JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions have challenged the selection process in the matter of appointment of Deputy Managers (Finance) and Asstt. Managers (Finance) respectively with regard to the selections made on the said posts by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur (for short the "Corporation") in the year 1991-92. The petitioners in writ petitions Nos. 6048/92 and 5529/92 are those unsuccessful candidates who had applied for the post of Deputy Managers (Finance) with the corporation but not selected, while petitioners in writ petition Nos. 7589/92 and 1109/93 are those candidates who had applied for selection for the posts of Asstt. Managers (Finance) with corporation in the selections held in the year 1991-92 but not selected. Incidentally all the above named petitioners had duly participated in the selection process and had appeared in the qualifying test as well as in the personal interview/viva-voce but not declared successful for securing appointment on the aforesaid posts. Since the questions involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are common & questions of law laid down therein for consideration of this court are also identical, the same have been finally heard together and are being decided by this single common order. 2. For the sake of convenience and ready reference I deem it appropriate to deal with and refer to the facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6048/1992 treating the same as main case. 3. The Corporation was constituted and established under section 3 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1951 ") and hence it is statutory corporation having been funded entirely by the State Government and hence falls within the ambit of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, all actions/inactions/omissions of corporation are subjected to judicial scrutiny which is touchstone of reasonableness, fairness, un-arbitrariness, discrimination etc. and if found otherwise its impugned actions would be hit by equality clause under Article 14 and in the field of public employment by Article 16 besides Articles 21 & 311 of the Constitution of India and would be liable to be struck down in accordance with law. 4. and if found otherwise its impugned actions would be hit by equality clause under Article 14 and in the field of public employment by Article 16 besides Articles 21 & 311 of the Constitution of India and would be liable to be struck down in accordance with law. 4. The resume of events giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid writ petitions in this court briefly stated are that on 31.8.1983 the Corporation carried out an advertisement in "Rajasthan Patrika" for inviting applications for making appointments on various posts including posts of Deputy Managers (Finance) and Asstt. Managers (Finance) of the said Corporation. In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 6048/92 and 5529/92 applied for the post of Deputy Managers (Finance) on the basis of eligibility criteria as specified in the aforesaid advertisement, while the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 7589/92 and 1109/93 applied for the posts of Asstt. Managers (Finance). The petitioners Ashok Kumar Jain and Shiv Kumar Gupta were already functioning in the corporation as Asstt. Managers (Finance) and being eligible for their selection on the posts of Deputy Managers (Finance) on the basis of their academic qualification had participated in the selection process by having applied for the said posts in September, 1991 and thereafter appeared for personal interview and viva-voce test on 30.4.1992. While the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 1109/93 and 7589/92 were initially appointed on the post of typist and thereafter after having been promoted as Assistants, they applied for their appointment on the post of Asstt. Managers (Finance) in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement published in Rajasthan Patrika inviting applications for direct recruitment to different posts in the corporation including the posts of Asstt. Managers (Finance).4A. The minimum qualifications which were prescribed for the posts of Asstt. Managers (Finance) as per the advertisement were as under : (1) (a) First Class Degree in commerce or Second Class DCWN Post Graduate in Economics/Commerce/Statistics/Mathematics, Or (b) MBA/CA (Inter)/ICWA (Inter) (c) Two years experience in Government Undertaking/Industrial Undertaking/Financial Institution in a responsible position. (2) Higher start was to be considered for those candidates possessing qualification of C.A. or M.B.A. or ICWA/CA (Inter) or ICWA (Inter). It is also relevant to mention the minimum eligibility and academic qualifications as well as requisite experience as Asstt. (2) Higher start was to be considered for those candidates possessing qualification of C.A. or M.B.A. or ICWA/CA (Inter) or ICWA (Inter). It is also relevant to mention the minimum eligibility and academic qualifications as well as requisite experience as Asstt. Managers (Finance) from amongst whom those candidates who were found eligible for appointment on the posts of Deputy Managers (Finance) were appointed by the corporation and the prescribed qualifications for which were as under-(a) C.A. or (b) M.B.A./CWA/SAS (Commercial) or First Gass DCWA/Post Graduate Degree in Commerce/Economics/ Statistics/ Mathematics (a) Three years experience in Government Undertaking/Industrial Undertaking/ Financial Institution." 5. For the sake of convenience and ready reference it shall also be appropriate to briefly mention the scheme of the Act, 1951 as well as the corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958 (For short the Regulations") which were formulated by the Corporation in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 48 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act provides for appointment of officers, Ad visors and employees of the Corporation and so also their conditions of service of appointments as well as the remuneration payable to them which are to be determined by the Regulations. Whereas Section 48 of the Act authorises the Board of the corporation to formulate regulations for all matters relevant and pertaining for giving effect to the provisions of the Act including the duties and conduct of the officials, ad visors and agents as mentioned in sub-clause (j) and (n) of sub-section (2) of Section 48, while sub-section (3) of Section 48 specifically lays down that Regulations made under this Section or required to be published in official gazette and all such Regulations shall have effect from the date as specified therein. As regard Regulations of 1958 it shall be pertinent to mention that the same were formulated by the Corporation in exercise of powers conferred upon it by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, 1951. Chapter 20 of the Regulations provides for appointment of permanent staff which includes the following (a) Officers (b) Assistants (c) Subordinate Staff. 6. Regulation No. 8 mentions the appointing authority for different categories of staff while Regulations 10 provides the criteria of minimum age and Regulation 12 provides for appointment in services of the Corporation while other Regulations in Chapter 2 are in respect of commencement of service period of probation, termination, superannuation & retirement etc. 7. 6. Regulation No. 8 mentions the appointing authority for different categories of staff while Regulations 10 provides the criteria of minimum age and Regulation 12 provides for appointment in services of the Corporation while other Regulations in Chapter 2 are in respect of commencement of service period of probation, termination, superannuation & retirement etc. 7. It is apparent from the above that by virtue of powers conferred on the corporation by the Act and so also the Regulations as aforesaid, the said corporation formulated the promotion policy for promotions to different category of posts including that of the Asstt. Manager's (Finance) as well as the Deputy Managers (Finance) respectively and circulated the same from amongst its staff and officers vide order dated RFC (PA) 23(9)/2536 dated 19.9.1984 and a Schedule was also annexed to the same vide Annexure-A, the relevant excerpts of the promotion policy are as under "In accordance with decisions of the board of Directors dated 28.4.1986, 29.5.1986 and 23.8.1986 certain changes have been made in the existing policy for promotion of the employees of the Corporation to the higher posts. Some of the main changes are given below-The relevant policy had been made applicable form the year 1986 in the following manner 1. Directly recruited Senior Assistant shall be eligible for promotion to the next promotional post of stenographer Grade I after completing three years of service on the said post. 2. Promotee Graduate Senior Assistant shall be eligible for promotion after completing three years of service on the post of Senior Assistant but having a minimum service of 6 years in class 'B'. 3. Non-Graduate Senior Assistant, who has been promoted from the post of Assistant, shall be eligible for promotion after completing three years of service on the post of Senior Assistant but having a minimum service of 8 years in class'B'. 4. Non-Graduate Senior Assistants, who have been promoted from the post of Steno Typist shall be eligible from promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I after completing 3 years of service on the post of Senior Assistant but having a minimum service of 3 years on the post of Steno-Typist/Stenographer. 5. Separate Channel of promotion from the post of Steno typist to Private Secretary has been made by creating an independent cadre of Stenographers. 6. 5. Separate Channel of promotion from the post of Steno typist to Private Secretary has been made by creating an independent cadre of Stenographers. 6. Provision has been made for existing Deputy Manager (Finance) having qualifications of Diploma in Engineering for promotion to the post of Manager. 7. Channel has been provided for promotion of Assistant Manager (PR) to the post of P.R.O. and that of P.R.O. to the post of Manager and above. 8. One more group i.e. personal and Administration has been created in the cadre of Assistant Manager and above. 9. Officers promoted from within the ranks and having general qualifications were to be placed in personal and administration group. 8. As regards the criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) and Deputy Managers (Finance), the prescribed percentage by promotion as well as by direct recruitment and channel of posts from which promotions are to be made as well as the criteria of eligibility for promotion to the posts, the same is incorporated in Schedule A to the Circular dated 19.9.1984 which is as under S. No. Name of Post Method of Recruitment Post which promotion is to be made. Criteria of eligibility for promotion 1 2 3 4 5 Cadre Dy. Manager :Revised Pay Scale 2650-75-2800-100- 400-4500 1. Dy. Manager 50% by Promotion 50% by direct recruitment Asst. Manager(Finance Group) Graduate with 3 years experience by on the post mentioned in Col. 4" ANNEXURE A SCHEDULE SHOWING METHOD OF RECRUITMENT, CHANNEL AND CRITERIA ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that on the basis of eligibility criteria and in pursuance of the publication of the advertisement (Annexure 1) the petitioners had applied for their appointment to the aforesaid posts. They were called for interview and appeared before the selection committee in April, 1992 but were not be selected for reasons best known to the corporation. 10. Before I deal with the contentions as urged by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar. I deem it appropriate to refer to the criteria as regards allocation of marks for the post of Asstt. 10. Before I deal with the contentions as urged by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar. I deem it appropriate to refer to the criteria as regards allocation of marks for the post of Asstt. Managers (F) and Deputy Manager (F) and as conveyed to this court during the course of hearing of the petitions by the learned counsel representing the Corporation `RFC' in the form of a Tabular Statement for determining the eligibility of the successful candidates on the basis of their performance in order of merit who had applied for the posts of Assistant Managers (Finance) and Deputy Managers (Finance) with the corporation. 1. Educational qualifications 60 2. Experience 20 3. Extra Curricular activities 8 4. Personal Interview 12 100 ALLOCATION OF MARKS FOR THE POST OF ASSTT. MANAGER (FINANCE) Max Marks Below 60% SC/ST Deptt.Candidates 60-65% 66-70% 71-75% 76 & above (i) Secondary 10 6 6 6 7 8 10 (ii) Hr.Secondary 10 6 6 6 7 8 10 (iii) B.Com. 10 6 6 6 7 8 10 (iv) PG/MBA/DCWA 20 12 12 12 14 16 20 upto 50% 51-55% 56-60% Above 60% CA 12 14 17 20 ICWA 12 14 17 20 Addl. Qualification DCWA 10 MBA CA ICWA CS LL.B (professional) PHD CAIIB 1. FOR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS-60 MARKS. 2. FOR EXPERIENCE-20 MARKS Govt. Enterprises Public Ltd.Companies Others (i) Minimum Prescribed Experience 15 15 12 8 (ii) Add. Experience Per Year-1 5 3. FOR EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES-8 MARKS LEVEL National State University (i) Sports 4 4 3 2 (ii) Cultural Debate 2 2 12 1 (iii) NCC's Certificate/ or Scouts etc. 2 2 1 1 4. Personal Interview-12 Marks Sd/- (J.P. Singh) CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR" 11. Experience Per Year-1 5 3. FOR EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES-8 MARKS LEVEL National State University (i) Sports 4 4 3 2 (ii) Cultural Debate 2 2 12 1 (iii) NCC's Certificate/ or Scouts etc. 2 2 1 1 4. Personal Interview-12 Marks Sd/- (J.P. Singh) CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR" 11. The above document containing the result of successful candidates including those who had appeared in the test and had participated in the selection process but were not selected has been taken on record during the course of hearing of the petitions.After having given detailed hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and also after having perused the summoned record of the respective candidates who have been given appointment on the aforesaid posts by the corporation as well as the marks secured by each of the candidates including the petitioners it was thought desirable that in order to verify the veracity and adjudge the authenticity of the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, the corporation was directed to place on record of this court a tabular statement duly verified by a responsible officer of the corporation indicating the marks obtained by the respective candidates who were appointed in order of merit as well as of the petitioners who had applied for the above posts but not appointed. In pursuance of the direction of this court vide order dated 22.4.19, learned counsel for RFC sent a communication to this court marked "confidential" indicating the details of the marks obtained by the petitioners for their appointment to the aforesaid posts on the basis of their performance in the selection which has already been referred to as above. 12. The total number of candidates who were called for interview by the corporation were 143 out of which 115 candidates had appeared and only 16 candidates were selected for appointment on the aforesaid posts. The position of the petitioners in order of merit on the basis of their performance in the process of selection in which they had participated, is as under Marks Obtained S. N. SBCWP No. Name Qual.Max Marks Ex.p. Max.Marks Extra Curr. Max Marks Personal interview Max.Marks Total Marks (60) (20) (8) (12) (100) 1. 6048/92 Sh. Ashok Kr. Jain 38 19 2 9 68 2. 5529/92 Sr. Brij Pal Sharan 31 20 - 4 55 3. Sh. Max Marks Personal interview Max.Marks Total Marks (60) (20) (8) (12) (100) 1. 6048/92 Sh. Ashok Kr. Jain 38 19 2 9 68 2. 5529/92 Sr. Brij Pal Sharan 31 20 - 4 55 3. Sh. Shailendra Kumar Singhal 33 15 - 7 55 4. Sh. Sunil Kumar manesnwari 30 18 - 6 54 5. Sr. D.K. Pokharna 36 18 - 7 61 13. It is apparent from the above statement that on the basis of their performance the petitioners were not declared successful for being considered for appointment on the aforesaid posts and since the last candidate who was appointed was higher in order of merit, the petitioners could not be given appointments on the aforesaid posts. 14. Being aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioners on the aforesaid posts the petitioner by way of instant writ petitions have challenged the recruitment policy adopted by the respondents for having made appointments on the aforesaid posts as well as the criteria of awarding marks on the basis of qualifications and experience as mentioned here in above on the grounds inter-alia that - (a) in the best to the best of the petitioner's knowledge no criteria was adopted or followed by the corporation for appointment on the aforesaid posts and rather the said corporation had devised a criteria of its own with regard to the award of marks for the purpose of making selections which is totally illogical, unfair and unreasonable and hence the selections made consequent to that are illegal and void ab-initio. (b) The respondents had at the first instance taken decision of selecting certain favourite candidates including respondent Nos. 7 and 12 and by keeping the same in view adopted unfair and illogical formula in order to ensure their selection. (c) With regard to the advertisement (Annexure 1) it has been contended that its bare perusal will reveal that neither any criteria nor any norms with regard to the award of marks was followed by the Selection Committee nor it was ever made known to the candidates including the petitioners prior to their interview. No such formula or norms find mention in any of the Regulations made under the provisions of the Act which are required to be published in gazette notification in order to bring them into effect. No such formula or norms find mention in any of the Regulations made under the provisions of the Act which are required to be published in gazette notification in order to bring them into effect. (d) From the entire position and circumstances it is clear that the decision of selection committee in recommending the names of certain candidates for the above posts particularly respondent Nos. 7 and 12 who were in services of the corporation as B class employees, i.e., junior assistants and assistants respectively, was taken with a view to ensure their selections by respondent No. 2 with a view to help them in securing higher marks notwithstanding their low qualifications and experience to the exclusion of highly qualified, better and more experienced candidates. Neither any formula was published on the basis of which the criteria adopted by the Management of petitioner corporation for assessing the candidature of those who were recommended for appointment by the selection committee including those who were not considered for appointment on the basis of their performance was made known to the petitioners nor was it made a part of the advertisement (Annexure 1) and further it was not made known to the petitioners and other candidates prior to their interview nor the same has been prescribed by any Regulations nor published in the gazette notification as required for giving effect to the same. 15. On this basis of the above it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing of the writ petitions that the very basis of selection made by the Corporation was illegal and void and which has consequently vitiated the entire selections and appointments already made, which deserve to be quashed and set-aside by this court. In the grounds taken in support of the writ petitions the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to specify as to which of the Regulations or which of the provisions of the Act of 1951 have been allegedly violated by the respondents nor the learned counsel has pointed out requirements of the rules or the Regulations which envisage the publication of formula for the notice of the general public which was adopted by the screening committee of the corporation for making selections and giving appointments to the respective candidates on the aforesaid posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further failed to specify as to on the basis of what statutory provisions it was mandatory for the corporation to issue gazette notification for giving effect to the same. Hence in my considered view the very basis of entire arguments on which the aforesaid contentions have been formulated by the learned counsel for the petitioners as aforesaid are without any legal or factual foundation nor there is any logic in the contentions which if accepted and taken as true would vitiate the entire selections and appointments which have already been made by the corporation in pursuance of its recommendations on the aforesaid posts. The learned counsel for the petitioners have further faded to specify as to whether it was not open to the corporation that keeping in view the large number of the candidates who had applied for the aforesaid posts as to whether there was any bar under the Rules not to shortlist the candidates keeping in view their qualifications and experience etc. with a view to evaluate their relative merits and for evolving some logical criteria by making selections for appointment to the aforesaid posts and hence the very contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are without any factual foundation or logical rational and in my considered view it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the selections which have already been made after due screening on the aforesaid posts. The petitioners have further failed to established any bias or mala-fides on the part of the respondents in not selecting and giving appointment to the petitioners and for having selected certain alleged favourites including respondent Nos. 7 and 12 as so alleged by the petitioners in absence of the above, in my considered view it is not open to the petitioners to challenge either the criteria of selection as regards their appointments as well as the appointments of other successful candidates since the petitioners have further failed to point out that any candidate less meritorious than them has been given appointment. I am further of the view that once having taken part in the selection process and not selected it is not open to the petitioners to prove the circumstances which impelled the selection committee to have made the appointments of successful candidates on the above posts nor it is open to them to challenge the selection of those who have already been appointed on the grounds of alleged favouratism, bias or malafides as so alleged by the petitioners which has neither been proved nor established. With a view to dispel any doubts regarding the selections, the corporation was directed to send the result of the candidates who were declared successful including that of the petitioners which was sent in a sealed envelope. 16. From the perusal of the chart containing the result of the candidates as aforesaid, it is apparent that for the posts of Deputy Managers (Finance) for the year 1991-92, 143 candidates were called for interview out of which 115 appeared for the same while only 16 candidates could find their place on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee. The marks secured by the petitioners are much below the last successful candidate who has been given appointment. Likewise for the posts of Assistant Manager (Finance) for the year 1991-92, 196 candidates were called for interview out of which 170 actually had appeared while only 20 candidates were selected and recommended for appointment on the basis of their performance after evaluating their relative merit qua those candidates who were not selected including the petitioners, namely, Servshri Shiv Kumar Gupta and Sanjeev i Ajmera. Last candidate who was given appointment, i.e., Shri Ghevar Chand Jain had obviously secured higher marks than the petitioners, namely, Ashok Kumar, Brij Pal Sharan, Shalendra Kumar Singhal, Sunil Kumar Maheshwari and D.K. Pokharana. Hence by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the respondents had with a view to accommoda'e their favourites including respondent Nos. 7 and 12, adopted illogical and unfair formula in order to ensure their selections or with a view to exclude the petitioners who could not be selected and given appointment on the aforesaid posts. 17. Hence by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the respondents had with a view to accommoda'e their favourites including respondent Nos. 7 and 12, adopted illogical and unfair formula in order to ensure their selections or with a view to exclude the petitioners who could not be selected and given appointment on the aforesaid posts. 17. The petitioners have further failed to point out any of the Regulations or relevant provisions of the Act of 1951 under which it was mandatory for corporation to publish the formula in advance or to reveal the same to the general public with regard to the selections of the candidates and hence it cannot be said that the selections were made in illegal and arbitrary manner and rather a very fair and logical approach was applied by RFC in making the selections and giving appointments to those candidates who had qualified successfully for being recommended for appointment on the above posts. I am further of the view that it is well settled law that once having participated in selection process and thereafter not having been declared successful, it is not open to the unsuccessful candidates to either challenge the process of selection or to contend any bias or favourtism on the part of appointing authority for having made appointments of more meritorious and deserving candidates. I am further of the considered view that the petitioners having already availed an opportunity of participating in the selection process and thereafter not having been declared successful, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the same on extraneous consideration as referred to above and the Selection Committee which is an expert body had examined the relative merits of each and every candidates and thereafter on the basis of numerous factors like qualifications, experience, over all performance etc. had made the selections for appointment on the aforesaid posts. 18. had made the selections for appointment on the aforesaid posts. 18. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently repelled the arguments as advanced at the bar by the learned counsel for petitioners and have controverted the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending inter- alia that on the basis of averments made by the petitioners it is not open to them either to challenge the selection process nor it is open to them to challenge the procedure of selection on the basis of alleged favourtism of successful candidates which is without any factual and legal foundation or basis. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is the settled law that if a candidates takes a chance and has already participated in the process of selection then in the event of his non-selection, he is estopped from questioning the selection process of from probing the mental process which impelled the members of selection committee to have recommended those candidates who ha ye been appointed after being declared successful by the selection committee. Hence I am of the considered opinion that it is not open to the petitioners to have challenged the appointments already made by the corporation on the above posts nor it is open to them to challenge the procedure adopted by the Expert body which had recommended the appointments on any of the grounds as aforesaid. 19. The aforesaid contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents are duly substantiated from the reply to preliminary objections as well as para wise reply on merits filed by the respondent Corporation in reply to show cause notice issued by this court. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant documents and pleadings on the record. I am further of the considered view that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge either the process of selection or the criteria evolved in making the appointments on the aforesaid posts of the meritorious and successful candidates and since none of the candidates who is less meritorious than the petitioners has been given appointment, it is not open to the petitioners to plead to the contrary. The corporation is a statutory body having been constituted by a special enactment by the legislature and is governed and controlled by the State Government of Rajasthan dealing with Public Funds as a Financial Institution for conserving the public good and welfare of the people for smooth and effective functioning of the administration and hence by no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that the officers as well as the employees who are responsible for its smooth and effective functioning have exercised their discretion in an irresponsible manner as has been so alleged by the petitioners. 21. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court : E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 1974 SC 555 , Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India : AIR 1979 SC 1628 , M/s Kasturi Lai Laxmi Reddy etc. v. State of J. and K. & Others : AIR 1980 SC 1992 , M/s Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons. v. Board of Trustees, Bombay Port : AIR 1989 SC 1642 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress : AIR 1991 SC 101 . 22. In the matter of E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. (supra) while dealing with the question as regards the composition of cadres with reference to the Indian Administrative Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954 it was held by the apex court that the strength and composition of cadres shall be determined by Regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government and it is not open to the State Government alone to alter the strength and composition of the cadre and the posts so added do not become cadre posts. On the question of malafides it was held that the burden of establishing the same is very heavy on the person who alleges it and are very often more easily made, then proved and the seriousness of such allegations demand proof of higher order of credibility.. 23. In the matter of Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India (supra) tenders were invited by the Airport Authority from amongst the eligible candidates for making appointment for running Restaurants and snack bars at the airports. 23. In the matter of Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India (supra) tenders were invited by the Airport Authority from amongst the eligible candidates for making appointment for running Restaurants and snack bars at the airports. It was observed by the apex court that since corporation is an instrumentality of state and an agency of the Government it would in the exercise of its discretion to be subject to some constitutional or public law limitations governing the same. The rule inhibiting arbitrariness must apply equally to corporations dealing with public revenue whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or otherwise and it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person of its liking at its sweet will and its actions must be in conformity with rules of procedure which means,he test of reason and relevance. 24. In the matter of M/s Kasturilal Laxmi Reddy v. State of J. and K. (supra), in the matter concerning the grant of Largess it was observed by the apex court that where the Government is dealing with public whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of Largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily and the limitations imposed by the law with regard to structure and control of the discretion must be exercised fairly and unlike a private individual, the State cannot act as it pleases about the matter of giving Largess and it cannot choose to deal with any person to please in its absolute and unfettered discretion. 25. In the matter of M/s Dwarkadas Marfatia v. Board of Trustees Bombay Port (supra) regarding the subject concerning the allocation of plots to eligible candidates by the Bombay Port Trust, a policy decision was taken by the Trust with a view to plan development of the area, which was challenged before the apex court. It was held by the apex court that being a public body the Port Trust must act in public interest and an infraction of the duty is amenable to examination either in civil suits or in writ jurisdiction. 26. In the matter of Delhi Transport Corp. v. DTC Mazdoor Congress (supra) Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 certain appointments made by the corporation were made subject matter of challenge by unsuccessful candidates in appeal before the apex court. 26. In the matter of Delhi Transport Corp. v. DTC Mazdoor Congress (supra) Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 certain appointments made by the corporation were made subject matter of challenge by unsuccessful candidates in appeal before the apex court. The corporation had terminated the services of certain candidates who were permanent employees without holding departmental enquiry and its validity came under challenge in appeal. The Constitution Bench of apex court by majority held that Regulation 9(b) which confers powers on the Authority to terminate the services of a permanent and confirmed employee by issuing notice without assigning any reason in the order and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the employee before passing the impugned order, is wholly arbitrary, uncanalised and unrestricted being violative of principles of natural justice as well as Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further observed that Government company or the corporation are State instrument alities within the meaning and ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such they are subject to observance and fundamental rights embodied in part 3 of the Constitution of India. 27. In my view the ratio of the aforesaid decisions as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable and not attracted for the reason that the petitioners have failed to point out any arbitrariness as regards the criteria or the procedure adopted by the corporation in making appointments of the successful candidates who were recommended for appointment on the above post and are also not entitled to challenge the same for any of the extraneous considerations or grounds as aforesaid. I am of the firm opinion that in the field of administrative law the actions of the quasi-judicial authorities as well as the administrative bodies and institutions are not open to challenge unless arbitrariness is clearly spelt out in their impugned actions or decisions and further the allegations of bias, favourtism, nepotism and mala fides are clearly ruled out unless specific averments are made to that effect and it should be duly supported and substantiated by positive evidence on the record since otherwise no instrumentality of the State shall be free to discharge its functions on behalf of the sovereign nor it will be free to exercise its powers and functions in accordance with law and unless it is established that there is clear departure from the Rules and Regulations and it should be specifically established on the record and otherwise the scope of judicial review is limited and cannot be so stretched for interference in a manner as so contended by the petitioners. 28. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the following decisions - 29. Dr. G. Sarna v. University of Lucknow & Ors. : AIR 1976 SC 2428 , Nanik Talwani v. Malvia Regional Engineering College, Jaipur 1993 (3) WLC 51 , Bengalor Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and Ors. 1991 (4) SCC 54 , Manaklal v. Dr. Premchand Singhvi & Ors. : AIR 1957 SC 425 , National Institute of Mental Health & Nuero Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and others : 1992 (Supp.)(2) SCC 481 and Maj. General IPS Diwan v. Union of India and others : 1995 (3) SCC 383 . 30. In the matter of Dr. G. Sarna v. University of Lucknow & Ors. (supra) a Special leave to Appeal was filed before the apex court against the decision of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the recommendations made by the Selection Committee of Lucknow University for appointment of respondent No. 8 as Professor of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts of the University. There were only two candidates who had participated in the selection process before the Selection Committee constituted by the University and three experts who were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, constituted the Selection Committee to interview the candidates and to make their recommendations to the Executive Council of the University. There were only two candidates who had participated in the selection process before the Selection Committee constituted by the University and three experts who were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, constituted the Selection Committee to interview the candidates and to make their recommendations to the Executive Council of the University. After interviewing two candidates, i.e., the appellant and respondent No. 8, the recommendations were made for appointment to the post of Professor of Anthropology by the Selection Committee. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were challenged earlier before the High Court by the appellant who was not a successful candidate on the allegations of bias against the members of the Selection Committee. The apex court while dismissing the appeal of the appellant observed as under "Where a candidate for selection knowing fully well the relevant facts about the members of the selection Board voluntarily appeared for interview without raising any kind of objection against the constitution of the Selection Board and took a chance of favourable recommendation in his favour, it was not open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Board when the decision was un favourable to him." 31. In the matter of Manaklal Advocate v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and Ors. (Supra) the appellant Manaklal was an Advocate practicing at Saujat City. A complaint was filed against him under Section 13 of the Legal practitioners Act by the respondent with the allegations that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and that suitable action be taken against him since he was not a pleader or a mukhtar but an Advocate of High Court of Rajasthan and the complaint was sent for enquiry to the Tribunal nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court under Section 10(2) of the Bar Counsel's Act. The Tribunal conducted an enquiry, recorded the evidence and came to an unanimous conclusion that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct in having obtained false stay order written by his clerk by improper means and thereby he had managed to obtain illegal and undue advantage for his clients and, therefore, deserved to be punished for the same. The Tribunal conducted an enquiry, recorded the evidence and came to an unanimous conclusion that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct in having obtained false stay order written by his clerk by improper means and thereby he had managed to obtain illegal and undue advantage for his clients and, therefore, deserved to be punished for the same. When the report was received by the High Court, it agreed with the findings recorded by the Tribunal and directed that the appellant should be removed from practise at the bar against which appellant came up in Special Leave Petition before the apex court. On the allegations of bias made against the members of the Tribunal it was observed by the Apex Court as under "On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant knew the material facts and must be deemed to have been conscious of his legal rights In the matter and therefore his deliberate failure to raise the objection to the constitution of the Tribunal on ground of bias before the tribunal at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him and he was precluded for raising it before the High Court for the first time. It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point." 32. In the matter of National Institute of Mental Health and Neure Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman & Others (supra) a committee consisting of some experts including the Director General of Health Services, Government of India, New Delhi as its chairman was constituted to screen out the candidates and recommend suitable candidates for selection as i professors of the Institution. The said selection committee after interviewing the candidates and assessing their relative merits recommended a panel of names for appointment as Professors of the said institute. The appointment of one candidate was challenged by an unsuccessful candidate before the High Court of Karnataka by way of a writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the proceedings of the Selection Committee on two grounds, i.e. - (i) that it was not possible to say on degree of confidence that in Dr. The appointment of one candidate was challenged by an unsuccessful candidate before the High Court of Karnataka by way of a writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the proceedings of the Selection Committee on two grounds, i.e. - (i) that it was not possible to say on degree of confidence that in Dr. Kalyan Raman's case who was appointed as a professor of the institute had received a fair and reasonable consideration at the hands of the Selection Committee, (ii) that the Selection Committee had not given any reasons to establish any rational nexus between the facts said to have been considered by the said Committee and the conclusions arrived on the basis of the material before it. In appeal before the apex court preferred by the institute it was observed by the apex court that though it is well settled that procedural fairness is the important requirement in the administrative actions which ought to be observed but since it had not been successfully shown that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical and the facts that the candidate who was appointed had been placed at serial No. 2 in the panel, itself indicates that he was treated fairly and it was further observed that it must be noted that the function of the selection committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory but purely administrative and since the selections had been made after assessment of relative merit of the rival candidates determined in the course of interview of candidates possessing required eligibility and since there was no rule or Regulation brought to the notice of the court requiring the Selection Committee to record its reason, in absence of such legal requirement the selection made without recording reasons, cannot be found faulted with. It was further observed by the apex court that members of the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the subject with which they were dealing and being men of high status and of unquestionable impartiality, the court should be slow to interfere with their opinion. The appeal was consequently allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set-aside. 33. The appeal was consequently allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set-aside. 33. In the matter of Nanik Talwani v. M.R.E.C., Jaipur (supra) the petitioner who had joined the services of M.R.E.C. Jaipur as Associate lecturer in Structtlral Engineering, has challenged 'the Scheme of promotion adopted by the Society of selecting candidates as arbitrary on the grounds that more meritorious candidates had been ignored by giving promotion to non-petitioner No. 2 which adversely affected the service career of the petitioners. The petitioner had alleged that the Selection Committee had not made its recommendations in accordance with the merit promotion scheme formulated by the Government of India. He further alleged that the experts were not selected in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India and as such the constitution of the Selection Committee was challenged besides the arbitrary considerations which had resulted in denial of promotion tq the petitioner to the next higher post. The learned Single Judge of this court while dismissing the writ petition qua non-petitioner No. 2 observed that once having participated in the process of selection after appearing before the Selection Committee, it was not open to the petitioner from questioning the procedure adopted by the Committee for selection of meritorious candidates on the post of Professors of the M.R.E.C. and hence it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the recommendations of the Selection Committee on the plea of arbitrariness in the process of selections. 34. From the perusal of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions as cited at the bar by the learned counsel for respondents, I am of the view that their -------- is distinguishable and not attracted to the instant case. Since the petitioners had duly participated In the process of selection for the post of Deputy Manager (Finance) of the respondent corporation and thereafter not found eligible for selection for appointment on the said post. They have obviously no ground to raise their grievances before this court. It is not their case that they were not given any chance for participating either in the process of selection or In the interview before the Board duly constituted by the respondent. They have obviously no ground to raise their grievances before this court. It is not their case that they were not given any chance for participating either in the process of selection or In the interview before the Board duly constituted by the respondent. The scope of judicial review is not open for interference in such administrative matters in view of the settled law on the subject and it can be extended only In those cases where there is arbitrariness at large and which is apparent on the face of impugned order which would vitiate the entire process of selection, which is not the situation apparent in aforesaid petitions. Hence I find no justification to interfere in the appointments made on the post of Dy. Managers (Finance) by the respondent corporation. It shall however be open to petitioners to participate in the process of appointment for the said posts afresh if they are found eligible to be appointed or promoted in accordance with the rules subject to the vacancies being advertised by the respondents as against post duly sanctioned by the State Government. The respondents shall thereafter carry out the necessary advertisement by publication in daily news papers in accordance with the procedure as envisaged for the same by inviting applications from amongst suitable candidates subject to ful fillment of conditions/qualifications and other requirements as stipulated under the Rules and thereafter constitute a Selection Committee within a period of three months on the receipt of aforesaid applications. The said Selection Committee shall be an expert body to be constituted by Selection Committee shall be an expert body to be constituted by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of the respondent corporation with such other members as he may deem it appropriate to nominate and thereafter proceed with the process of selecting meritorious candidates who are declared successful on the basis of their performance in interview/viva-voce test as well as the written test and thereafter screen out and short list the candidates as against the vacancies so advertised and thereafter proceed with declaration of results by duly publishing the same by way of public notice in daily news papers within a period of two months thereafter. 35. 35. The above directions have become necessary to be given in view of the controversy raised by the petitioners In the aforesaid writ petitions and with a view to ensure fairness in selection process on higher promotional posts and also with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It shall be open to the respondent corporation to suitably amend its rules if deemed necessary in this regard by issuing notification or by publishing the same in State Gazette In consultation with State Government and shall be binding on the corporation (RFC) to be followed in all further selections on the posts of Dy. Manager (Finance). The above mechanism has to be involve with a view to ensure transparency in State action and in its instrument alities like the RFC with a view to ensure fairness in the matter of appointments and promotions on higher posts and also with a view to eliminate any chances of arbitrariness or manipulations etc. and should be strictly adhered to in future. 36. As a result of the above discussions I find no merit in the aforesaid writ petitions and the same are dismissed. The document containing the results of petitioners which was sent to this court in a sealed envelope be taken on the record in pursuance of the order of this court dated 22.4.1997.Writ petition dismissed. *******