ORDER : S. Rajendra Babu, J. - At the request of the Government, the appellant Haryana Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission") initiated steps to select persons for the post of Agricultural Engineers and Subject Matter Specialists in the Department of Agriculture. The appellant Commission received 24 applications in different categories and on examination of the same found that 14 applications deserve to be rejected and 10 applications deserve further consideration. Ten candidates were called for interview on 3-8-1988 of whom nine candidates appeared for the interview. The appellant Commission ultimately selected four candidates for the post of Subject Matter Specialists (Farm Implements) and sent the names of those candidates to the Government. Respondents 1 and 2 were not included in the list of selected candidates. They filed a writ petition in the High Court calling in question the selection made by the Commission. The High Court accepted the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents and allowed the writ petition principally on the basis that the procedure adopted by the Commission on the basis of viva voce test, alone does not suffer from any legal infirmity, the action of the Commission to allocate marks for higher qualifications and specialised training even when none of the candidates possessed these qualifications and further laying down the requirement of 40% marks of the total of 100 marks was arbitrary and, therefore, interfered with the process of selection and directed the Commission to send the names of Respondents 1 and 2 for appointment after stating as to what marks should have been allotted to them in the interview. This order is assailed before us in these appeals. 2. The criteria for selection are set out as under: "Total marks of the viva voce examination 100 marks I. Personal achievements 25 marks (a) Higher qualifications (i) Postgraduate diploma in Agricultural Engineering from a recognised university/institute 5 marks (ii) Postgraduate degree in Agricultural Engineering from a recognised university/institute 10 marks Provided a candidate having both the diploma and the postgraduate degree shall not be awarded more than 10 marks. Provided a candidate having both the diploma and the postgraduate degree shall not be awarded more than 10 marks. Provided a candidate having both the diploma and the postgraduate degree shall not be awarded more than 10 marks. (iii Experience 2 marks per year of experience in Agricultural Engineering works in a Government organisation/public undertaking/company of repute subject to a maximum of 10 marks 10 marks (iv) Specialised training in any branch of Agricultural work for a period of not less then six months 5 marks II. Interview 75 marks Interview will be conducted through oral discussion and questioning. The questions and discussion will be directed to ascertain personal qualities considered suitable for the job under reference. Important qualities to be ascertained are knowledge, awareness, outlook, interest, intelligence, initiative, articulation, leadership, aptitude, poise, bearing, attitude, confidence and other qualities. Interview marks will be further sub-divided as under: (i) Knowledge awareness outlook and interest 25 marks (ii) Intelligence articulation leadership aptitude initiative 25 marks (iii) Poise bearing attitude confidence and other qualities 25 marks In order to make a precise assessment the candidate will be graded in consultation with the Expert Adviser in the following categories for each of the three groups of qualities? (i) Knowledge awareness outlook and interest: (a) Good 18 to 25 marks (b) Average 9 to 17 marks (c) Poor 1 to 8 marks (ii) Intelligence articulation leadership aptitute initiative: (a) Good 18 to 25 marks (b) Average 9 to 17 marks (c) Poor 1 to 8 marks (iii) Poise bearing confidence attitude and other qualities: (a) Good 18 to 25 marks (b) Average 9 to 17 marks (c) Poor 1 to 8 marks For qualifying the examination, candidate should obtain at least 33% marks in the interview and at least 40% marks in the aggregate of viva voce test." 3. There was no grievance made before the Court that different standards were adopted for different sets of candidates. The fault found by the Court was that although none of the candidates possessed any higher qualifications or specialised training, marks have been allocated to them and, therefore, the action of the appellants became arbitrary. Even though that was the standard adopted by the Public Service Commission and the same standard has been applied to all, though may be defective, did not prejudice Respondents 1 and 2 or any of the candidates. Even though that was the standard adopted by the Public Service Commission and the same standard has been applied to all, though may be defective, did not prejudice Respondents 1 and 2 or any of the candidates. When uniform process had been adopted in respect of all and selections had been made, it was highly inappropriate for the High Court to have examined the matter in further detail and to have allocated marks to the two candidates and thereafter directed the appellant Commission to select them. 4. In that view of the matter, we allow these appeals and dismiss writ petitions filed by the respondents by setting aside the order made by the High Court. Appeals allowed.