Judgment 1. The case relates to appointment to the post of Teacher (Home Science). 2. The Respondent, Vidyalaya Seva Board after due advertisement (No. 2/91) and selection, prepared a panel/merit list on the basis of marks obtained in academic career and interview (Viva Voce Test). The name of petitioner, Smt. Vina Kumari was initially included within first eight persons, for eight vacancies and the name of 5th Respondent, Renu Kumari was shown beyond the zone of vacancy at serial no.9. Subsequently, the panel/merit list was changed. The 5th Respondent was brought above and petitioner at sl.no.9 i.e. out of zone of appointment. In the aforesaid background, the writ petition was preferred by petitioner for inclusion of her name at proper place. 3. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that after marks given for academic career and marks given after interview (Viva Voce Test), a number of candidates (three), including petitioner, 5th Respondent; and another Sheela Kumari, were provided with total 58 marks. The distribution of marks was shown, as follows : Name Marks for Academic Career Marks granted in Interview/ Viva Voce Test. Total marks 1. 2. 3. 4. Vina Kumari (Petitioner) 49 9 58 Renu Kumari (5th Respondent) 51 7 58 Sheela Kumari (Not party to writ petition) 50 8 58 The Selection Committee while prepared the merit list, a number of persons having obtained total equal marks, position in the merit list was reflected on the basis of marks (higher marks) obtained in interview/ Viva Voce Test. Subsequently, when the same came to the notice of the Chairman, Vidyalaya Seva Board, the matter was referred before the Selection Committee, which changed the position, vis-a-vis, those obtained same total marks, on the basis of higher marks obtained in the Academic career. 4. The counsel for the petitioner challenged the change so made by the Selection Committee in respect of panel/merit list on two grounds. The first plea was taken that the Selection Committee having prepared a panel/merit list, without any decision of the Board changing the criteria for placing persons on merit, if obtained same total marks, was not permissible. The second plea taken was that the petitioner having more age than the 5th Respondent and having obtained higher marks in Viva Voce Test, was rightly placed above her. 5. The second plea taken was that the petitioner having more age than the 5th Respondent and having obtained higher marks in Viva Voce Test, was rightly placed above her. 5. The counsel for the 5th Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable in absence of Sheela Kumari, who was also placed above petitioner, having obtained some marks, but higher marks in Academic career. Further, according to the Respondents, if mistake committed in preparation of panel/merit list, particularly, in the. matter of reflecting the position, it was always open to the authorities to rectify the mistake. 6. The sole question to be determined is as to whether weightage to be given to Academic career or Interview/Viva Voce test, in the matter of preparation of merit list, if two persons obtained total marks on the basis of Academic career and Interview/ViVa Voce Test. 7. The counsel for the petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Krishna Chandra Sahu and others V/s. State of Orissa (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 352); D.V. Bakshi V/s. Union of India (A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2374), Anis Ahmed V/s. State of Bihar & others (A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 141). Both the parties also relied on Supreme Courts decision in the case of Lila Dhar V/s. State of Rajasthan and ors. (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1777). 8. The question relating to giving weightage to marks obtained in interview fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia V/s. Khalid Mujlb Sehravardi (AIR. 1981 S.C. 487). The said case relates to selection for admission to Educational Institutions. However, while deciding the issue, a passing reference was made to "public employment" in the following observation : "We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission to College or even in the matter of public employment, the oral interview test as presently held should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test............" The aforesaid decision was also relied in the case of O.V. Bakshi V/s. Union of India (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 2374). The case of Lila Dhar V/s. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1777) related to public employment based on written test and interview. The case of Ajay Hasia (supra) also relied upon by the Supreme Court. The case of Lila Dhar V/s. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1777) related to public employment based on written test and interview. The case of Ajay Hasia (supra) also relied upon by the Supreme Court. In the said case, while the Kothari Committees report on recruitment policy and selection method was taken into consideration, other citations like O. Glenn Stahs Public Personnel Administration & United Nations Handbook Civil Services Laws & Practice were taken into consideration. The Supreme Court observed (at p/1779) : "It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidates knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidates initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, co-operativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an Interview test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board." It further held : "Thus, the written examination assesses the mans intellect and the interview test, the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection". "..................In the case of such services, where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given, though not much too great weight, to the interview test..............." The aforesaid decision was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Krishna Chandra Sahu & Others V/s. State of Orissa (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 352). 9 The present case relates to appointment to a service not made from the persons of mature personality. It is the first appointment from freshers. Earlier experience was not criteria and younger candidates within certain age limits were to appear in the interview whose personalities are on the thresh-hold of development. In an interview, such youngesters and freshers may show signs of great promise and one may catch a glimpse of future personality, but the same cannot be given too much great weight in view of aforesaid Supreme Courts decision in Lila Dhar (supra). The assessment of academic career shows the intellect of the persons, but interview/Viva voce test, the man itself. 10. The assessment of academic career shows the intellect of the persons, but interview/Viva voce test, the man itself. 10. In view of pronouncement of Supreme Court in Lila Dhar (supra), though the twain to be taken into consideration for proper selection, but the weightage is to be given on intellect and not individual personality. 11. Thus, I hold that in the case where merit list is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in Academic career/written test and the marks obtained in interview/ViVa voce test, if the total of more than one candidate is same, persons having obtained - higher marks in academic career/written test, to be preferred over the other, having lesser marks though obtained more marks in interview/viva voce test. 12. Thereby, I find no illegality in preferring the 5th Respondent over petitioner in the matter of their placement in the merit list and recommendation. As even on remand, the position of petitioner, vis-a-vis, 5th Respondent in the merit list, will not change, as subsequently made in the corrected panel/merit list, it is not necessary to decide the issue as to whether the Selection Committee, Without any decision of Vidyalaya Seva Board, mere on the reference of Chairman can alter the position or not. 13. However, I may mention that in a case where Selection Committee has given marks for interview/viva voce test, though the same cannot be changed on remand by higher authority, but if any mistake is committed in the matter of placement, I find no illegality if such mistake is rectified without disturbing the basic marks obtained by one or other person. 14. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the panel/merit list. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.