Judgment :- Heard counsel on both sides. 2. 274 vacancies of Primary Department Teachers were reported to the Divisional Employment Exchange, Kozhikode with the intention of riling up of the vacancies by the time of reopening of schools. Accordingly, the Divisional Employment Exchange has furnished a list consisting of 1333 candidates including the petitioners. All the candidates advised by the employment exchange are qualified to hold the post of P. D. Teachers like the petitioners in the original petition. Since the number of candidates advised by the employment exchange was in excess, to the reported vacancies, an interview was conducted for selection of the candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview. The candidates who had performed well in the interview were selected and posted in the existing vacancies. Though the petitioners are qualified to hold the post of P. D. Teachers, they were not selected as their performance in the interview was not satisfactory. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved-by the selection process adopted in this case. According to the petitioners, the procedure adopted for selection which is based solely on the performance of the candidates in the interview will not be fair. This submission is well-founded. A selection made solely on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the interview smacks of arbitrariness and whimsicality and will not inspire confidence and would give rise to complaints of manipulation behind the curtain maneuvers and nepotism. The selection process should not only be fair, but should also appear to be fair. The very sanctity of the selection process gets blurred and vitiated by adopting the marks scored in the interview as the sole determining factor in the process of selection. In this connection, ithas to be noted that calling large number of candidates who have just grazed through by obtaining the minimum marks in the qualifying examination and interviewing them in bulk in all posthaste has to be avoided in order to dispel any possible misconceptions lurking in the minds of the candidates not selected. The number of candidates to be called for interview should be based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and that shall not exceed twice or at the highest thrice the number of vacancies to be filled up r id that the marks allocated for the vi va-voce test shall not exceed 15% - 25% of the total marks. The number of candidates to be called for interview should be based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and that shall not exceed twice or at the highest thrice the number of vacancies to be filled up r id that the marks allocated for the vi va-voce test shall not exceed 15% - 25% of the total marks. (See in this connection the decision reported in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana - AIR 1987 SC 454) wherein a Bench of the Court consisting of four judges has deprecated the practice of adopting the marks obtained in the viva-voce as the determining factor in making selection. 4. Viewed in the above perspective, I am of the view that the selection process adopted in the instant case is unfair, unjust and is vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness. However, since the selection process is already over and the selected candidates have already joined duty, and any interference by this court at this stage will create administrative stalemate, I do not propose to set aside the selection already made, but would direct the authorities concerned to abide by the observations contained in this judgment in future selections. With the above observations, the original petition is closed. Forward a copy of this judgment to the respondents and the Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission forthwith. \