S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed by two petitioners Km. Neeta Tewari and Km. Bharti Pandey challenged on order of the U. P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Gomti Nagar Lucknow, (respondent No. 2) refus ing to call these two petitioners for an inter view towards selection of candidates for ap pointment as lecturers in Sanskrit. These two ladies have Qualifications of M. A. in Sanskrit with B. ED and Ph. D. with ex perience of four years of teaching. They had obtained 71. 1% and 69% marks respective ly in M. A. examination. 2. An advertisement was published by the U. P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission (in short Commission) for ap pointment of lecturers in different subjects including Sanskrit. A copy of this advertise ment is in Annexure No. 2a to the writ petition. The essential Qualification as indi cated in the advertisement was post graduate degree in the subject from any recognised University and the preferential qualification was L. T. Diploma from any Government or recognised institute or a Bachelor of Education degree from any recognised University. Page 2 of the adver tisement gave certain important directions under direction 7, it was stated that the essential qualification indicated in the ad vertisement was the minimum and a candid ate could not claim an interview simply for having this minimum qualification. If the commission was not in position to call each and every applicant for interview, then the Commission may keep in considerating the academic records, the percentage of marks as a basis for interview. The general rule was to call four candidates against one available vacancy. Admittedly in the general category there were 13 vacancies for the post of Lec turer in Sanskrit and it is not disputed that S3 candidates were called for interview, 3. When the writ petition was presented Honble S. Rafal Alam, J. recorded an interim order on 9-9-96 that the Commission would permit the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit, but the result would not be published and the result would be subject to the decision of the writ petition. 4. The petitioners asserted that they had outstanding academic career and all the qualifications. indicated in the advertise ment and had to their credit Ph. D. degrees and teaching experience as well. 4. The petitioners asserted that they had outstanding academic career and all the qualifications. indicated in the advertise ment and had to their credit Ph. D. degrees and teaching experience as well. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had responded to the advertisement spoken of above. They were given control numbers indicating that the fell with in the zone of consideration for being called for interview. The Commission, however, did not call them for interview. But they were informed through other sources that other candidates had already been called for an interview. On query from the office of the Commission the petitioners could know that the Commis sion had fixed a cut off percentage of marks in the M. A. examination for short listing the number of the candidates to be called for interview. The petitioners expressed their grievance that the mere achievements in the M. A. examination without looking to the consistent good result in the earlier ex aminations was not a proper approach of the Commission to short list candidates for interview. The Commission had acted ar bitrarily in the matter. Accordingly the petitioners made a prayer for a direction upon the Commission to call both the petitioners in an interview for the posts of Lecturer in Sanskrit. They also prayed that certain plus points be added giving them weightage on account of teaching ex perience and Ph. D. degrees. 5. The petitioners submitted a sup plementary affidavit to bring on record the guide lines for the working of the Commis sion. These guide lines are contained in Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. The petitioners also indicated, through this supplementary affidavit, the marks ob tained by the other candidates called for interview who were selected by the Commis sion. This Annexure No. 2 gives the details of the percentage of the marks obtained by these candidates in examinations from the High School stage to the Post-Graduate stage, which also indicated if they did or did not posses L. T. or B. Ed, degree and Ph. D Degree and teaching experience. 6. A counter affidavit was filed on be half of the respondent through a Section Officer of the Commission. D Degree and teaching experience. 6. A counter affidavit was filed on be half of the respondent through a Section Officer of the Commission. It was indicated in the counter affidavit that interview call letters were sent only to those candidates who were eligible and had come with to the criteria laid down by the Commission in terms of the Service Rules and Government orders. The two petitioners had not reached the criteria level laid down by the Commis sion which was 72. 88 percent marks in the Post-Graduate examination and as such they were not called for interview. It was stated that the Commission was an inde pendent body and it had every right to prepare an uniform formula for selection of better candidate for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. It was further indicated that in terms of the interim order of the High Court the petitioners were permitted to appear in an interview for the posts in question. 7. The respondents came up with a supplementary counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition and in the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners. It was stated that the candidates called for interview had possessed the minimum req uisite qualifications and when the short list ing was made, the guidelines were followed. A copy of the guidelines was annexed to this supplementary counter affidavit and this is the same as was relied upon by the petitioner. With this counter affidavit the respondents also annexed the U. P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturers Cadre) Service Rules, 1992. 8. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner to meet the points raised in the counter affidavit of the State. 9. The facts that go unchallenged are that the two petitioners had been L. T. grade teachers in Sanskrit for four years on the date of their applications. They had to their credit an M. A. degree in Sanskrit with B. Edand Ph. D. degrees. The first petitioner ob tained 61. 8%, 56. 4%, 64. 6% and 71. 1% marks in High School, Intermediate, B. A. and M. A. examinations respectively. The second petitioner obtained in these ex aminations 69%, 66%, 66% and 69% marks respectively. There was no wrong indicated in the procedure of their making an applica tion. D. degrees. The first petitioner ob tained 61. 8%, 56. 4%, 64. 6% and 71. 1% marks in High School, Intermediate, B. A. and M. A. examinations respectively. The second petitioner obtained in these ex aminations 69%, 66%, 66% and 69% marks respectively. There was no wrong indicated in the procedure of their making an applica tion. Number of candidates for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit was many and as such the Commission had to short list candidates for interview. The Commission had fixed a cut off percentage of 72. 88 in the M. A. ex amination for calling candidates for inter view but the persons selected as per Annexure No. 2 the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners at least five persons in the first thirteen had obtained less than the cut off percentage in MA. examination and at least two of these persons selected in those first thirteen who had obtained more than that cut off percentage did not possess B. Ed. Degrees. 10. The advertisement calling for ap plication for the posts had already been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. In short it can be stated that for the desired post M. A. in Sanskrit was the requisite qualification while the preferen tial qualification was B. Ed, or L. T. There was no indication of the Ph. D. degree as a preferential qualification. The important instructions annexed to the advertisement indicated that if candidates were large in number the commission had the power to make a short listing for interview on the basis of the academic records, percentage of marks and higher qualifications. The Com mission pleaded that it was with in its right to have fixed a cut off percentage of marks for short listing candidates for interview. 11. In this respect the guidelines for the Commission and the rules annexed to are most relevant. The guidelines are precisely for the purpose of short listing and other important processes of selection. Under Clause 2 of these guidelines direc tions have been given for preliminary in quiry on the applications when selection is to be made on the basis of interview alone. In the case at our hands the selection was to be made on interview alone, subject to the requisite minimum and preferential qualifications. There was no written ex amination scheduled for the selection. In the case at our hands the selection was to be made on interview alone, subject to the requisite minimum and preferential qualifications. There was no written ex amination scheduled for the selection. Sub-clause (ja) requires that the basic policy behind short listing was that the best can didate be chosen by all means. It indicated that in cases where according to advertise ment requisite qualifications and preferen tial qualifications were both indicated, short listing for interview should be made, firstly, for such applicants who possessed both the minimum requisite ana the preferential qualification. If the number of such can didates were large then persons not having the preferential qualification should not be called for interview. 12. The Rules in Annexure No. 2 to the supplementary counter affidavit, namely, the U. P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturers Cadre) Service Rules, 1992, in pan III there of. f, speak of recruitment. Rule 8 requires that a candidate for direct recruit ment to the various categories of posts in the service must possess the qualifications against each post in the Appendix "b". Rule 9 requires that a candidate who has the preferential qualification in respect of a post mentioned in Rule 8 shall, other things being equal, be given preference in the mat ter of direct recruitment. Appendix "e" speaks out what are the essential qualifica tions for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit and what are the preferential qualifications and the advertisement in question was at par with Appendix B" 13. From what has been discussed, it appears that under rules, followed by the advertisement, the two petitioners pos sessed the essential qualifications i. e. the minimum requisite qualification as also the preferential qualification. The rules requir ed that other things remaining equal the person having preferential qualification should have been preferred and the guide lines also directed that if persons were having both the essential and preferential qualifications they would be given priority for interview rather than the persons having only the requisite or essential qualifica tions. 14. Materials have come to show that cut-off percentage for calling for interview was fixed arbitrarily without any reference to the preferential qualification and thus there was a violation of the guidelines set up by the Commission itself. The candidate were interviewed who did not possess even the cut-off percentage of marks in M. A. examination. 15. 14. Materials have come to show that cut-off percentage for calling for interview was fixed arbitrarily without any reference to the preferential qualification and thus there was a violation of the guidelines set up by the Commission itself. The candidate were interviewed who did not possess even the cut-off percentage of marks in M. A. examination. 15. Looking from the above angle and giving weight on the guidelines fixed by the Commission, it must be stated that the petitioners were wrongly refused an inter view. It is, however for tunate that they had been interviewed upon an interim direction of this High Court. The petitioners have further claimed that extra points be given to them in interview for having Ph. D. degree and teaching experience. The guidelines are silent on this point but the guidelines indi cateand the important instructions in the advertisement also indicate, that higher qualification could also be criterion for con sideration. The petitioners have already been interviewed the results have been with held. The Commission is directed to assess the case of the petitioners keeping in view the total academic records and further achievements by way of B. Ed. , Ph. D. and teaching experience and to make a selection comparing the cases of the petitioner as against those of others and to give preference only to the best candidates as was directed in the guidelines. 16. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions, The Commis sion is to arrive at a decision with in a month from the date of communication of this order to them. Petition allowed. .