue weightage to any other candidate. 15. I shall now take up second ground of challenge. It is said that participation by Dr. Prem Shankar Prasad and Dr. Syed Nazar Hasan as experts contrary to the rules have vitiated the entire selection process As noticed above as per the Note appended to column 10 of the Schedule laying down the method of appointment, the Director of Fisheries or his nominee not below the rank of Joint Director is to Participate as expert in the interview it is said that Dr. Prem Shanker Prasad having superannuated from service on December 31, 1993 and thus, ceased to be Director of Fisheries with effect from January 1,1994, was not competent to participate as an expert. So far as Dr Syed Nazar Hasan is concerned he is said to be complete stranger to the recruitment process envisaged in the Rules 16. Before examining the merit of the contention, I may mention that m order to find out the exact role of the said two persons in the selection process we directed the counsel for the Commission to produce the records. It appears from the records of the Commission that the said two experts. alongwith the members of the Commission also gave marks to each candidate on the basis of their performance. All of them, however awarded common marks. Apparently they bad decided that they would arrive at some kind of consensus and then give the same marks. It also appears from the records that interview was held by the same board consisting of five members of the Commission and the two experts. Although the names of all the members (of the commission) were notified the other four did not participate. The final list was, however approved by the Commission as a whole by circulation. 17. The participation by Dr. Prem Shanker Prasad as an exert has been defended by the counsel for the State and the private respondents. It is said that on December 14 1993, a proposal was initiated for extension of his service which was approved by the Chief Minister on December 30 1993 Since as per the rules of the executive business the matter was to be laid before the Counsel of Ministers for final decision, the notification in regard to extension could not be issued. The Accountant-General, however, was informed that pending final decision in the matter Dr. Prem Shanker Prasad had been directed to continue on the post of Director, Fisheries, and to exercise its power. The notification in regard to extension of service for six months,i. e. upto jnne 30, 1994, was finally issued on April 26, 1904 Since the interview for the appointment of Fisheries Extension Officers was scheduled to be held during the said period i. e. from March 21 to 23, 1994, the State government nominated him as expert on March 9, 1994. As regards participation by Dr Syed Nazar Hasan, the Commission has asserted that he was invited to assist it in the selection process "in conformity with the past practice" to get the assistance of another expert if so required". On the question as to whether they could also give their own marks along with the members of the Commission, it was pointed out that as per the Note appended to Column 10 of the schedule (supra) the expert is also supposed to be member of the Interview Board. 18. What is the effect of participation by the said two experts on the selection process Normally, the job of the expert is to advise and assist the Interview Board in making selection/evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The note does state that "the Director of Fisheries or his nominee not below the rank, of Joint Director will be member as expert in the interview". But, in my opinion, in the facts of the case, the question as to where the expert could also give his own marks or not is purely academic common marks having been awarded to each candidate, even if the marks awarded by the said two experts are excluded or ignored the marks actually awarded to the candidates would remain the same Therefore, whether the role of the expert (s) was to be confined to merely assisting the commission or extended to giving his own marks is of littele consequence. No doubt, the presence of the expert or experts is bound to influence the marks actually awarded to the candidate whether he also given his own marks or not Therefore, the main question is as to the effect of participation by the said two persons as experts. 19. As regards the participation by Dr. Prem Shanker Prasad, counsel for the respondents, referred to the de facto doctrine Tt was also submitted that his competence to participate in the interview as Director of Fisheries cannot be decided collaterally. Strong reliance was placed on decision in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC, 1473. The point for consideration in that case was what is the effect of the declaration by the Supreme Court regarding the invalidity of appointment of an Additional Sessions Judge on judgment pronounced by him prior to such declaration. The judgment rendered by him was assailed as being void. The point for consideration in that case was what is the effect of the declaration by the Supreme Court regarding the invalidity of appointment of an Additional Sessions Judge on judgment pronounced by him prior to such declaration. The judgment rendered by him was assailed as being void. The plea was not accepted. Their Lordships quoted with approval the law laid down in the case of Pulin Beharl Das V/s. King-Emperor, (1912) 15 CLJ 517, in the words of the celebrated Ashutosh Mukherjee, J.- "the facts of the Officers de facto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding, as if they were the acts of the officers de jure. " After referring to a number of decisions on the point the Supreme Court held: "a Judge, de facto, therefore, is one who is not mere intruder or usurper but one who holds office, under colour of lawful authority, though his appointment is defective and may later be found to be defective. Whatever be the defect of his title to the office, judgments pronounced by him and acts done by him when he was clothed with the powers and functions of the office, albeit unlawfully, have the same efficacy as judgments pronounced and acts done by a Judge de jure Such is the de facto doctrine, born of necessity and public policy to prevent needless confusion and endless mischief There is yet another rule also based on public policy. The defective appointment of a de facto judge may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which he may be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a litigation between two private litigants, a litigation which is of no concern or consequence to the Judge, except as a Judge. " i am tempted to refer to the following observations made by Lord denning in Re James (An Insolvent), (1977) 2 WLR 1 : "he sits in the seat of a Judge. He wears the robes of a Judge. He holds office of a Judge. May be he was not validly appointed. But, still, he holds the office. It is the office that matters, not the incumbent. . . . . . He wears the robes of a Judge. He holds office of a Judge. May be he was not validly appointed. But, still, he holds the office. It is the office that matters, not the incumbent. . . . . . so long as the man holds the office and exercises it duly in accordance with law, his orders are not a nullity. " "where an office exists under the law, it matters not, how the appointment of incumbent is made, so far as the validity of his acts are concerned. It is enough that it is clothed with the insignia of the office and exercises it powers and functions. The official acts of such persons are recognised as valid on the ground of public policy and for the protection of those having official business to transact. " 20. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh placed reliance on Central Bank of India v. C. Bernard, (1991) 1 SCC 319 . In that case the Bank officer appointed shri U. B Menon as Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary authority retired from service during the pendency of the enquiry. He, however, not only continued to hold enquiry but also ultimately passed the order of punishment it was held that though an Enquiry officer need not be on officer of the bank and even a third party can be appointed as an Enquiry officer to enquire into the conduct of an employee but a non-official cannot act as disciplinary authority and pass an order of punishment against the delinquent employee. The Bank officer Shri U. B. Menon, after the retirement, therefore, was nobody in the hierarchy of authorities to impose punishment on the delinquent and the order of punishment of clearly incompetent and without jurisdiction. It was in that context that it was observed that the de facto doctrine does not come to the rescue of a intruder or usurper of a total stranger to the office Shri U. B. Menon who had passed the impugned orders was described as a mere Bank employee and not holder of an office it was observed that "the doctrine can have no application to the case of a person who is not the holder of an office but is merely a bank employee for that matter on ex-employee. " 21. The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable. " 21. The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable. Whereas in the other case the person whose authority was under challenge was found to be just an employee and not holder of an office, in the present case, dr Prem Shanker Prasad was bolder of the office of the Director. Further, whereas in the other case, it was noticed, there was nothing on the record to show that any formal decision had been taken by the Bank to continue the service of Shri U B Meron after his superannuation, in the instant case, as seen above, some kind of decision (though not final and binding)bad been taken, the Accountant-General had been informed and the person (Dr Prem Shanker Prasad) was, as a matter of fact, continuing on the post of Director. He cannot be said to be an intruder or usurper or a total stranger. It must be deemed to have been clothed with the power and authority of the post at least for the outside world. Surely, the candidates who are called for interview are not supposed to know or, in any view, question the authority of the person who sits on the Interview Board. They are supposed to answer the questions put by the Interviewer and not to question the authority of the Interviewer himself. In such a situation, it is not possible to hold, even it was permissible to do so collaterally, that participation by Dr. Prem Shanker Prasad has vitiated the selection process. That would cause prejudice and injustice to the candidates for no fault of theirs. 22. So far as the expertise for Dr. Prem Shanker Prasad is concerned, admittedly he was Director of Fisheries and but for his superannuation from service, in due course, he could have been competent to participate as expert in terms of Rule itself. As regards the question of expertise, the participation by Dr. Syed Nazar Hasan too cannot be said to have prejudiced the candidates. He is said to be Professor in Zoology haying sufficient knowledge of the subject. At the relevant time he was Pro-Vice Chancellor of Patna University. Therefore, his participation as expert also cannot be said to have vitiated the selection process. Syed Nazar Hasan too cannot be said to have prejudiced the candidates. He is said to be Professor in Zoology haying sufficient knowledge of the subject. At the relevant time he was Pro-Vice Chancellor of Patna University. Therefore, his participation as expert also cannot be said to have vitiated the selection process. As regards the evaluation of the merit of the candidates on the basis of their performance at the interview, as I have already said above, common marks having been awarded to each candidate. Even if the marks awarded by one or both the experts are excluded the marks would be same It is true that the presence of the expert, even his role is confined to assisting the Interview Board in the matter of evaluation of merit of the candidates, may affect the marking evaluation. No doubt, in terms of the rules it was not open to the Commission to have invited Dr. Syed Nazar Hasan to also participate in the interview. Nevertheless, the Commission has taken the stand that in the absence of any express rule to the contrary it has been a matter of practice to invite and get the assistance of another expert, if so required. In the case of Anzar Ahmad (supra) evaluation of merit on the basis of academic qualifications although contrary to the Government directive on the point was held to be permissible as being in consonance with the past practice. The commission, therefore, cannot be faulted on this account, particularly when there is nothing to show that the participation has materially and adversely affected the selection process It should be kept in mind that there is no allegation of bias or mala fide either against Dr. Syed Nazar hasan or, for that matter, Dr. Prem Shanker Prasad. 23. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh contended that where statute prescribes the mode of doing a thing, the thins should be done in that manner alone or not at all. It was contended that where the provisions of statute is violated the entire resultant action must be held to be illegal and nothing else is required to be seen strong reliance in this connection was placed on P. K. Ramchandran Iyer and others v Union of India and others, AIR 1984 sc 541 . It was contended that where the provisions of statute is violated the entire resultant action must be held to be illegal and nothing else is required to be seen strong reliance in this connection was placed on P. K. Ramchandran Iyer and others v Union of India and others, AIR 1984 sc 541 . The facts of that case where entirely different According to the rules of recruitment, the merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates at the written test plus viva-voce test. The Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board (ASRB), however, prescribed a minimum qualifying marks of 40 for the viva-voce test. It was found to have materially affected the merit list inasmuch as, in the words of their Lordships : "once an additional qualification of obtaining minimum marks at the vive-voce test is adhered to a candidate who may figure high-up in the merit list was likely to be rejected on the ground that he has not obtained the minimum qualifying marks at the viva-voce test. " 24. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the petitioners on V. T khamzode V/s. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1982 SC 917 . Sec.58 (1) of the reserve Bank of India Act provides for framing of the Staff Regulations regarding the service conditions of the staff by the Central Board. It was held that the section is in the nature of enabling provisions under which the Central Board may make regulation in order to provide for all matters for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. It does not preclude the Board from regularising the service conditions of the bask staff by issuing administrative instructions. The decision, in my view, rather supports the contention raised on behalf of the private respondents regarding the nature and effect of enabling provisions. 25. As stated at the outset of the judgment, the Manoranjan Kumar has been questioned, in particular, on the ground of lack of the prescribed qualification. The facts necessary for adjudication of the point are these. The education qualification for appointment of direct recruitment of the Fisheries Extension Officer has been prescribed in the rules as:.-B. Sc. Zoology with certificate of two years of Diploma in Fisheries science Course from Central Institute of Fisheries Education bombay or bachelor in Fisheries Science (B. F. Sc ) from any recognised University. The education qualification for appointment of direct recruitment of the Fisheries Extension Officer has been prescribed in the rules as:.-B. Sc. Zoology with certificate of two years of Diploma in Fisheries science Course from Central Institute of Fisheries Education bombay or bachelor in Fisheries Science (B. F. Sc ) from any recognised University. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit of the commission that the said two respondents and a few others bad represented to the Chairman regerding their eligibility for appointment on the basis of their qualification, namely, masters Degree in Inland Fisheries Administration and Management from central Institute of Fisheries Fducation, Bombay. The matter was considered by the commission with the advice of of the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, government of Bihar, and the Director of Fisheries on January 6, 1994 and it was decided that such condidates, who have obtained Masters Degree in indian Fisheries Administration and Management from the Central Institute of Fisheries, Bombay, and have also B. Sc , in Zoology are eligible for recruitment. Our attention was also drawn to the certificate granted by the joint Director of the Central Institute of Fisheries Education dated September 19, 1994, marked Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit of the private respondent in CWJC 6624 of 1994. It would be useful to refer to the contents of the said certificate as hereunder : - "it is certified that the M. Sc. (Fisheries Management) and M. Sc. (Inland Fisheries Adminisration and Management) conducted by this Institute are degrees awarded by the Deemed University of CIFE established under Sec.3 of the UCC Act, 1956 these degrees have been recognised by the Government of India for the purpose of recruitment to post and service under Central government and they are equivalent to B F. Sc. offered by this institute which is also recognised by the Ministry of Education vide O M No.1817/62-T S. dated 14 12 65 for the purpose of recruitment under Central Government as an alternative qualification to m. Sc Degree in Biological Science. " (Italicised by me)In view of the certificate granted by the Central Institute of Fisheries institution (CIFE) itself regarding equivalence of the qualification of M. Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management), a qualification possessed by the said respondents, there is little room for doubt as regards their eligibility for their recruitment. " (Italicised by me)In view of the certificate granted by the Central Institute of Fisheries institution (CIFE) itself regarding equivalence of the qualification of M. Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management), a qualification possessed by the said respondents, there is little room for doubt as regards their eligibility for their recruitment. 26 The private respondents have brought on record the syllabi of the two courses, namely, M. Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and management) and the Diploma Course in Fisheries Science of CIFE Bombay to show that the subject taught in two courses are overlapping and, therefore, the decision of the Commission regarding equivalence of the two degress cannot be said to be erroneous. In this connection reference was made to the following observations in the case of Uuiversity of Mysore V. C. D. Govind Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 at pages 496 :- "we are unable to see the point of criticism of the High Court in such academic matters. Boards of appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them, are challenged before this Court, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the course to leave the decision matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. I, accordingly, hold that respondents Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Manoj Kumar do not lack in the basic qualification prescribed for direct recruitment on post and, therefore, their selection is not bad or illegal. 27 In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions which are, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Writ Petition Dismissed.