ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. -- 1. Labour Court Bar Association, through its President and another practising advocate have preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India terming it as public interest litigation. They have challenged an advertisement by which Presiding Officer were to be appointed to the Labour Courts to be constituted under Section 8 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. This advertisement was issued on 29.9.1992. The petitioners submit that the advertisement is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, merits to be quashed. 2. The facts in brief are as under: -(1) The advertisement under challenge was published in two newspapers namely Rojgar and Nirman of 8th of October, 1992. A copy of this advertisement has been placed on the record as Annexure P/1. According to the advertisement, application were to be submitted by 15th of October, 1992. A further notice was published by the Chairman, Selection Committee wherein it was mentioned that all those candidates who have submitted their applications in pursuance of the advertisement Annex. P/1 may appear in the written test. This test was to be held on 7th of February, 1993 at four places in the State of Madhya Pradesh. These places are Raipur, Jabalpur, Bhopal and Indore. It was indicated that after the written test, there would be a via voce and this oral test would be between different dates commencing from 8th of February, 1993 to 21st of February, 1993. (2) The selection committee consisted of an Hon'ble Judge of this Court as Chairman (ii) Member Board of Revenue and (iii) President, Industrial Court. 3. In the written test, there were compulsory and optional subjects. Candidates were required to answer questions from different statutory enactments. There were three enactments out of which questions were to be answered compulsorily. These were Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974. Candidates were to answer at least one question from the above statutory enactment. The candidates were given the option to answer two questions from any of the enactments namely Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Contract Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860, M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The petitioner No.2 further states that he received an intimation asking him to take part in the process of written test. The candidates were given the option to answer two questions from any of the enactments namely Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Contract Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860, M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The petitioner No.2 further states that he received an intimation asking him to take part in the process of written test. This has been appended as Annex. P/3. When this communication was received by him, instead of taking part in the process of written test, he approached this Court The petition came up for motion hearing before this Court on 3rd of February, 1993. None was present. It was adjourned for the next day. On the next date, i.e., 4th of February, 1993, the Court permitted the authorities to proceed with the written-test, but directed that oral interviews may not be held. It was ordered that the result of the written test shall be subject to the final decision of the petition, preferred by the petitioner. 5. The challenge to the advertisement is based on the following grounds: -(i) that the respondent No.3, i.e., the President Industrial Court, Indore who is going to be one of the members of the selection committee, has been appointed with the sole purpose to see that in the process of selection, candidates belonging to a particular political party are given preference. The fact that he was 57 years of age at the time of his appointment has been highlighted. (ii) that the syllabus which has been prescribed would fail to achieve the ultimate object as the two enactments which are relevant for the purpose of industrial litigation have been made optional. According to the petitioner, enactments dealing with industrial law should have been made compulsorily answerable by the candidates. (iii) that no centre for written-test has been set up at Gwalior. 6. The grievance of the petitioners that respondent No. 3 is likely to influence the selection no longer survives. Respondent No.3 is no longer holding the post of president, Industrial Court, Indore. Again, argument were not addressed on point No. (iii) and as such has not been adverted to by us. 7. The solitary argument is with regard to criterion which has been adopted in the matter of laying down the syllabus for the written test. It was suggested that there is some element of arbitrariness in this regard. Again, argument were not addressed on point No. (iii) and as such has not been adverted to by us. 7. The solitary argument is with regard to criterion which has been adopted in the matter of laying down the syllabus for the written test. It was suggested that there is some element of arbitrariness in this regard. The effort was to bring the case within the scope of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. The question as to what should be the syllabus for a test, written or oral, for selection to a public office is primarily left to the authority who is to make the selection. This criterion is subjected to judicial review in rare cases and this case does not fall in that category. 9. The purpose of a written test was indicated in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 1777 . The United Nations Hand Book on Civil Services Laws and Practice was quoted. This quotation is as under: - "........ the written papers permit an assessment of culture and intellectual competence. The interview permits an assessment of qualities of character which written papers ignore: it attempts to assess the man himself and not his intellectual abilities." It was, thus, observed ''the written examination assesses the man's intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twin shall meet" for a proper selection." This test is duly fulfilled in this case. The candidates' intellect can be judged from the answer given to questions from the Code of Criminal Procedure and other compulsory papers as in the question which are answered, the language used and ability to express would remain the same. The candidates "intellect" could very well be assessed from the answers in the written test. The personality of the candidates was to be judged by the Selection Committee which was to be presided over by an Hon'ble Judge of this Court. The ability of the candidate to react to various questions put to him in oral test would have projected the "man" as contemplated in Lila Dhar'scase (supra). The Selection Committee consisted of an Hon'ble Judge of this Court as chairman. Even if a candidate skips over question pertaining to Industrial laws, in the written test, he may not be that lucky in the oral test. The Selection Committee consisted of an Hon'ble Judge of this Court as chairman. Even if a candidate skips over question pertaining to Industrial laws, in the written test, he may not be that lucky in the oral test. Thus, the argument that papers dealing with Industrial laws were made optional is without merit. 10. Apart from this, as noticed above, the criterion fixed by the selection Committee does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even on the anvil of equality clause nothing can be said against the criterion adopted by the Selection Committee. Reference be made to. a decision given by the Bombay High Court in Dr. (Miss.) Suraina Subhash Rane v. University of Bombay and others, AIR 1991 Born. 240. The examination in question was M.D. Pathology. The grievance made was that Pathology was a non-clinical specialty and a specialist in this field is not brought into contact with patients. It was pleaded that entire work was carried in laboratories. It was argued that the testing in orals has no bearing on the field of operations in which the candidate seeks to specialise. The Court refused to interfere and chose to abide by the wisdom of experts. It was observed : - "Inclusion or exclusion of a particular head or sub-head in an examination is an aspect of academic appraisal. What marks to award to each head or sub-head, is again a question which the University authorities are best qualified to decide. The Courts do not have the qualifications to rule upon the advisability or otherwise of these features. But, and this is of equal importance, the subjects chosen and the marks awardable should have a nexus to the assessment of the professed proficiency." 11. In another case from Uttar Pradesh, optinal use of Hindi as medium to answer General English was withdrawn. This matter was agitated in the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of the Court in Ajay Kumar v. Union of India and others 1980 Lab. I.C. NOC 84, came to the conclusion that this action of withdrawal is not violative of Articles 14, 16 or 351 of the Constitution of India. This matter was agitated in the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of the Court in Ajay Kumar v. Union of India and others 1980 Lab. I.C. NOC 84, came to the conclusion that this action of withdrawal is not violative of Articles 14, 16 or 351 of the Constitution of India. The short note as appearing in the report referred to above is to the following effect: - "Where a Government Department found that in Departmental Examination the optional use of Hindi as a medium to answer the General English Paper was not yielding satisfactory result and therefore, it decided to continue English as a medium for answering that paper, this policy decision did not contravene either Arts. 351, 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Proficiency in any language other than Hindi if needed for efficient discharge of official business would not offend against the directive principle contained in Article 351 or the same could not be questioned as infringing any right vesting in any citizen. Further, in the absence of any distinction being made between one candidate and another candidate appearing for the General English Paper, there could be no discrimination so as to invoke Articles 14 and 16." 12. As a matter of fact, judicial review in these matters has to be minimum What was said by the Supreme Court in Asif Hameed v. State of J. & K., AIR 1989 SC 1899 is instructive. Justice Kuldip Singh speaking for the Court observed :-- . "When a State action is challenged, the function of the Court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the Court must strike-down the action.' , It was further observed : - "While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power." 13. Coming to the present case, we have gone through the syllabus, which has been prescribed. Coming to the present case, we have gone through the syllabus, which has been prescribed. The argument that the two Acts which relate to industrial law have been made optional and that it would not be possible to judge the merit of a candidate cannot be sustained. May be in the written test a candidate may skip over a question dealing with industrial law, but in the oral test, it is open to the selection committee to ask all relevant questions, and, therefore, the argument that the syllabus has not been properly laid down cannot be sustained. 14. It is thus clear that the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution has to be on limited issues and the matter like setting up of syllabus and as to who should be the member of the Selection Committee is a matter which basically fall within the domain of the selecting authorities, and this Court will not interfere with the same. It is only where there is arbitrariness in State action, Article 14 springs in and judicial review strikes such an action down. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to how the State action is arbitrary. In this view of the matter, the petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.