Manju Jha v. State Of Bihar — 1995 DIGILAW 495 (PAT)

Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. The dispute in this batch of writ petition relates to appointments of Headmistresses in nationalised Schools of the State. 2. The Bihar Non-Government secondary Schools (Taking Over management and Control) Act, 1981 (in short the Act), under which the schools in question have been nationalised, provides for a Vidyalaya seva Board (hereinafter called the Board), which is to make recommendations to the Director (Secondary education) for appointment and promotion of Assistant teachers and headmasters. The Bihar Nationalised secondary Schools (Conditions of service) Rules, 1983 (in short the Rules), framed under the said Act provides for appointment of Headmasters by bath direct recruitment and promotion. As per Rule 780% vacancies on the posts of Headmaster are to be filled by promotion while the rest 20% by direct recruitment. The impugned appointments have been made by direct recruitment on the basis of advertisement and selection by the Board. According to the rules, the vacancies in the quota of direct recruits are to be communicated to the Director (Secondary education); the Director after receipt of the information regarding vacancies has to send requisition to the board and after receipt of the recommendation from the Board the appointments are to be made by the state Government or the prescribed authority. 3. From the materials brought on records it appears that an advertisement was made in 1986, vide Advertisement No.1/86, for direct recruitment of Headmasters for which both the male and female teachers were eligible to apply. On 20.2.88 the Board was asked to prepare and send panel of candidates for appointments of headmasters/headmistresses in the Project schools established under the sixth and the seventh five year plans numbering 450 schools including 358 Girls High Schools and 92 Boys High Schools. On 23.7.88 the Board sent two separate panels of male and female candidates. The names of 225 female candidates were sent in the female panel. From the counter-affidavit filed in C. WJ. C. No.10660 of 1995 (page 83 of the brief)it appears that 184 male teachers and 225 female teachers were appointed as Headmasters/headmistresses from the said two panels. On 29.8.88 the Director asked for 250 more names of female candidates against 177 posts of Headmistress which included the left-over 133 project schools (out of 358 with respect to which requisition had been sent earlier on 20.2.88) plus 44 more project schools. On 29.8.88 the Director asked for 250 more names of female candidates against 177 posts of Headmistress which included the left-over 133 project schools (out of 358 with respect to which requisition had been sent earlier on 20.2.88) plus 44 more project schools. An advertisement was, accordingly, made vide Advt. No.1/89. Although as per letter dated 29.8.88 the appointments were to be made in Project schools alone, in the advertisement both the project and nationalised schools were mentioned. It may be stated here that the expression nationalised schools means and includes schools which have been taken over by the State government under the provisions of the said Act, while the expression project schools refers to such schools which were established by the state Government under a policy decision to establish Girls High schools in each block of the State. Another feature of the said advertisement was that unlike the previous advertisement, i. e. Advt. No.1/86, only female candidates were made eligible for appointments and the posts were described as those of headmistresses and not by its generic name headmaster. Pursuant to the advertisement the Board prepared a panel which was later cancelled by the Government by its letter No.102 dated 20.2.91 on the ground of irregularities in the matter of selection. The Board was directed to prepare a fresh panel. In terms of the said letter dated 20.2.91 what the board was required to do was to prepare a fresh panel of candidates who had already participated in the selection but it appears that a fresh advertisement was made bearing advt. No.3/91. The impugned appointments have been made pursuant to this advertisement. 4. Advt. No.3/91 which was published in the newspapers on or about 9.12.91, like Advt. No.1/89, was with respect to the posts of headmistresses alone for which only female candidates were made eligible to apply. The advertisement did not mention the number of vacancies but mentioned the fact that the appointments were proposed to be made both in nationalised schools as well as project schools. It also mentioned that the candidates must have seven years teaching experience after graduation of a school run by the state Government or the Board recognised by the Central or the state Government. The candidates were required to submit the necessary experience certificate granted by the District Education Officer concerned. The last date of submission of application forms was mentioned as 25.1.92. The candidates were required to submit the necessary experience certificate granted by the District Education Officer concerned. The last date of submission of application forms was mentioned as 25.1.92. The candidates, who were eligible on 23.2.89, i. e. the last date of submission of the application pursuant to Advt. No.1/89 but did not apply were also permitted to apply. Those who had already applied pursuant to the said advertisement were exempted from payment of fees. They were, however, required to file the necessary proof of their having submitted the applications. 5. According to the selection criteria merit list of the candidates was to be prepared on the basis of the academic performance which includes teaching experience, and the interview. The academic performance etc. were allocated 70 marks while the interview accounts for the rest 30 marks. I shall refer to this aspect of the matter later in this judgment. At this stage it may only be stated that the Board compiled the merit list of the candidates on the basis of their academic performance etc. and called them for interview. The interview was held on 9.8.93, 12.8.93, 13.8.93, 16.8.93 and 17.8.93, i. e. for five days. A panel of 122 candidates was sent by the Board on 2.12.93. On 14.11.94 the Director informed the Board that the panel was not in accordance with the Reservation Rules. He requested the Board to send the panel as per the roster which was sent along with the letter. The number of vacancies was mentioned as 149. On 19.11.94 the Board sent the re-cast panel as per reservation roster in the light of letter dated 14.11.94. 6. Several complaints were made at the Government level as well as at level of the Lokayukta regarding the irregularities in the matter of selection. There was agitation and counter agitation by the non-selected and the selected candidates. The director also expressed reservations as to the manner in which the panel had been prepared. The Minister Incharge, however, overruled the objection and directed the appointments of 103 candidates out of 122. Appointment letters were accordingly issued in their favour on 29.11.94. C. W. J. C. No.9405 of 1994 had been filed in the meantime on 25.10.94 in which an interim order was passed on 2.11.94 that any application made on the basis of the impugned recommendation shall be subject to the final result of the application. Appointment letters were accordingly issued in their favour on 29.11.94. C. W. J. C. No.9405 of 1994 had been filed in the meantime on 25.10.94 in which an interim order was passed on 2.11.94 that any application made on the basis of the impugned recommendation shall be subject to the final result of the application. Appointments in the circumstances have been made conditional, depending on the result of the writ petition, c. W. J. C. No.9405/94, and this fact has been mentioned in the appointment letter. A further interim order was passed on 14.2.95 that continuance of the appointees on the posts of Headmistresses will not confer upon them any additional right. Similar interim orders have been passed in other cases also. In some writ petitions some of the appointees have been impleaded as respondents in representative capacity. Some others have appeared suo mom and filed intervention petitions. They have filed affidavits. The State and the Vidyalaya Seva Board have also filed their affidavits. Having regard to the urgency and significance of the matter, the cases were heard at length on number of days at the stage of admission itself with a clear understanding and consent of the parties that they should be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 7. On behalf of the petitioners it has been urged that the rules do not make distinction between headmasters and Headmistresses and their cadre being One, the advertisement and the selection could not be confined to the posts of Headmistresses alone making the female teachers alone elegible which not only violates the rules but also the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution; that the direct recruitment in excess of 20% of the vacancies is not permissible and, thus, having regard to the number of available vacancies in the posts of headmaster/headmistress, the impugned appointment of 103 Headmistress by process of direct recruitment is bad; that the cadre and service conditions of headmasters/headmistresses in the project schools and nationalised schools being different, common advertisement and selection which was a camouflage, the real purpose being to make appointments in the nationalised schools having better service conditions, was not permissible; and that in view of the large scale irregularities/bunglings committed in the matter of preparation of merit list the impugned selection must be struck down. It has been suggested that the bunglings were committed and the irregularities were ignored despite objection by the departmental authorities as the Minister Incharge Sri Ramchandra Purve was vitally interested in the appointment of his wife Smt. Ranjana kumar, respondent No.8 in C. W. J. C. No.9405/94, who had already been appointed as headmistress in 1988 in the Project Girls High School, bhutahi, Sitamarhi (presently posted at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Uchcha vidyalaya, Khagaul, Patna, a nationalised school, on deputation which itself was illegal), so as to regularise her appointment and posting in a nationalised school. 8. In view of the allegations of bunglings suggesting that ineligible candidates i. e. those who did not possess the necessary qualifications, particularly teaching experience or were not within the prescribed age limits, had been permitted to apply and participate in the selection, and order was passed in C. W. J. C. No.9405 of 1994 on 28.11.94 directing the Board to submit the chart giving details of the candidates regarding their dates of birth, academic qualifications, teaching experience. Pursuant to the above direction which was reiterated on subsequent dates, the Board has filed certain documents, which will be referred to hereinafter. 9. It is an admitted position that not only in terms of the advertisement but also in terms of the rules, the female candidates and scheduled castes/scheduled tribes candidates must possess a minimum of seven years, teaching experience, after graduation, of school either run by the Government or recognised by the then Secondary Education Board or the Central or the State Government, as a condition of eligibility. According to the petitioners, the period of 7 years should be reckoned with reference to 1.1.91, the date mentioned in the advertisement for the purpose of determining the upper age limit of the candidates. According to the respondents, however, 1.1.91 has been fixed as the cut-off date only for the purpose of upper age limit and not for any other purpose. They have urged that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the absence of any rule or the term of the advertisement suggesting to the contrary, the eligibility has to be reckoned with reference to the last date of the submission of the application and, therefore, the requisite teaching experience of 7 years has to be calculated or determined with reference to that date which in the instant case was 25.1.92. I find force in the plea of the respondents. This, however, unfortunately, is not the end of the matter. 10. I have stated above that pursuant to the orders passed in c. W. J. C. No.9405 of 1994 the Board has filed documents to show the eligibility of the candidates. The point for consideration is whether the selected candidates did possess the seven years, teaching experience of recognised schools as on 25.1.92. There is no specific statement in any of the four affidavits filed on behalf of the Board to that effect. In fact, mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain, who appeared for the Board, at the fag end of hearing very fairly stated that the teaching experience as upto the date of interview was taken into account. As noticed above, the interview had taken place in the month of March 1993, i. e. after over one year of the submission of the applications. The action of the Board is, thus, contrary to the stand taken on its behalf and other respondents that the qualifications including teaching experience, etc. should be reckoned with reference to the last date of submission of the application. It is also contrary to the law laid down by the Courts. I would refer to two decisions of the supreme Court in this connection. 11. In the case of U. P Public service Commission V/s. Alpana, 1994 (2) SCC 723 an advertisement had been issued inviting applications for a competitive examiantion for appointment to the post of Munsif. The last date for receipt of the applications was 20.8.88. The advertisement mentioned that the candidates must possess the degree of LLB on the last date of receipt of the applications. It also mentioned that attested copy of the Degree must also be attached to the applications. Alpana, the candidate concerned, submitted an application stating that she had appeared in the LLB. examination and was awaiting result. The result was declared later. In the meantime she was allowed to appear in the written examination held in may 1990. Although, she passed the written examination she was not called for interview on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility condition. regarding educational qualifications. The High Court directed the Commission to declare her result and also passed orders for creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate her. Although, she passed the written examination she was not called for interview on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility condition. regarding educational qualifications. The High Court directed the Commission to declare her result and also passed orders for creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate her. On appeal by the commission the Supreme Court held that on plain reading of the advertisement it was obvious that the candidates were required to possess the degree of LL. B. On the last date fixed for receipt of applications, as they were required to enclose an attested copy of the degree. A candidate, who had not passed the examination before that date would obviously not be in a position to comply with the requirements. The supreme Court disapproved the action of the High Court in permitting the candidate to appear at the interview in these words: "we find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of the High court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit list may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. " The declaration of law was more unequivocal in the case of Rekha chaturvedi V/s. University of Rajasthan and ors,.1993 AIR SCW 1488 as hereunder : "the contention that the required qualificarions of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariable uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. The date of selection is invariable uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notfication inviting applications with references to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. " 12. In this manner, some of the candidates who were not eligible to apply were not only allowed to participate and allowed points for teaching experience but have also been finally selected. If the irregularity was confined to only such candidates, selection of others could not be said to be vitiated. I am conscious of the fact that many of such candidates are not parties to the present proceeding and, therefore, it will not be correct to hold them ineligible in their absence, unless, of course, the selection process itself is found to be faulty or arbitrary and unjust. I would, however, like to observe in this connection that from the Evaluation Chart annexure K/7, it does not appear that the schools in respect of which teaching experience was claimed and allowed, are recognised schools. So far as the Board is concerned, admittedly, no attempt was made to verify the authenticity and correctness of the certificates granted by the Headmasters of the school. So far as the Board is concerned, admittedly, no attempt was made to verify the authenticity and correctness of the certificates granted by the Headmasters of the school. It is the clear stand of the Board that it has no agency of its own for making verification and, therefore, it was left to the Government to do the needful. There is nothing to show that any such verification was made at the government/directorate level before making the appointments. 13. I have indicated above that according to the selection criteria, 70 marks have been allocated for the academic qualifications, experience etc. and 30 marks have been allocated for the interview. At this stage itself I would like to mention that allocation of 30 marks for the interview has been upheld by this Court in the case of Jai Prakash Sah V/s. State of Bihar (1982 PLJR 325 ). I have been given to understand that the Board has been following the said practice of evaluating the merit of the candidates on the basis of 70 marks for the academic qualifications etc. and 30 marks for the interview. Although a feeble attempt was made on behalf of some of the petitioners to find fault with the so-called excessive allocation of marks for interview which according to them and the potential of making the selection process vulnerable to arbitrariness, in view of the above-mentioned judgment of this Court and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anzar Ahmad V/s. State of bihar, 1995 (1) SCC 150 , I do not find any substance in the plea. 14. From the Evaluation criteria, Annexure-E/7, it appears that points/marks were allotted for each examination, from matriculation to post-graduate, on the basis of division/class and the marks secured by them in the concerned examination. Points were also allowed for the training qualification and departmental examination. They have been mentioned as item nos.1 to 9 in annexure E/7. Teaching experience and experience as U. C. C. officer figure at Hem Nos.10 and 11, respectively. Points were also allowed for the training qualification and departmental examination. They have been mentioned as item nos.1 to 9 in annexure E/7. Teaching experience and experience as U. C. C. officer figure at Hem Nos.10 and 11, respectively. So far as teaching experience is concerned, the candidates were to be allowed one point with respect to every one and a half years of teaching experience as Assistant teacher after completion of 7 years, teaching experience (which is the condition of eligibility) and, further, one point for each year of completed service as founder headmaster or incharge headmaster after 7 years teaching, subject to maximum of 6 points. 15. It would, thus, appear that so far as awarding points for the different qualifications as mentioned in annexure-E/7 is concerned, this is more or less a ministerial job which can be done and, in fact, appears to have been done by the office staff. What is required to be done as per annexure-E/7 is to find out the qualification from the documents enclosed by the candidates concerned and after verification, award points as per the laid down criteria. For example, if the candidates had passed the matriculation examination in first Division he or she will get 7 points but if he and passed the examination in second Division he will get only 5 points. If the concerned functionaries of the Board deviate from the above criteria, for extraneous considerations for or otherwise, that will be a different matter altogether. What I want to emphasise is that for the purpose of awarding points or marks there is no scope for any discretion; whether the work is done by ministerial staff or member of the Board, it would make no difference. What really is to be done is calculation and not assessment. 16. Thus, so far as the evaluation or determiantion of the merit of the candidates with respect to his/her academic qualification, teaching experience, etc. is concerned, all that has to be done is to calculate the points as per the laid down criteria and prepare the chart which would account for 70 out of total of 100 marks. Then comes the stage of interview. 17. is concerned, all that has to be done is to calculate the points as per the laid down criteria and prepare the chart which would account for 70 out of total of 100 marks. Then comes the stage of interview. 17. In view of the allegations of malafide, irregularities and bunglings in preparation of the merit list the court called upon the Board to produce the entire records with respect to the qualifications and the interview of each candidate. Pursuant to the said direction the Board has filed Annexure-K/7. The document runs into 171 pages. Although it has been described as one document as annexure-K/7, it really is in two parts. The first part (pages 301 to 436 of the brief) is the chart in the proforma entitled mulyankan Talika or evaluation chart, showing the points/marks awarded to the candidates under various heads of academic qualifications and experience, etc. this chart does not show the marks awarded to the candidate for the interview, although column No.7 is meant for interview marks. It appears to have been prepared by the office. It does not bear any signature at the foot of the different page or even on the last page except at the place of cutting and overwriting. I have said this without intending to pass any remark, for, as stated above, calculation of marks/points is a mere ministerial job. The second part of annexure-K/7 starts from page 437 and goes upto page 471. This part of annexure-K/7 appears to be the fair copy of the list prepared in the same very proforma called mulyankan talika. It contains the particulars of the marks/points awarded to the candidates not only with respect to the academic qualifications, experience etc. (which tally with the first part of annexure-K/7 aforesaid) but also the marks awarded to the candidates at the interview. I asked Mr. Shashi anugrah Narain more than once to produce the original document prepared at the stage of interview which could show how and in what manner the interview marks were awarded. The interview marks, no doubt, have been mentioned in column No.7 of the second part of annexure-K/7 but that is obviously the fair final chart. It appears inconceivable to me that after preparing the merit list in respect of the academic qualifications and experience etc. The interview marks, no doubt, have been mentioned in column No.7 of the second part of annexure-K/7 but that is obviously the fair final chart. It appears inconceivable to me that after preparing the merit list in respect of the academic qualifications and experience etc. , vide the first part of annexure-K/7, and making a fair copy thereof, vide the second part of annexure-K/7, the office would have put up the same before the Interview board and the members of the board would just fill in the final marks therein in column No.7 without there being other document concerning the interview marks. It is significant to note that the writing is the same in all the columms. In other words, the person who wrote the figures (of marks) for the academic qualifications, etc. in column Nos.3 to 6, and the names of the candidates in column 2, also wrote the interview marks in column no.7. I wanted to know as to how the Board, a multi-member body, evaluated the performance of the candidates in the interview-whether by arriving at a consensus and giving a common marks or they followed the rule of average marking, in which event every member would have given his own marks and then the average would have been worked out. Counsel for the Board could not give any satisfactory reply. Being convicted, as the very look at the second part of Annexure-K/7 indicates beyond doubt, that the document is the final fair chart compiled on the basis of the evaluation sheets I directed the Boards counsel to produce the original papers with respect to the interview marks pointing out that just as the first part of annexure-K/7 contains the original calculation of marks with respect to the academic qualification and experience, etc. , which have been copied down and compiled in the second part of the document, the original evaluation sheets with respect to the interview marks as well must have been prepared which should be available in the office. Mr. Narain categorically stated that except Annexures D/7 and K/7 there was no other record available. It may be mentioned that Annexure-D/7 is the final typed copy containing the names of 122 recommended candidates showing their academic qualifications, date of appointment, age, category of reservation, if any, in order of merit. Mr. Narain categorically stated that except Annexures D/7 and K/7 there was no other record available. It may be mentioned that Annexure-D/7 is the final typed copy containing the names of 122 recommended candidates showing their academic qualifications, date of appointment, age, category of reservation, if any, in order of merit. It does not indicate the marks awarded to them either with respect to the academic qualification, experience or the interview. This Annexure-D/7 is the final list of the recommended candidates which was sent to the Director. The document does not throw any light on the point whatsoever. In my opinion, in view of the allegation of bunglings it was incumbent upon the board to come out with full details. In the circumstances mentioned above, I am satisfied that the Board has suppressed the original interview sheets. If the interview sheets were not prepared, the position will be still worse. Even at the cost of repetition I would again say that the second part of Annexure-K/7 is nothing but the final fair chart prepared by the office and signed by the members of the Board. 18. I have already stated above that so far as preparation of merit list with respect to academic qualification and experience is concerned, it is more or less a ministerial act and it does not leave any room for discretion unless, of course, there is a deliberate attempt to maintain manipulate things. What really matters-and where discretion comes into a play-is the stage of interview. If a candidate is to be shown favour, he can be very conveniently awarded higher marks. 19. I have indicated above that the interview was held on five days between 9.8.93 and 17.8.93. From the first part of Annexure K/7 it appears that 100 candidates each were selected for interview on first four days. On the fifth and the last day the remaining 60 candidates were to be interviewed. However, there were many absentees. Some of the candidates, who did not appear on the due dates, were interviewed on the last date. It appears from the document that 81 candidates were interviewed on 9.8.93, 77 on 12.8.93, 74 on 13.8.93, 80 on 16.8.93 and again 77 on 17.8.93, In all, thus, 389 candidates were interviewed. However, there were many absentees. Some of the candidates, who did not appear on the due dates, were interviewed on the last date. It appears from the document that 81 candidates were interviewed on 9.8.93, 77 on 12.8.93, 74 on 13.8.93, 80 on 16.8.93 and again 77 on 17.8.93, In all, thus, 389 candidates were interviewed. Going by the normal working period in government offices which is 5 to 5 1/2 hours, it would appear that the duration of interview on an average would not have exceeded 4 minutes eer candidate. Some margin of time as also to be allowed between the two candidates as, it is expected, that members of the Board would deliberate amongst themselves and either give a consensus or common marks or their own individual marks. It would normally also take some time for the next candidate to come in (after the previous candidates had left ). If the Interview-Board wants to make a sincere endeavour to assess the personality and merit of the candidate and to call put his potential, it is expected to put some general questions to make the candidate comfortable. I wonder what sort of interview was held, interviewing between 74 to 81 candidates on each day in 5 to 5 1/2 hours. In the background of the fact that the original interview sheets have not been produced and, as a matter of fact, a clear categorical statement has been made that except Annexure-D/7 and k/7 no other document with respect to the selection process is available, I have reasons to believe that the so called interview was a mere empty formality, if not biased. 20. I have already stated more than once that awarding marks for the academic qualifications and the experience, etc. was ministerial act which left no room for any discretion and what really mattered and which could distinguish the candidates inter se, was the interview marks. In the circumstances mentioned above, the interview appears to have been held in mysterious and dubious circumstances. 21. was ministerial act which left no room for any discretion and what really mattered and which could distinguish the candidates inter se, was the interview marks. In the circumstances mentioned above, the interview appears to have been held in mysterious and dubious circumstances. 21. In Ashok Kumar Yadav V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme court 454 at page 471 while considering the question of duration of interview although in a somewhat different context, a Constitution bench of the apex Court observed: "if a viva voce is to be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner, as it must be in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a candidate, the interview must take anything between 10 to 30 minutes. In fact, herman Finer in his book on "theory and Practice of Modern Government" points out that "the interview should last at least half an hour. " The Court disapproved the practice of interviewing a large number of candidates observing: "the interviews would then tend to be casual, superficial and sloppy and the assessment made at such interviews would not correctly reflect the true measure of the personality of the candidate. Moreover, such a course would widen the area of arbitrariness, for even a candidate who is very much lower down in the list on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination, can, to borrow an expression used by the Division Bench, gate-crash into the range of selection, if he is awarded unduly higher marks at the viva voce examination. " It may be stated that in a letter case, Sardara Singh and Ors. V/s. State of punjab and ors. [air 1991 Supreme court 2248] the Supreme court did not find fault with the process of interview in which on average 3 minutes had been spent for each candidate for selection. The post for which appointments were to be made in that case was that of Patwari and the Court observed that having regard to the rules which required the qualification of matriculation/higher Secondary examination, knowledge in Hindi and Punjab upto the middle standard and good knowledge of rural economy and culture as the requisite qualifications for the post, any interview was hardly required. 22. 22. The question for consideration is whether less than 4 minutes time spent on average in interviewing the candidates for the post of Headmaster/headmistresses can be said to be just and proper having regard to the nature of the job and the qualifications for the post, etc. The value and importance of interview for making appointment has been stated by the apex Court in Lila Dhar V/s. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , AIR 1981 supreme Court 1777) : (1981) 4 SCC 159 (that was a case of appointment to the State Judicial Service) in these words: "it is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidates knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test there are yet not written tests which can evaluate a candidates initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, co-operativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaplability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview test, much depending on the Constitution of the interview board. " 23. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to the duration of interview for all types of posts just as there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the preceise weight to the given to the interview vis-a-vis the written examination or the academic qualifications, etc. It would very from service to service and post to post. The point, therefore, is whether for appointment of the teachers and the Headmasters the merit of the candidate can be judged within a period of less than 4 minutes. Although headmasters/headmistresses have certain administrative job to perform, basically they are teachers and teach the students as well. The merit or the potential of the candidate for appointment to the teaching posts at the school level cannot be rulled out merely on the basis of academic performance. Experience has shown that many good students of their time could not become good teachers. By the time students reach the University level foundation is already laid where a little guidance from the teacher may serve the purpose. But at the school level the students dependence on the teachers is immense. Experience has shown that many good students of their time could not become good teachers. By the time students reach the University level foundation is already laid where a little guidance from the teacher may serve the purpose. But at the school level the students dependence on the teachers is immense. They have so much of faith in the teachers that at times in their homes, they would even think their parents to be wrong. Their role in building up the character, developing the proper psycho and providing foundation to the future educational attainments need hardly be emphasised. If there is no proper communication between the teacher and the student, a serious void is likely to occur. A good school teacher need not be an intellectual, he should be more communicative an affable, who can establish a kind of personal relationship with the students. The real potential of a candidate for such post can be found only if a proper viva voce test is held. A period of 4 minutes can hardly be said to be sufficient to enable the members of the interview board to call out the real merit of the candidates for the post of school teachers or Headmasters. What appears to me to have been done in the instant case is to merely observe a formality, even if it be assumed that the interviews were not biased and unfair, as alleged. 24. In C. W. J. C. No.9405 of 1994 the petitioners have filed an affidavit pointing out certain facts to show that the interview was biased and not fair. The Board in its further affidavit has stated that interview marks were awarded on the basis of subjective decision which cannot be challenged unless it is shown that the same is perverse. Asa broad proposition the plea is undoubtedly right. From the reply affidavit of the petitioners, however, it appears that out of 279 candidates of general category who were called for interview, only 39, i. e.13.97% candidates have been selected. In the b. C. I. category, all the candidates, who were called for interview, have been selected. In the B. C. II category, out of 79 candidates called, 59 have been selected, the ratio of success being 76.62%. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Asif hameed and Ors. In the b. C. I. category, all the candidates, who were called for interview, have been selected. In the B. C. II category, out of 79 candidates called, 59 have been selected, the ratio of success being 76.62%. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Asif hameed and Ors. V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1989 Supreme court, 1899 there is no bar to the appointment of a reserve category candidate against a post in the general category unless the procedure to fill up the general posts in that manner is found to have resulted in excessive representation to the reserve categories. 25. It is true that in the case of the B. C. category candidates, the minimum marks at which selection has been made was lower than in the case of the candidates of the general category. However, it has been stated in the reply affidavit and not denied in the further affidavit filed by the Board, that the number of candidates securing 15 and more marks out of 30 in the interview in the case of general category candidates was only 42 (out of 279)which comes to 15.05% while in the case of B. C. II category out of 79 candidates interviewed as many as 50 of them got 15 or more marks, which comes to 64.93%. The petitioners have slated that only 4 out of 39, i. e.1.02% candidates in the general category securing less than 30 marks for the academic performance, etc. have been selected, but in the B. C. I, and B. C. II categories 60% and 54.23% candidates securing less than 30 marks on the basis of academic performances have been selected. According to the petitioners, this shows a clear bias in favour of the B. C. I. and II categories as a large number of such candidates, who had not secured more than 30 marks under the academic performance head, that is, had a poor academic career were awarded higher marks and in this manner below average candidates have been selected on the basis of higher, inflated marks. According to the petitioners, favour has been shown not only to the candidates of the B. C. II category but also to some of them in the general category. According to the petitioners, favour has been shown not only to the candidates of the B. C. II category but also to some of them in the general category. About the- 4 candidates of the general category who had secured less than 30 marks under the academic performance head, it has been stated, all of them were awarded more than 25 marks and, as a matter of fact, Smt. Gayatri Singh was awarded 30 out of 30 marks in the interview. From Annexure-K/7 it appears that Smt. Gayatri Singh had got 23 marks for academic performance, 2 marks for special (administrative) experience and 3 marks for teaching experience. The petitioners have argued that even if 60% marks (i. e.18 out of 30) would have been awarded in the interview, 14 candidates in the general category and 8 candidates in B. C. II category would have secured less than 57 marks and 47 marks respectively, the minimum at which the selection had been made in the two categories. 26. In the aforesaid background the fact that the duration of interview on average was less than 4 minutes, in my view, assumes great significance. Coupled with this, is the fact that the original interview sheets were not produced before the Court. In the above premises it appears to me that the interview was a sham and showy affair. As a matter of fact, it gave the members of the Board an opportunity to show favour to select few, in some cases irrespective of the category by giving them very high inflated marks. 27. I have already said above that so far as the preparation of merit list on the basis of academic performance, etc. is concerned, it is more or less a ministerial job and unless the authorities want to manipulate things, there is hardly any scope for altering the merit of the candidates. The only stage where things can be managed is the stage of interview. It need hardly be satd in so many words that evaluation of the merit. in the interview being more or less subjective, there is always possibility of manipulation. In the facts of the case, therefore, in my considered opinion the interview of the candidates was unfair, biased and arbitrary. The above finding is sufficient to invalidate the entire selection of the candidates. in the interview being more or less subjective, there is always possibility of manipulation. In the facts of the case, therefore, in my considered opinion the interview of the candidates was unfair, biased and arbitrary. The above finding is sufficient to invalidate the entire selection of the candidates. As stated above, the Director (Secondary education) had expressed serious reservations in the matter. He was overruled on the specious ground that the panel would lapse after one year and the selected candidates had been hopefully waiting for the appointment. One can almost take judicial notice of the fact that in the state of Bihar, appointment from panels prepared, say, eight to ten years ago is a usual phenomenon. In any view, according to me, the fact that the life of the panel was going to expire, could not be a ground to condone the fault. The Government was not powerless to extend the life of the panel. 28. The above finding, nowever, would merely invalidate the latter part of the selection but, according to the petitioners, the very advertisement and the initiation of selection process for appointments of only lady candidates against the posts of headmistress was illegal and there could not be appointment by direct recruitment in excess of 20% quota of the vacancies. 29. So far as the first part of the submission is concerned, it would appear that except in C. W. J. C. No.10666 of 1994 and C. W. J. C. No.11119 of 1994 in all other cases the petitioners are females. The grievance at their instance is clearly not maintainable. The grievance is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioners of the other two cases as well as they did not question the validity of the advertisement at the appropriate time. The advertisement was published in 1991 and they knew that the same had been issued only for the female candidates and the appointments were proposed only against posts of Headmistress. The challenge has come after about four years, when the selections were made and appointment letters were about to issue. 30. So far as the other part of the grievance is concerned, it may be true that some of the petitioners might be eligible for appointments by promotion against 80% quota of the vacancy and, therefore, they might have a chance of appointments by promotion to the post. 30. So far as the other part of the grievance is concerned, it may be true that some of the petitioners might be eligible for appointments by promotion against 80% quota of the vacancy and, therefore, they might have a chance of appointments by promotion to the post. However, far from challenging the selection process they participated in it. Having taken chance of success and failed, they cannot be permitted to challenge the selection on the ground of violation of quota rule. It is obvious that if they had been selected, such a grievance would not have been made by them. I, accordingly, do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention made on behalf of the petitioners. 31. I am not taking up other grievance as to whether a common selection could be made for Project schools or the nationalised schools nor I propose to consider the grievance as to the posting of the Headmistress in the nationalised schools, some of them being Boys schools, for the reason that as per my finding regarding the invalidity of the interview process the matter has to be remitted back to the Board for de novo selection from the stage of interview. 32. As noticed above, the appointments have been made subject to the result of C. WJ. C. No.9405 of 1994 in the light of the interim order passed by this Court. The appointees have, no doubt, worked on the post for about 9 months by now but it has already been made clear in the order dated 14.2.95 that their continuance on the post will not confer upon them any additional right. In facts of the case, in my opi-nion further, they cannot claim any right in equity either. I am aware that all the selected candidates might not be party to the bungling, but is not possible to separate the chaff from the grain. I do hope that in the fresh interview also, by virtue of their merit they will stand a fair chance of selection and, therefore, I have no hesitation in relegating them also to the fresh interview process. After all, who knows whether the candidates who have not been selected possessed better merit than them. 33. In the result, these applications are allowed. The appointments of the Headmistresses as made by office order dated 29.11.94 (Annexure-7 in C. W. J. C. No.9405 of 1994) is quashed. After all, who knows whether the candidates who have not been selected possessed better merit than them. 33. In the result, these applications are allowed. The appointments of the Headmistresses as made by office order dated 29.11.94 (Annexure-7 in C. W. J. C. No.9405 of 1994) is quashed. The Vidyalaya Seva Board is directed to hold fresh interview of the candidates who had already been called for interview and proceed in accordance with law. The process must be completed within a period of four months. There will be no order as to cost. Petitions allowed.