Honble VERMA, J.–All the above writ petitions involve the same questions of law and facts and have been directed against the selections of the Lecturers in Beauty Culture and, there fore, are being decided together. (2). S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3535/97 Sangeeta Mathur vs. State of Raj. & Ors. has additional grounds of challenge. However, attack of challenge made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3535/97 shall also have the bearing on all the connected writ petitions. For the disposal of all the writ petitions the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3636/97 Namita Seth vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.. (3). The petitioners are in possession of two years Beauty Culture diploma course from the Board of Technical Education of Rajasthan. The qualifications of all the petitioners shall be mentioned hereinafter. They were appointed as part time Lecturers on hourly basis in Beauty Culture in Government colleges. While working as part-time Lecturer, they were appointed as Lecturer in the regular pay scale on adhoc/urgent temporary basis. One of the copy of such appointment is attached as Annexure-4 to the writ petition No. 3636/97. (4). An advertisement was issued by way of notification No.1/94- 95 for inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment as Lecturers in the various disciplines including the Beauty Culture for a very short term appointment i.e. for four months or till the candidates duly selected by the RPSC are made available whichever was earlier. The educational qualifications prescribed in the said notification was 2nd Division graduate from any of the University in India as recognised with a two years diploma in Beauty Culture. Knowledge of Hindi and two years teaching experience were also the mandatory qualifications as per Annexure-5. The petitioners had applied in response to Annexure- 5. They were appointed on temporary basis. They joined duties at the places of their postings. It is stated that they were duly selected by the Selection Board as constituted and adjudged them suitable. It is further stated that the petitioners had been working efficiently and had been nominated for various programmes of training etc. i.e. participated in regional workshop, attended short term training course of modern education, field training in advance hair-cutting etc. etc. (5). It is stated that they were duly selected by the Selection Board as constituted and adjudged them suitable. It is further stated that the petitioners had been working efficiently and had been nominated for various programmes of training etc. i.e. participated in regional workshop, attended short term training course of modern education, field training in advance hair-cutting etc. etc. (5). When the petitioners were still in service, the State Government had vide notification dated 21.11.96 introduced the amendment to the Rajasthan Technical Education Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called the rules) whereby the Schedule appended to the rules was amended and the minimum qualifications were modified. (6). Instead of mandatory experience of two years, the words `preferably mini- mum two years professional/teaching experience after acquiring qualifications as mentioned above was added. The result of the amendment, as introduced vide Annexure-9 dated 21.11.1996, was that instead of minimum two years experience, it was converted to preferable experience of minimum two years and the word professional experience was also included. (7). A notification for regular recruitment of the Lecturers in Beauty Culture was issued vide Annexure-10 on 21.1.1997. The petitioners applied for the same and they were interviewed but in the result declared by the Commission on 28.5.1997 certain other candidates namely; Miss Manisha Hemrajani, Mrs. Shalini Gupta, Mrs. Lovina Mittal, Miss Aditi Jain, Miss Vinita Gupta, Miss Sunita Jain, Mrs. Archana Gupta, Miss Laxmi Jain, Miss Minakshi Sharma Mrs. Madhu Lata Puri and Miss Renuka Sharma were selected. It is stated that the above said candidates were not possessing the required professional or teaching experience of minimum two years to their credit. It is stated that some of the selected candidates had experience of little less or more than a year. It is the grievance of the petitioners that for the candidates to be recruited as Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges, two years experience has been prescribed as essential qualifications, but in the Directorate of Technical Education, the qualifications of experience has been prescribed to as `preferable only. It is submitted that the petitioners are the highly qualified candidates, fulfilling all the qualifications, and have experience of more than two years but still certain persons having lesser qualifications and with much less experience of two years have been selected and, therefore, the selections are challenged. It is submitted that the petitioners are the highly qualified candidates, fulfilling all the qualifications, and have experience of more than two years but still certain persons having lesser qualifications and with much less experience of two years have been selected and, therefore, the selections are challenged. The petitioners are also challenging the amendment made wherein the word `preferably has been added vide Annexure-9 being arbitrary and discrimi- natory. Even the impugned panel of Lecturers selected in Beauty Culture is challenged in the writ petition. (8). The petitioners were possessing the following qualifications at the time of making of the applications. (9). The petitioner Namita Seth had obtained B.Ed. Degree in IInd Division, Diploma in Beauty Culture (Two years) in first division with honours and first position Gold Medal in the year 1989-90. She had experience of a part time Lecturer in Beauty Culture faculty in Government Women Polytechnic College, Ajmer from 24.10.1990 to 21.11.1994 i.e. for about four years. She was Lecturer in Beauty Culture appointed on urgent temporary basis from 21.11.1994 with total experience of two years six months as on adhoc urgent temporary Lecturer. Total experience was 6-1/2 years. (10). The petitioner Chanchal Bala was graduate in Second Division and was possessing diploma with first division with honours and 2nd position in merit. She was doing the job of Lecturer as part time in Govt. Polytechnic College, Ajmer w.e.f. 29.8.1990 and was working as Lecturer in Beauty Culture on adhoc/urgent temporary basis from 7.10.1993. Total experience was six years and nine months. (11). Mrs. Nilofer Khan was also B.A. in IInd Division. She is M. Com. as well and was in possession of diploma in Beauty Culture with Ist Division. She had worked as Part-time Lecturer in Govt. Polytechnic College, Ajmer from 12.11.90 to 27.9.1992 and Technician (Beauty Culture) from 28.9.1992 to 6.10.1993 and Lecturer Beauty Culture from 7.10.1993, the total experience being 3 years 7 months. (12). Smt. Reena Singhvi was IInd Division in B.A. with diploma in Beauty Culture in Ist Division. She was working as Lecturer from 20.10.1995, total experience was 1 year 8 months. (13). Sadhna Bagarhatta had experience as Lecturer in Government Polytechnic College from November 28, 1989 to 25.8.1990, she had obtained the diploma from Polytechnic College, Ajmer and is said to have topped the list. She says that she had experience from 1993 to 1995 as parlour job. (13). Sadhna Bagarhatta had experience as Lecturer in Government Polytechnic College from November 28, 1989 to 25.8.1990, she had obtained the diploma from Polytechnic College, Ajmer and is said to have topped the list. She says that she had experience from 1993 to 1995 as parlour job. She worked as daily wager from July 1995 to November 1995. (14). Sangeeta Mathur was holder of B.Ed. degree. She is said to have worked in Shehaz & Habib Woman Herbal Beauty Parlour, Alwar for about 2 years and in other Clinics for another two years and had a teaching experience from 5.2.1992 to March 1995 as alleged in the petition. (15). In the case of Sangeeta Mathur, it is stated that as per entry 25 in the Con- stitution of India by way of 42nd amendment in the Concurrent list-III of Schedule VII of the Constitution, Central Government is empowered to enact or laying down the notification by law. The Central Government with an object for the proper planning and co-ordinated development of technical education system through-out the country had enacted All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and Section 10 provides the functions of the council and the basic function of the Council is to ensure co-ordinated and integrated development of Technical Education and maintenance of standards for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act of 1987. The Council sent its recommendations to all the State Secretaries of Technical Education vide letter dated 17.12.1996 which is attached as Schedule-A. It is stated that the impugned notification dated 21.11.1996 amending the rules by the State Government is not in consonance with the recommendation sent by the Central Government. It is stated that many persons who have been recommended for appointment did not fulfill the required condition of experience and thus Manisha, Aditi Jain, Laxmi Jain, Madhulata Puri Goswami and Renuka Sharma were not having two years experience. It is stated that many persons working on the same post for last so many years have not been preferred even though they had experience of 3 to 5 years. Prayer has been made to set aside the advertisement itself and to quash the appointment of selected persons. (16). It is stated that many persons working on the same post for last so many years have not been preferred even though they had experience of 3 to 5 years. Prayer has been made to set aside the advertisement itself and to quash the appointment of selected persons. (16). In Schedule A, the All India Council for Technical Education had prescribed qualifications for Beautician for three years diploma programme, First Class Bachelors degree, First Class Diploma in Beauty Culture of not less than two years duration from a recognised Board/institute and two years professional or tea- ching experience in the field of Beauty Culture. It is stated that these qualifications recommended by the All India Council are to be observed by the State Government and the qualifications prescribed as amended by the State of Rajasthan are not in consonance with the qualification prescribed by the All India Council. (17). Reply has been filed by the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Comm- ission. It is stated that the petitioners are stopped to file the writ petitions for the reason that they had participated in the interview and after having failed have filed the present writ petitions. All other contentions in regard to the prescribing qualifications and recruitment are not denied. (18). The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have also filed reply in the writ petition filed by Sangeeta Mathur. (19). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even though the qualifications in Rules of 1973 have been amended so as to include by way of substitution the word ``Preferable experience of two years, it is submitted that it should be read as good as the `minimum experience of two years as essential qualifications and in such a situation only those candidates could be qualified who had two years of experience and not those candidates who had no experience or had less than two years of experience. It is further submitted that the word `preferably means that a person having two years experience shall also stand on better footing than any other person with lesser experience and in comparison to candidate with lesser experience, a person with minimum of two years experience shall have preference. In the alternative it is submitted that the amendment in the rule be quashed as unconstitutional. (20). In the alternative it is submitted that the amendment in the rule be quashed as unconstitutional. (20). ``Preferable as per Websters Third New International Dictionary means to show preference for; worthy to be preferred; having character valuation or desi- rability. (21). In the case of Executive Officer vs. T. Venkateswarlu and another (1), it was observed that for recruitment, preference under the rules cannot imply that irrespective of merits of the candidates, inmates have to be given appointments. The preference means that with the merits of the candidates being equal prefere- nce would be given to the inmates of the Balmandir. (22). In the case of Y. Srinivasa Rao vs. J. Veeraiah and others (2), an advertisement for settlement of fair price shop was issued stating that the preference would be given to unemployed educated persons and those having experience in the business. Preference was given to less educated persons without experience in the business over better educated person with experience of running fair price shops in the past on the premise that the former would stick to the business while the latter may get better job and leave. It was held that such preference is arbitrary and discriminatory. It was held that the interview held without fixing the criteria and in the absence of the guidelines leaves the matter of selections on the whims of the individual officer holding the interview and hence exercise of such unbridled power will be clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the circumstances of that case the selector in favour of the respondent was quashed. (23). This court, in the case of Mahendra Pal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & anor. (3), had held that the selections made without laying down any marks for technical qualifications or weightage to the past experience or personality or character and without any guidelines suffer from arbitrariness. Similar was the case in All India S.B.B.J. Officers Association vs. S.B.B.J. (4). (24). In the case of State of T.N. & anor. vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others (5), while discussing All India Council for Technical Education Act, it was held that the provisions of the Act which are in conflict or inconsistency with the State Act and rules, therefore, to the extent of such inconsistency the provisions of the State Act are void. vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others (5), while discussing All India Council for Technical Education Act, it was held that the provisions of the Act which are in conflict or inconsistency with the State Act and rules, therefore, to the extent of such inconsistency the provisions of the State Act are void. State Act cannot lay down standards and requi- rements higher than those prescribed by the Central Act for technical institutions and cannot deny situations/seats to applicants on the ground that they do not fulfill such higher standards/requirements. In case of repugnancy of law between the legislature made by the Parliament and made by the State Legislation on a subject covered by List III, former shall prevail and to that extent the latter shall be void un- less it is saved by Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. Case in hand with the Honble Supreme Court was that the State Government issued a notification through the Science and Technology Department and had permitted private managements to start new Engineering Colleges under the self financing scheme without any financial commitment for the Government, but subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. Permission was applied by the private institution to offer three degree courses with the intake of 180 students per year. The State Government had appointed a high power committee to visit the self-financing Engineering Colleges and make an assessment of their functioning. It was reported by the committee that the management of the private institute had not fulfilled the conditions impo- sed by the Government at the time of grant of permission and also the conditions imposed by the University while granting affiliation. The Trust of the private institute filed writ petition before the High Court for prohibiting the Director, Technical Education from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice. A committee was appointed by the High Court, report of which committee went against the trust. By a common judgment the writ petitions were allowed against the state but dismissed the writ petition against the University on the ground that the recognition of the institutions were to be made in accordance with the yard-stick as provided in the Central Act. A committee was appointed by the High Court, report of which committee went against the trust. By a common judgment the writ petitions were allowed against the state but dismissed the writ petition against the University on the ground that the recognition of the institutions were to be made in accordance with the yard-stick as provided in the Central Act. After going through the provisions of the Central and the State Act, the Honble Supreme Court had observed that in the matter of conflict between the two, and with a view to follow uniform pattern, the Central Legislation shall have preference on the State Legislation. However, this authority as such shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case as nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any Central legislation in regard to prescribing the qualification for recruitment of Lecturers which could be hit by the State Legislature. (25). From the arguments addressed, the main import of the argument is that prior to the impugned amendment in the rules, the qualifications prescribed for recruitment on the post of Lecturer including two years teaching experience were mandatory but now it has been prescribed as `preferably two years minimum pro- fessional/teaching experience. According to me, there is hardly any difference between the earlier prescription of the qualifications of experience and the amendment except that in the amended qualification of experience along with teaching experience professional experience has also been added. The word `minimum of two years professional/teaching experience does connote that if a candidate is available with an experience of minimum two yeas in profession or teaching, he has to be preferred to the other candidates if the merits are equal. Therefore, it cannot be said that prescription of experience to be preferably of two years has changed the condition prejudice to the petitioners. According to me what has been added in the amendment is the word `professional experience. By inserting preferable experience of minimum two years, it does not leave any option with the respondents to ignore the experience of a candidate if any such candidate is available. In case everything being equal, a candidate with two years experience or more is to be preferred to the candidate who has no experience or has less than two years experience. This is the only harmonious interpretation which can be construed in the circumstances of the case. In case everything being equal, a candidate with two years experience or more is to be preferred to the candidate who has no experience or has less than two years experience. This is the only harmonious interpretation which can be construed in the circumstances of the case. (26). For the above said reason, and also for the reason that it is for the State to lay down the qualification of experience, no fault can be found in the amendment of the rule and, therefore, the prayer for quashing the amendment in the rules or quashing the advertisement in question cannot be accepted. (27). It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the selections to the post of Lecturer (Beauty Culture) are hit by the doctrine of arbitrariness as no criteria or guidelines have been provided for the selection. It is submitted that highly qualified and highly experienced Lecturers who are already in government service have been ignored in preference to the persons now selected who had less experience or are less qualified. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the selections have been made on merits, competency, experience by the selection board having expertise in the field and they were competent to adjudge the suitability of the candidates on the basis of educational qualifications, experience and personality and response before the interview board. It is stated in the written statement that the eligibility of the candidates have been made by the competent selection board on the basis of comparative and better performance. The allegations of discrimination or arbitrariness have been denied. (28). The respondent has produced the original record of selection. The interviews were held on 26, 27 and 28th May 1997. The Selection Board constituted three persons namely; Dr. Prakash Chand Sharma, Mrs. K. Awasthi and Mrs. Asha Kumar of Meera Bai Polytechnic College, New Delhi. Even though there are three members of the selection Board, but no separate marks had been allotted by each of the Member. There are virtually three columns in the marking sheet. Column 1 mentions the name of the candidate, Column 2 mentions date of birth, which have already been typed out by the office. Column 3 mentions the marks obtained. Even though there are three members of the selection Board, but no separate marks had been allotted by each of the Member. There are virtually three columns in the marking sheet. Column 1 mentions the name of the candidate, Column 2 mentions date of birth, which have already been typed out by the office. Column 3 mentions the marks obtained. The candidates who have obtained 52 marks onwards have been put on select list from general quota whereas some OBC candidates have also been selected. This has been so signed by all the three members of the Board. (29). In the case of Raj Kumar & Ors. vs. Shakti Raj & Ors. etc. (6), the Supreme Court had held that having prescribed the maximum marks for each item, necessarily they are required to apply the rationale to each of the candidates in accordance with the academic qualification etc. acquired by the candidates. It was obser- ved that nothing had been indicated as to the marks awarded on each item. The appropriate procedure should have been to apply the marks as secured by them in the written examination plus the marks awardable to the respective candidates either on the academic qualifications or on the sports qualification or experience qualification or extra-curricular qualification or the marks actually secured in the viva voce and to pool them as total marks secured by each candidates and the merit list should have been prepared. The selection committee had evolved a criteria of awarding marks to select the candidates. For academic qualifications, they allocated total marks of 25 to be rationalised to come within the said quota for the written examination, maximum 25; 5 marks were allocated for sports qualifica- tions, for experience, 10 marks for extra-curricular activities, 5 makes and for viva voce 30 marks totalling to 100 marks. The criteria was not adhered to. The marks for academic qualifications were fixed to be from 20 to 25 for the matriculate right upto B.A. or M.A. or B.Ed. etc. The selection was set aside by the Supreme Court and direction was given that all those candidates who had qualified the written examination will be re-interviewed and shall be selected in accordance with law laid down and the appellants already appointed would continue till the proper selection is made and the candidate is appointed in accordance with the rules. (30). The selection was set aside by the Supreme Court and direction was given that all those candidates who had qualified the written examination will be re-interviewed and shall be selected in accordance with law laid down and the appellants already appointed would continue till the proper selection is made and the candidate is appointed in accordance with the rules. (30). In the case of D.V. Bakshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (7), it was ob- served that the marks for interview should be divided under proper heads and records should be maintained to eliminate chances of bias. Heavy responsibility lies on examiners in this regard and even light proof in support of allegation of bias may vitiate the oral test. It was further observed that in the oral test allotment of maximum marks to assess the candidates personality, temperament and capacity to interact with others. It was observed that the marks be assigned under relevant heads and the record must be properly maintained. (31). In the case of Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and others vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Others (8), it was held that the statutory exercise of choosing the best among the applicants in conformity with the minimum qualifications is done by the Selection Committee which recommends to the Executive Council. There is no doubt that arbitrariness and anathema, violation of natural justice vitiates and subject to this, self- created rules, flexible and pragmatic, fair and functionally viable, may well be fashioned by the Selection Committee. Certain persons obtaining lesser percentage of marks were selected while certain persons obtaining high- er percentage of marks were ignored. The Supreme Court observed as under: ``We may dispel two mystiques before we debate the real issues. Did the Selection Committee act illegally in resorting to the interview process to pick out the best ? We think not. Any administrative or quasi-judicial body clothed with powers and left unfettered by proce- dures is free to devise its own pragmatic, flexible and functionally viable processes of transacting business subject, of course, to the basics of natural justice, fair play in action, reasonableness in collecting decisional materials, avoidance of arbitrariness and extraneous considerations and otherwise keeping within the leading strings of the law. We find no flaw in the methodology of `interview certainly, cases arise where the art of interviewing candidates deteriorates from strategy to strategem and undetectable manipulator of results in achieving by remote control tactics masked as viva voce tests. This, if allowed, is surely a sabotage of the purity of proceedings, a subter- fuge whereby legal means to reach illegal ends is achieved. So, it is that courts insist, as the learned single Judge has, in this very case, suggested on recording of marks at interviews and other fair checks like guidelines for marks and remarks about candidates and the like. If the court is skeptical, the record of the selection proceedings, inclu- ding the notes regarding the interviews, may have to be made available. Interviews, as such, are not bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he wrote: `So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or even more, to use means to preserve immoral ends. (32). In the case of Mahendra Pal and Others vs. R.S.E.B. and Another (9), this court had held that not allotting the marks for technical qualification and not giving weightage for past experience or personality or character, the Selection Committee had no guidelines. (33). It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary (Health) Department of Health vs. Dr. Anita Puri & Others (10), that where selection is held by holding an interview of 100 marks for the purpose of selection, which was again bifurcated under the heading of academic achievement as per essential qualification, higher qualification, Gold medal, sports, experience, professional knowledge and aptitude for the job, viva voce and General Knowledge and if the selection is made by an expert body, normally and generally the High Courts do not interfere in the selections made by such recruiting agency. (34). Nothing has been brought on record that any marks were allotted for the items falling under the heading of qualification, experience, personality or for viva-voce. (34). Nothing has been brought on record that any marks were allotted for the items falling under the heading of qualification, experience, personality or for viva-voce. As a matter of fact after seeing the interview result it is found that without any bifurcation of the marks a candidate has been given the marks as under: Sr.No. Name of candidate SC ST OBC Woman Date of birth (35). Some of the relevant portions are reproduced as under: Sr.No. Name of candidate Date of birth Marks 1. Smt. M. 2.10.1967 53 2. Smt. N. 1.1.1970 45 3. Smt. R. 17.9.1968 50 etc. etc., , , (36). The interview was held under the Chairman-ship of Dr. Prakashwati Sharma and two other members as experts, namely; Dr. K. Awasthi and Mrs. Asha Kumar. All the three persons had signed at the bottom of the result on five sheets appearing at page 6 to 10 and the merit of as many as 11 persons is prepared by the office. (37). If there are more than one member of the Board holding interviews, it is incumbent that all the members should allot marks as per their own assessment, even if there are no guidelines provided for allotting the marks under different items of qualifications, experience, personality, viva-voce etc. separately. The marks so allotted by each of the member should be added and then be divided by the number of members of the Board i.e. if there are three members of the Board i.e. A,B, and C and in case member A had given 50 marks, B had given 40 marks and member C had given 30 marks, all such marks should be added and divided by three i.e. 50+40+30=120 =40, and the candidate should be fixed on merit of 40 marks by taking a mean of three and that would be the marks obtained by the candidate. (38). In the present case the minimum qualifications have been fixed and ex- perience is also to be preferred. From the result- sheet it is not at all clear that whether better qualified persons with higher experience have been given some credit or not. It is incumbent that the bifurcation be made in regard to the qualifications and then some extra marks be given for the higher education than that of minimum qualification and still some marks be allotted for post graduate qualifica- tions. It is incumbent that the bifurcation be made in regard to the qualifications and then some extra marks be given for the higher education than that of minimum qualification and still some marks be allotted for post graduate qualifica- tions. Minimum marks be ear-marked for the preferable experience of two years and if a candidate has more experience than prescribed, he is definitely entitled to better consideration by allotting extra marks. For example, 20 marks can be allotted for the minimum qualifications, 25 for Ist Division in the minimum qualification and if there is some gold madel or so that can be put into some separate heading and five marks can be allotted for extra qualification. Experience of one year can fetch five marks and for two years ten marks and if there is experience of three or four years, the marks can increase. The viva-voce can be left with 20 or 25 marks etc. The criteria can be fixed up by the appointing authority or the Selection Board by bifurcating 100 marks but taking care of the fact that viva-voce interview should not in any case increase more than 25% of marks, only and only then it can be said that the dangers of bias or arbitrariness shall not be implied. (39). For the reason that the selected candidates had not been made parties to the writ petition, it shall not be appropriate to quash the selections at this stage. However, in the present case, after seeing the result and for the reasons mentioned above, the selections cannot be said to be fair. It is necessary that fresh selections be made of the candidates who had appeared before the Interview Board on the dates as mentioned above. The authority shall ear-mark the marks under different items of academic qualifications, experience, extra-curricular activities etc. etc. and shall hold the interview of all the candidates afresh and draw up fresh select list and declare the result accordingly. In the mean time the selections already made shall continue and status quo shall be maintained till the fresh exercise is completed by the R.P.S.C. within six months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. (39). All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above-said observations. No order as to costs.