M. S. A. Siddiqui, J. ( 1 ) ON 30th June, 1989, applications were invited to fill up the posts of 60 Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Engineering Department of the MCD. The essential qualifications for the post were: (a) degree in Civil Engineering, (b) two years professional experience. Age was not to exceed 30 years (relaxable for Government servants and employees of the M. C. D. ). In all 412 candidates, departmental as well as those sponsored by the Employment Exchange were called for interview. A list (Annexure A) of these candidates giving their names, date of birth, qualifications, percentage of marks, period of experience and marks allotted for qualifications, experience and interview was prepared. 60 candidates who scored 16 or more marks were selected. Forty-four candidates were placed in the waiting list/reserved list for appointment against vacancies remaining unfilled due to non acceptance of offer of appointment or failure to join duty. Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the selection of these candidates. These writ petitions were decided by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 10th August, 1994. The writ petition of Shri Surender Negi was allowed but all other writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants filed Letters Patent Appeals. Some other candidates filed writ petitions. Since all these appeals and writ petitions raised substantially the same issues and the pleadings in these appeals and writ petitions also followed substantially the same pattern, they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) ON 23. 11. 1995, when the LPA Nos. 94-96/94, 113/94 and CW 4819/94 came up for hearing before Honble the Chief Justice M. J. Rao (as he then was) and Hon ble Mr. Justice Anil Dev Singh, it was contended that for the same level of experience, different candidates had been given marks differently. On behalf of the MCD, it was conceded that there were some mistakes in the selection process. In the circumstances, this Court appointed Mr. Justice G. C. Jain (Retd.), to verify the case of each candidate and find out whether allocation of marks for the qualification and experience had been correctly done and if not in what manner, it should have been done. Pursuant to this direction, Mr. In the circumstances, this Court appointed Mr. Justice G. C. Jain (Retd.), to verify the case of each candidate and find out whether allocation of marks for the qualification and experience had been correctly done and if not in what manner, it should have been done. Pursuant to this direction, Mr. Justice Jain (Retd.) examined the records of all the candidates who have obtained 12 or more marks and prepared a list (Annexure-E) giving comments regarding each candidate. After scrutiny Mr. Justice Jain prepared list of first 60 candidates (Annexure-F to his report) and list of next 40 candidates (Annexure-G to his report ). He also prepared list of candidates (Annexure- H) who became eligible after 17. 7. 1989 (cut offdate) and 31st July, 1989. He further prepared list of candidates who enrolled themselves after 17. 7. 1989 and 31. 7. 1989 (Annexures l (i) and l (ii) to his report ). We deem it appropriate to proceed on the basis of the report of Mr. Justice G. C. Jain. ( 3 ) IT is undisputed that for the selection of Assistant Engineers (Civil) for the year 1988, the Selection Board prescribed the following criteria for allocation of marks to the candidates; TOTAL Marks: 35however, in the present selection (for the year 1989), the Selection Board prescribed the following criteria for allocation of marks to be awarded to the candidates. At the outset we must make it clear that it is an admitted position that the cutoff date for eligibility for the post in question is 17. 7. 1989. The following list shows the placement of the candidates in the select list of the M. C. D. as well as the list prepared by Mr. Justice G. C. Jain after verification of the records. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid lists amply demonstrate that some of the candidates who were earlier selected and appointed by the M. C. D. have been found by Mr. Justice Jain to be ineligible for appointment. List a shows that some of the candidates appointed by the M. C. D. have already been further promoted and remaining appointees have been working for the last 8 years. It is also relevant to mention that one of the candidates namely, Mr. Rajesh Khanna has been appointed under the directions of this Court It is true that this case presents a rather poignant turn of events. It is also relevant to mention that one of the candidates namely, Mr. Rajesh Khanna has been appointed under the directions of this Court It is true that this case presents a rather poignant turn of events. However, the question is can the situation be rectified. Probably not, until we direct all such tainted appointments and consequent promotions to be quashed. We cannot, however, shut our eyes to the consequence that involves in uprooting such irregularly appointed employees. One could only imagine their untold miseries and the miseries of their families, if they are sacked at this distance of time. The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us to adopt an humanitarian approach to do justice ruled by mercy. In H. C. Pultaswamy and Ors. v. The Hon ble Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, J. T. 1990 (4) SC 474, the Apex Court permitted the irregularly appointed employees to continue in service without a break. Keeping in view, the human problems involved in the case, learned Counsel for the parties consented to an order being made disposing of these appeals/writ petitions on the basis of the following criteria:- (a) Candidates, who were earlier found eligible and appointed by the M. C. D. and are later found by Mr. Justice Jain to be ineligible for appointment may be allowed to continue in service. (b) Candidates, who were earlier found ineligible by the M. C. D. and are later found by Mr. Justice Jain to be eligible for appointment and who have approached this Court within a reasonable time, should be accommodated by giving them employment against existing vacancies. (e) Candidates, who are found by Mr. Justice Jain to be ineligible for appointment on the ground that they had obtained employment by producing false/fictitious certificates, should be cashiered. ( 5 ) FIRST we will take up case of candidates falling in the last category. According to the report of Mr. Justice Jain some of the certificates of experience submitted by Mr. Sunil Tyagi (SI. No. 38), Dilip Ramnani (SI. No. 10), Mahabir Prasad (SI. No. 53) and Ajay Gautam (SI. No. 50) were not genuine. Sunil Tyagi ( 6 ) THE Selection Board has awarded 16 marks to Mr. Sunil Tyagi, whereas Mr. Justice Jain allotted 16 marks. Mr. Justice Jain some of the certificates of experience submitted by Mr. Sunil Tyagi (SI. No. 38), Dilip Ramnani (SI. No. 10), Mahabir Prasad (SI. No. 53) and Ajay Gautam (SI. No. 50) were not genuine. Sunil Tyagi ( 6 ) THE Selection Board has awarded 16 marks to Mr. Sunil Tyagi, whereas Mr. Justice Jain allotted 16 marks. Mr. Justice Jain has assigned the following reasons for allocating 16 marks to him. "however, the certificate issued by Triveni Structurals Ltd. dated 6. 11. 1987, shows that he was engaged as Management Trainee and he was relieved on 1. 9. 1988. This experience thus would be maximum from 6. 11. 1987 to 1. 9. 1988. However, alongwith his application he himself filed his bio-data which he had submitted while applying for the post of Junior employed with D. D. Surveys and Consultants from 1. 11. 1986 till date. He had also filed a certificate from D. D. Surveys dated 16. 4. 1988 stating that Sunil Tyagi was in their service from November, l987. Mr. Bansal pointed out that he could not be in the service of both Triveni Structurals as well as D. D. Surveys and Consultants during the same period. Mrs. Janani explained that D. D. Surveys were executing the project of Triveni Structurals Ltd. as Sub Contractor and Triveni Structurals who posted Shri Tyagi with D. D. Surveys. Sunil Tyagi got a certificate from D. D. Surveys. This explanation does not appear to be convincing. Triveni Structurals and D. D. Surveys were two different entities. If he was employed in Triveni Structurals Ltd. , he could not be treated as an employee of D. D. Surveys. Either of the two certificates is wrong. In the circumstances, I have not counted experience with Triveni Structurals. Of course, this question as well as the question whether he was liable to be debarred for filing a false certificate has to be decided by the Hon ble High Court. His experience would come as under: 714 1. Om Prakash Baldev Krishan 1. 7. 1986-22. 7. 87 00 07 22. 2. U. P. State Bridge Corporation 23. 2. 87-30. 10. 87 00 08 09 3. M. C. D. 2. 9. 88-31. 7. 89 00 10 29 20300 He will get nil marks for experience. His total marks would be 16. (8 for qualification, and 8 for Interview ). Om Prakash Baldev Krishan 1. 7. 1986-22. 7. 87 00 07 22. 2. U. P. State Bridge Corporation 23. 2. 87-30. 10. 87 00 08 09 3. M. C. D. 2. 9. 88-31. 7. 89 00 10 29 20300 He will get nil marks for experience. His total marks would be 16. (8 for qualification, and 8 for Interview ). " ( 7 ) THE report shows that an explanation was offered by Mr. Sunil Tyagi with regards to these certificates but the same was rejected on the ground that the Triveni Structurals and D. D. Surveys were two different entities. Learned Counsel for Mr. Sunil Tyagi has contended that it is not acase of service with two employers. According to learned Counsel, M/s. D. D. Surveys were executing the work at site for Triveni Structurals and Mr. Sunil Tyagi though employed with Triveni Structurals was posted at the work site. In our opinion the explanation offered on behalf of Mr. Sunil Tyagi appears to be plausible and its rejection was wholly unjustified. In view of the explanation offered by Mr. Tyagi, it cannot be held that one of the certificates of experience submitted by him was either false or fictitious. ( 8 ) DILIP Ramnani The Selection Board had awarded 18 marks to Mr. Dilip Ramnani. On verification of record, Mr. Justice Jain has found him ineligible for selection on the ground that his experience was less than two years. Mr. Justice Jain has stated in his report as under: "date of birth and percentage of marks are correct as per certificates on the file. Experience from 1. 1. 1986 to 31. 3. 1986 with United Constructions is supported by certificate. Candidate filed two certificates in support of employment with Intrigated Construction Managementconsultants Pvt. Ltd. ,gurgaon. Both are dated 14. 6. 1986 with the same reference number. The first certificate says that he joined their concern as J. E. On 1. 4. 1986 and was working on their Garden Estate Project in Gurgaon. The second certificate says that he was in their service from 1. 4. 1986 to 31. 1. 1987. This certificate appears to be suspicious because on l4. 6. 1986 which is the date of the certificate it could not be certified that he was in their service upto 31. 1. 1987. In these circumstances, I have taken the total experience with this firm as 1. 4. 4. 1986 to 31. 1. 1987. This certificate appears to be suspicious because on l4. 6. 1986 which is the date of the certificate it could not be certified that he was in their service upto 31. 1. 1987. In these circumstances, I have taken the total experience with this firm as 1. 4. 1986 to 14. 6. 1986. He claimed experience for working with Ishvakee (India) Pvt. Ltd. from II. 8. 1988 to30. 11. 1988. Mr. Ramnani has filed the certificate dated 12. 8. 1988 from Ishvaku (India) Pvt. Ltd. which says that he joined their service on 11. 2. 1988. This certificate also does not give the date when he left the service. I have taken this experience from 11. 2. 1988 to 12. 8. 1988, the date of the certificate. Candidate has filed a certificate dated 15. 3. 1987 which says that he joined RAORI Associates on 1. 2. 1987. It, however, does not say upto what date he worked there. In the circumstances, I have taken his experience in this firm from 1. 2. 1987 to 15. 2. 1987 the date of certificate. Mrs. Janani stated that experience with ICMCP Ltd. should be taken up to 31. 1. 1987 because he joined RAORI and Associates with effect from 1. 2. 1987 and similarly experience with M/s. RAORI Associates should be counted up to 715 10. 2. 1988 because he joined Ishvakwee (1) Pvt. Ltd. on 11. 2. 1988. Prima facie I find no justification for raising such presumptions. His experience, therefore, would be as under:- United Constructions N. D. 1. 1. 86 to 31. 3. 86 00 03 00 ICMCP Ltd. , Gurgaon 1. 4. 86 to 14. 6. 86 00 02 14 Raori Associates 1. 2. 87 to 15. 3. 87 00 01 15 Ishvakee (1) Ltd. 11. 2. 88 to 12. 8. 88 00 06 02 MCD 1. 12. 88 to 31. 7. 89 00 08 00 01 07 01 *his experience was less than 2 years and he was not eligible". END TAGGING 9. No doubt, one of the certificates issued by ICMCP Ltd. , Gurgaon raises suspicion with regard to the duration of Mr. Ramnani s employment in the said company and Mr. Justice Jain has, therefore, taken his experience in the said company for the period from 1. 4. 1986 to 14. 6. 1986. END TAGGING 9. No doubt, one of the certificates issued by ICMCP Ltd. , Gurgaon raises suspicion with regard to the duration of Mr. Ramnani s employment in the said company and Mr. Justice Jain has, therefore, taken his experience in the said company for the period from 1. 4. 1986 to 14. 6. 1986. Both the certificates issued by the said company go to show that Sh. Ramnani was its employee. However, in the absence of clear and cogent evidence, it cannot be held that Sh. Ramnani had obtained employment by submitting false or fictitious certificate. Mahabir Prasad 10. Selection Board has awarded 16- to Mahabir Prasad, whereas, on scrutiny,mr. Justice Jain allotted 15- marks to him. Mr. Jain has reduced the marks on the ground that one of the certificates issued by India Gypsum Ltd. issued in favour of Mahabir Prasad was false. The certificate dated 31. 3. 1988 issued by the said company shows that Mahabir Prasad was in their service from 1. 12. 1985 to 30. 11. 1987, whereas the certificate dated 28. 4. 1987 recites that Mahavir Prasad was emptied in their or ganisation from 1. 12. 1985 till the date of issue of the certificate. According to Mr. Justice Jain, the certificate dated 31. 3. 1988 appeared to be false in as much as the said certificate showed that Mahavir Prasad remained in service of the said company till 3. 11. 1987, whereas Mahavir Prasad admittedly had joined service with the MCD (D. W. S. and S. D. U) w. e. f. 9. 11. 1987. No doubt there is an apparent inconsistency between these two certificates but there is nothing on the record to show or suggest that Mahavir Prasad never remained in the employment of the said company or that he had forged these certificates. The error with regard to the date i. e. . 30. 11. 1987 in the certificate dated 31. 3. 1988 might have occurred due to a typographical error. Ajay Gautam 11. The Selection Board has awarded 15 marks to Ajay Gautam. Mr. Justice Jain has also allotted the same marks to him but he observed that "in case cut offdate is taken as 16. 7. 1989 and there is no roundingof his marks would be reduced by half mark" It appears that Mr. Justice Jain has taken the cut off date as 31. 7. Mr. Justice Jain has also allotted the same marks to him but he observed that "in case cut offdate is taken as 16. 7. 1989 and there is no roundingof his marks would be reduced by half mark" It appears that Mr. Justice Jain has taken the cut off date as 31. 7. 1989 while awarding 15 inarks to him. Admittedly, the cut offdate is 17. 7. 1989 and according to the report of Mr. Justice Jain if the cut of fdate is taken as l7. 7. 1989,half mark has to be deducted from the marks allotted to Mr. Ajay Gautam. It follows that the marks allotted to Mr. Ajay Gautam are 14 -. 716 For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the appointment of S/shri Sunil Tyagi, Dilip Ramnani, Mahabir Prasad and Ajay Gautam can not be quashed on the ground that they had obtained employment by producing false or fictitious certificates. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5087/97, 805/98, 1871/95,4927/97, 1516/98, 1484/98 and 1485/98 : 12. By these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the selection and appointments of candidates on the same grounds mentioned earlier. We do not propose to set out here the averments made in these writ petitions because we have already mentioned the relevant facts in the earlier part of this order. 13. On 1. 10. 1996 and on 3. 10. 1996, S/shri J. S. Dhyani and S. K. Prabhakar filed two separate applications under Order I Rule 10, Criminal Procedure Code (C. M. No. 6787/96 and 6675/96 respectively) for their impleadment in the Civil Writ Petition No. 4819/94 on the ground of their non-selection for the posts in question. Mr. S. K. Katara, respondent No. 63 in LPA No. 95/94 (Ansar Alam and Ors. v. M. C. D. and Ors. , has filed CM 671 /98, praying for his transposition as an appellant in the appeal on the ground that he is also aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 10. 8. 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. Learned Counsel for the M. C. D. has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of these petitions/applications on the ground of delay and laches, it is significant to mention that in the instant case the list of the candidates selected by the M. C. D. was notified on 11. 5. 1990. On 23. 11. 14. Learned Counsel for the M. C. D. has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of these petitions/applications on the ground of delay and laches, it is significant to mention that in the instant case the list of the candidates selected by the M. C. D. was notified on 11. 5. 1990. On 23. 11. 1995, Mr. Justice Jain was appointed by this Court to verify the relevant records and he submitted his report to this Court on 12. 8. 1996. The petitioners/appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they had the impetus from the report submitted by Mr. Justice Jain. No doubt Article 226 of the Constitution prescribes no period of limitation, but the period fixed by the Limitation Act within which a suit in Civil Court must be brought can ordinarily be taken as reasonable standard by which delay in seeking the remedy under Article 226 can be measured. (Mafat Lal Industries Ltd. v. UOI, (1997) 5 SCC 357 ). For this purpose,it does not seem to matter whether a suit would, in fact, lie or not The inquiry should be when would a suit for the relief claimed becomes barred by time,if a suitlay. Unfortunately,on the date of filing of these petitions/applications, a suit for the relief claimed would have been barred. Consequently, these petitioners/applicants are dis-entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution due to inordinate delay and laches. 15. On 10. 3. 1998, the appellant No. 12 (Mr. V. K. Kadiyan) filed CM 682/98 in LPA 95/94 seeking a direction to restore the marks awarded to him by the Selection Board. The Selection Board had awarded 15 marks to him. On verification of the record, Mr. Justice Jain has reduced the total marks awarded to the applicant from 15 to 14. Mr. Justice Jain has assigned valid reasons for reducing the marks and we are not inclined to take a different view. Consequently the said application deserves to be dismissed. 16. It is an admitted position that the last appointee is Mr. V. K. Bhatia. On verification of the records, Mr. Justice Jain has allotted 16 marks to him. His name 717 appears at SI. No. 60 in the List-A. Mr. Justice Jain has also allotted 16 marks to Mr. Consequently the said application deserves to be dismissed. 16. It is an admitted position that the last appointee is Mr. V. K. Bhatia. On verification of the records, Mr. Justice Jain has allotted 16 marks to him. His name 717 appears at SI. No. 60 in the List-A. Mr. Justice Jain has also allotted 16 marks to Mr. A. K. Singhla and 15- marks to S/shri R. K. Jain, B. B. Jaiswal, A. K. Batra, Nasrual Islam and S. K. Prabhakar. On verification, 14- marks have been allotted to S/shri Ashwani Kumar, R. K. Gupta, M. M. Dahiya, J. S. Dhiyani and Ansar Aalam. Mr. Justice Jain has also placed Mr. A. K. Batra, Mr. R. K. Jain and Mr. B. B. Jaiswal at position Nos. 43,58 and 59 respectively in the list prepared by him, whereas the Selection Board had placed them in the waiting list (W. L. No. 6,2 and 5 ). Mr. Jain has placed Nasrul Islam and M. M. Dahiya in the waiting list. Mr. Justice Jain has allotted 15 marks to S/shri M. M. Khan, S. K. Mittal and D. K. Chadha and 14- marks to Ashwini Kumar, R. K. Gupta and Ansar Aalam. It has to be borne in mind that an effort to do complete justice between the parties is a compulsion of judicial conscience and the Court can and should strive to evolve an appropriate remedy, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, so as to prevent injustice arising from the exigencies of the cause or matter before it. It needs to be highlighted that Mr. Ajay Gautam, to whom 14- marks has been allotted, was placed at SI. No. 51 in the select list prepared by the Selection Board. According to Mr. Justice Jain, he ought to have been placed at position No. 26 in the waiting list. Since Mr. Ajay Gautam has been appointed by the M. C. D. , the candidates namely S/shri M. K. Singhia, R. K. Jain, B. B. Jaiswal, A. K. Batra, Nasrul Islam, M. M. Khan, Shri Mandir, S. K. Mittal, D. K. Chadha, Ashwini Kumar, R. K. Gupta, M. M. Dahiya and Ansar Alam, who have approached this Court within a reasonable time and have obtained not less than 14- marks are also entitled to similar treatment. Consequently, the aforesaid candidates are entitled to be appointed for the said posts against the existing vacancies. Remaining appellants/petitioners whose marks verified by Mr. Justice Jain are below 14- were ineligible for appointment to the posts in question and therefore, cannot be granted any relief. 17. This leads to another thorny issue about fixing seniority of the new entrants qua those already appointed for the posts in question. It has been contended that those who failed to get into the service cannot be retrospectively appointed to disturb the seniority of the candidates selected and appointed for the posts in question. As mentioned earlier, some of the candidates selected by the Selection Board wereineligible either not having the requisite experience on the cut off date, i. e. 17. 7. 1989 or not being within the maximum age limit. It cannot be overlooked that their selection for the posts in question itself is tainted. The lawful expectations of S/shri M. K. Singhla, R. K. Jain, B. B. Jaiswal, A. K. Batra, Nasrul Islam, M. M. Khan, Shri Mandir, S. K. Mittal, Ashwini Kumar, R. K. Gupta, M. M. Dahiya and Ansar Alam were denied by the failure of the Selection Board to follow a fair procedure of selection. Needless to add here that procedural fairness and impartiality are the indispensable essence of the administrative action. The fairness or fair procedure in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to it. It must take decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. A selection or decision which is made without bias or extraneous consideration, and with proper consideration of the comparative merits of the candidates, will not only be more acceptable, it will also be of better quality. However, it is the duty of the Court to undo the wrong that was initially done to the aforesaid candidates by treating them to have been recruited 718 on the day the other selected candidates were recruited. They should not be made to suffer in the matter of seniority also. 18. However, it is the duty of the Court to undo the wrong that was initially done to the aforesaid candidates by treating them to have been recruited 718 on the day the other selected candidates were recruited. They should not be made to suffer in the matter of seniority also. 18. Taking an overall view of the matter, we deem it fit to issue the following directions: (a) S/shri M. K. Singhla, R. K. Jain, B. B. Jaiswal, A. K. Batra, Nasrul Islam, M. M. Khan, Shri Mandir, S. K. Mittal, D. K. Chadha, Ashwini Kumar, R. K. Gupta, M. M. Dahiya and Ansar Alam shall be given appointments for the posts in question, from the date they are entitled to as per the original selection in 1989 without giving them any monetary benefit for the period from the date they were entitled to the appointments to the date they are actually appointed and if, necessary, they may be given deemed date of appointment. It is, however, clarified that the aforesaid persons may be considered for promotion on completion of qualifying service in the rank as per rules. Respondent M. C. D. is directed to carry out the aforesaid directions within four weeks from today. (b) Inter sc seniority of S/shri M. K. Singla, R. K. Jain, B. B. Jaiswal, A. K. Batra, Nasrul Islam, M. M. Dahiya, M. M. Khan, Sri Manider, S. K. Mittal, D. K. Chadha, Ashwani Kumar, R. K. Gupta, Ansar Alam and the remaining candidates selected and appointed for the posts in question shall be determined by the respondent/m. C. D. in accordance with their ranking in the merit list prepared by Mr. Justice Jain, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected employees. 19. Before we conclude, we would like to record out sense of gratitude to the learned Counsel for the parties, who addressed us at the Bar, which could aptly be called a labour of love and co-operation. They have argued the matter with their usual fairness and ability and have left nothing unsaid. We would also like to place on record our appreciation for the valuable service rendered by Mr. J. M. Sabharwal and Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat, Advocates, who have devoted considerable industry to the task. The cooperation shown by Mr. Sabharwal was remarkable keeping in view the fact that he was appearing for a public body. We would also like to place on record our appreciation for the valuable service rendered by Mr. J. M. Sabharwal and Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat, Advocates, who have devoted considerable industry to the task. The cooperation shown by Mr. Sabharwal was remarkable keeping in view the fact that he was appearing for a public body. This case demonstrates how fairness on the part of Counsel can help the cause of justice. This litigation could have gone on and on for years. However, the Counsel for the parties realising this fact adopted an approach of co-operation in order to put an end to the entire litigation. They all realised that an order on the above lines could be the best solution in the facts of these cases. We hope that this object is achieved. The Letters Patent Appeals/writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. 732 THE DELHI LAW TIMES 1998 732 payment of interest or in the alternative reduction in interest at the rate not more than 6% p. a. after the institution of the suit. Do these circumstances justify exercise of discretion in favour of defendants or it will be unjust and inequitable to do so. 26. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the conduct of the defendants during all these 12 years and the legal position noticed above, in my view, it will not be inequitable, unreasonable and unjust to exercise discretion in favour of the defendants either in waiving the interest completely or reducing the rate of interest lower than the agreed rate after the institution of the suit. It would crown the defendants and give an occasion to like minded unscrupulous debtors to misuse the process of the Court likewise. Public money is involved and public interest demands that it will not be sound exercise of discretion to disallow interest or to reduce it to merely 6% per annum after the institution of the suit. 27. The plaintiff has claimed interest after institution of the suit at the agreed rate in accordance with the directives of the Reserve Bank of India. This being so has not been disputed. The Bank s rates of interest have been fluctuating and during the last 12 years they have increased and also recently decreased. 28. 27. The plaintiff has claimed interest after institution of the suit at the agreed rate in accordance with the directives of the Reserve Bank of India. This being so has not been disputed. The Bank s rates of interest have been fluctuating and during the last 12 years they have increased and also recently decreased. 28. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I allow interest @ 16% p. a. on the sum of Rs-5,67,285. 72 p. per annum for the period after institution of the suit. 29. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed and a decree for the recovery ofrs. 5,67,285. 72 is passed against the defendants with costs of the suit and pewdente lite and future interest @ 16% per annum thereon. Due credit shall be given to the amounts paid by the defendants after the institution of the suit. Suit decreed.