JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The petitioners in these original petitions were applicants to the post of Assistant Grade III in the services of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent (in O. P. No. 9897/93) invited applications for recruitment to the said post by publishing a notification in the newspapers in June 1992. The petitioners applied. A written test was conducted. All of them have become successful in the written test. They were invited for interview. They appeared for interview. Thereafter, nothing was heard. On enquiry, they could understand that a list had been prepared and appointments had been made from the list. On enquiry, they could understand that the respondents adopted a selection process wherein out of the total 100 marks 50% alone was set apart for written test; while the balance 50% was set apart for interview. Thus, the mark awarded in the interview was sufficient to tilt the balance even depriving the candidates who have scored his marks in the written test. The job is of clerical nature. In such circumstances, there cannot be such predominance for interview in the process of selection. Setting up of 50% marks for interview will vitiate the selection, as the candidates could be chosen by awarding marks in the interview and even neglecting the performance in the written test. In the matter of public employment, oral interview test should not be relied upon as an exclusive test but can only be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test. Thus, the method adopted by respondents 1 and 2 was highly arbitrary, vitiating the entire process of selection. The petitioners submit that they were eliminated by awarding marks in the interview to candidates who scored less marks than them. This was arbitrary and illegal. The academic brilliance, ability and other qualities of candidates who had scored high marks in the written test were given a go bye by reason of setting up 50% marks for interview alone. This was easily susceptible to malpractice and favoritism. Provides for awarding 50% marks or interview alone. They seek a direction to the 1st respondent not to award more than 50% marks for interview alone. They seek a direction to the 1st respondent not to award more than 30% of the total marks for interview and to conduct interview afresh for the purpose of selection. 2. Provides for awarding 50% marks or interview alone. They seek a direction to the 1st respondent not to award more than 50% marks for interview alone. They seek a direction to the 1st respondent not to award more than 30% of the total marks for interview and to conduct interview afresh for the purpose of selection. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent 1 and 2. 50% marks was set apart for the interview, is rather admitted in the counter affidavit. But, it is submitted by reason of that the selection process is not vitiated. Marks were awarded during the interview impartially taking into account the performance of the candidates. The interview committee consisted of officers of proved integrity, competency and impartiality. The marks obtained in the written test and interview were taken for the purpose of selection. It is further submitted that, as the written test and interview were held in September and October, 1992, the original petitions filed in 1993 were highly belated. No explanation has been offered for the delay. By reason of delay, the petitioners dis entitled themselves for any relief being granted in the original petitions. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the very same selection was under challenge in O. P. 14793/92 and connected cases. Those cases were purported to be representative action. The petitioners were aware of those cases and were sitting on the fence awaiting decision in those cases. It is after disposal of those cases that this new batch of original petitions have been filed. On that count also, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 3. The petitioners have been successful in the written test, this is an admitted fact. On the basis of their performance they had been interviewed. 50% of the total marks had been set apart for the interview, is also an admitted fact. When 50% of the total marks is set apart for interview, necessarily any fluctuation in the awarding of marks can tilt the balance in favour of a less meritorious candidate and there is all possibility of a candidate with higher marks in the written test being eliminated. The Supreme Court has right from Ajay Hasia Case ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) examined the role of interview in the process of selection. The Supreme Court has right from Ajay Hasia Case ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) examined the role of interview in the process of selection. Interview is an accepted criterion in the process of selection for admission to colleges, for initial entry into service and for selection to higher posts from among those holding posts in the lower strata. Interview has only minimal role to play when it is conducted for the purpose of admission to colleges. It has got a greater role to play when persons are selected from those holding lower posts to higher posts where the personality and adaptability of the persons on proved performance, an the criteria to assess whether an incumbent is fit to hold a more responsible post But, in the case of initial entry into service, the role of interview shall always to balancing. It cannot be of a minimal role and at the same time it cannot be of a predominant nature. It shall only be to assess the aptitude of the person based on his performance in the written test as well. When 50% of the marks is set apart for interview in a selection process for the initial entry in service, naturally it will have a predominant role and the marks awarded in the interview will determine who among the persons interviewed is selected. Whatever be the high standard, integrity or impartiality of the persons consisting the interview board, they cannot become machines with accuracy. At the same time, in the matter of entry in service, the written test has got a definite role in assessing the capability of the candidates. The candidates have just come out of the college. Their personality might not have developed fully. At the same time, because of their academic career they might be well equipped. The post in question is also of a ministerial nature. So, the capability of the candidates has to be adjudged with reference to performance in the written test and the role of interview shall only for the minimal purposes of assessing the candidate. It shall not be the governing criterion to discard the performance in the written test. This aspect has been examined by the Supreme Court in several cases including Ashok Kumar Yadav and ors. V. State of Haryana and others ( AIR 1987 SC 454 ). 4. It shall not be the governing criterion to discard the performance in the written test. This aspect has been examined by the Supreme Court in several cases including Ashok Kumar Yadav and ors. V. State of Haryana and others ( AIR 1987 SC 454 ). 4. It is an accepted position that "while a written examination assesses the candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, a viva voce test seeks to assess a candidate's overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the viva voce test, there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities can be evaluated perhaps with some degree of error, by a viva voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board". But, interview has no role in the mode of selection, 'Where the candidate's personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life, greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination' as held in Lila Dhara's Case ( AIR 1981 SC 1777 ). In such circumstances, only minimal importance shall be attached to the viva voce test, as held in Lila Dhar's Case. It was for this reason that in Ajay Hasia's Case, the Supreme Court took the view that allocation of a high percentage of marks as 33.3% to viva voce test was beyond all reasonable proportion and the selection of candidates was arbitrary. But, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test, is the only way, subject to basic requirements being satisfied, "to assess the fitness of the candidates" as held in Lila Dhar's Case ( AIR 1981 SC 1777 ). There may also be services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise. In the cases, a process of sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise. There may also be services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise. In the cases, a process of sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise. So, as held in Ashok Kumar Yadav's Case ( AIR 1987 SC 454 ), "there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination. It must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter for determination by experts. The court does not possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for the court to pronounce upon it, unless to use the words of Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Liladhar's Case "exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives". 5. It was in this background the issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's Case ( AIR 1987 SC 454 ) and held as follows: "The position is no different when we examine the question in regard to the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test in case of persons belonging to the general category. The percentage in the case of these candidates is less than that in the case of ex - service officers, but even so it is quite high at the figure of 22.2. …….. The viva voce test in the general category too would consequently tend to become a determining factor in the process of selection, tilting the scales in favour of one candidate for the other according to the marks awarded to him in the viva voce test. ……. We must therefore regard the allocation of 22.2% of the total marks for the viva voce test as infecting the selection process with the vice of arbitrariness". In the decision in State of U. P. v. Rafiquddin and Others (1987 (Supp. ……. We must therefore regard the allocation of 22.2% of the total marks for the viva voce test as infecting the selection process with the vice of arbitrariness". In the decision in State of U. P. v. Rafiquddin and Others (1987 (Supp. SCC 401), it was held as follows: "The vive voce test is a well recognised method of judging the suitability of a candidate for appointment to public services and this method had almost universally been followed in making selection for appointment to public services. Where selection is made on the basis of written as well as viva voce test, the final result is determined on the basis of the aggregate marks". In Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab (1991 (1) SCC 663), the Court held as follows: "There could be no gainsaying that viva voce test cannot be totally dispensed with, but taking note of the situation and conditions, prevailing in our country, it would not be reasonable to have the percentage of viva voce marks more than 15 percent of the total marks in the selection of candidates fresh from college/school for public employment by direct recruitment where the rules provided for a composite process of selection namely written examination and interview". In the decision reported in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and ors. ( 1981 (4) SCC 159 ) it had been clarified that the test which may be valid for admission to Medical College may not hold good in entering into public service. In this respect, the observation of the Supreme Court reported in D. V. Bakshi and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. ( 1993 (3) SCC 663 ) has to be kept in mind. The Supreme Court held as follows: "The distinction appears to have been drawn in interviews held for competitive examination or admission to educational institutions and selection for higher posts. In the case of education all institutions the distinction has relevance for the reason that the candidates are young and their personality has yet to develop and, therefore, greater weight has to be given to their performance at the written examination rather than at the oral examination. In the case of education all institutions the distinction has relevance for the reason that the candidates are young and their personality has yet to develop and, therefore, greater weight has to be given to their performance at the written examination rather than at the oral examination. It is, therefore clear that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf as much would depend on the nature of performance expected for the responsibility to be handled by the candidate after his selection and entry into the establishment. The method of evaluation would, therefore, vary and cannot be a matter of any strait jacket formula. The weight to be given to the performance at the interview would depend on the nature of duties, responsibilities and functions to be handled after selection". 6. In the decision reported in Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K. C. Shukla and Ors. ( 1993 (1) SCC 17 ) relating to promotion through test and interview, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Law on the proportion between written test and interview or evaluation on confidential entries and personality test have been laid down in a series of decisions by this court commencing from Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Sehravardi, Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and State of U. P. v. Rafiquiddin. Distinction appears to have been drawn in interview held for competitive examinations or admission in educational institutions and selection for higher posts. Effort has been made to eliminate scope of arbitrariness in the former by narrowing down the proportion as various factors are likely to creep in. But same standard cannot be applied for higher selections. Lila Dhar case brings it out fully". 7. In this case 50 out of the total 100 marks was allotted to oral test. The recruitment in question is to the post of Assistant Grade III, the lowest clerical post. It is direct recruitment, of course, meant for the candidates qualified recently and awaiting appointment. So, fixation of 50% marks for interview for such selection is extremely arbitrary, going by the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court. So, the selection is vitiated defeating the rights of the petitioners. 8. But, it will be too harsh to direct fresh selection. This will adversely affect the candidates already selected. So, fixation of 50% marks for interview for such selection is extremely arbitrary, going by the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court. So, the selection is vitiated defeating the rights of the petitioners. 8. But, it will be too harsh to direct fresh selection. This will adversely affect the candidates already selected. At the same time, the petitioners shall not be denied of their legitimate rights. So, the respondents shall take into account the marks scored by the petitioners in the written test alone and shall appoint them, in the existing or arising vacancies, if anybody with less marks in written test than them, in the general quota or reserved quota as the case may be had been appointed. This direction shall be confined to the petitioners alone. This shall be examined and the petitioner shall be made known of the result within three months. 9. The contention that there is laches on the part of the petitioner is not correct. They have approached this court immediately after they came to know about the illegality and about the finalisation of selection process. It is also not correct to say that they were sitting on the fence awaiting the result of O. P. No. 14793/92 and connected cases. Those are not cases representing the petitioners. It was a representative action as against the persons who were selected and appointed, and not concerning the petitioners or similarly placed persons. Therefore, the O. Ps. are allowed to the above extent. No costs.