JUDGEMENT Deeak Gupta, J: This bunch of petitions is directed against the selections made by the respondents for admission to Junior Basic Training (for short JBT) Course. 2. The respondent No.1 Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, issued an advertisement on 20th January 2004 inviting applications for entrance test ro the JBT course. On the basis of this entrance test, 1800 successful candidates were to be granted admission in various institutions all over the State 3. In this advertisement, the seats have been distributed district-wise. 4. The advertisement also prescribed reservations for various categories and the essential educational qualification for appearing in the test was 10+2 or equivalent As per the general rules/guidelines, merit was to be prepared district-wise/ category-wise by the board and the candidates were to be subject to interview by the Selection Committee. The general rules/guidelines No.5 of the advertisement provides that JBT training does not guarantee government job(s) after completion of the training, ft is also provided that personal interviews would be held at the Sub Divisional headquarters in the State. 5. Condition No 17 of General Rules/Guidelines for JBT Entrance Test reads as under- "17. QUESTIION PAPER: There shall be one question paper having questions of multiple-choice type, carrying 75 questions of one mark each to he attempted within 30 minutes The subjects along with the distribution of marks shafl be as under. Subjects Marks. (i) Hindi 20 (ii) English 20 (iii) Numerical Ability 20 (iv)_ General Awareness 15 Personal interview: 15 Special marks to the candidate 10 Belonging to rural areas. Grand Total: 100 6. In the advertisement as issued it was only mentioned that the candidates belonging to rural areas would get 10 marks. No definition of "Rural Areas" was given in the advertisement The applicants did not know what was meant by "Rural Areas". Grand Total: 100 6. In the advertisement as issued it was only mentioned that the candidates belonging to rural areas would get 10 marks. No definition of "Rural Areas" was given in the advertisement The applicants did not know what was meant by "Rural Areas". After the issuance of the advertisement, the respondent No.1-State of HP issued a letter dated 29th August, 2004 to the Director of Primary Education with a copy to the Secretary, Board of School Education, that the matter regarding the award of 10 marks to the candidates belonging to the rural background had been re-examined at the Government level and it had been decided that those candidates who have passed any two examinations out of 5th\ 8th, 10th and 12th Classes from the school (s) located m the rural areas of the State be given the benefit of these 10 marks. 7. The admission lest (written examination) was conducted on 18.4.2004 in which all the petitioners have appeared The petitioners passed in the admission test and were called for interviews. It is their common contention that the interview was only a sham which lasted only for one-two minutes The result of the entrance examination comprising of the written test and the interview, was declared on 16.10.2004 through publication of roll numbers of selected candidates in the news papers. Immediately thereafter the present petitions were filed by the unsuccessful candidates challenging the result. The first petition was filed on 18.10.2004 and on 19.10.2004 an ad interim order was passed restraining the respondents from giving effect to the result impugned in the petition or taking any consequential action based upon such a result. 8 In these petitions, mainly two points have been canvassed before us: (i) The petitioners have challenged the award of 10 marks for candidates belonging to rural areas. It is contended that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and awarding 10 marks to candidates belonging to rural areas is against Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, such action of the state is void am illegal. (ii) The second contention is with regard to the award of 15 marks for personal interview and it is contended that the same is legally and constitutionally invalid. 1. Marks for rural background. 9. The arguments on behalf of the petitioner were led by the Ms. (ii) The second contention is with regard to the award of 15 marks for personal interview and it is contended that the same is legally and constitutionally invalid. 1. Marks for rural background. 9. The arguments on behalf of the petitioner were led by the Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua and she has urged that the award of 10 marks for persons belonging to rural areas is totally illegal and against law as laid down by the Apex Court. According to her no such valid classification can be made on the basis of rural background as it has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be obtained. 10. On the other hand,. Mr. M.S. Chandel learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the reservation has been made by the State to encourage the candidates who have studied in rural areas This has also been done because the candidates belonging to urban areas are reluctant to serve in the rural areas. The defence of the State as taken in para 8 of the reply-affidavit reads thus: "that in reply to his para it is submitted that the Govt. has rightly decided to allot 10 marks to the candidates who have passed two examinations out of 5th. 8th 10th and 10 + 2 from school located in the rural areas of the State and this policy decision has been taken by the Govt. in order to encourage them and ensure the availability and J8T teachers in the Primary Schools located in the rural area of the State. It is further stated that the teachers of Urban background when appointed as JBT teachers were reluctant to join posting in rural/backward/far-flung area of the State. Even when they joined they keep in pressuring the department for transferring them to easier station near urban location or on road side station near town. Apart from this most of the vacancy in the primary schools of the State are located in the rural/hard areas. Therefore, in view of these facts the respondent-State Govt. has taken a conscious decision to allow 10 marks to the candidates who have passed two examination Le. 5th, 8th 10th & +2 from rural areas. Apart from this most of the vacancy in the primary schools of the State are located in the rural/hard areas. Therefore, in view of these facts the respondent-State Govt. has taken a conscious decision to allow 10 marks to the candidates who have passed two examination Le. 5th, 8th 10th & +2 from rural areas. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is totally wrong that decision of the respondent State to allot 10 marks to the candidate who passed two examination out of 5th 8th l0th and 12th from the school located in the rural area is arbitrary and discriminatory. However, on the contrary the decision taken by the Govt. is absolutely reasonable and relevant as the sane does not at all violate any provision of the constitution." 11. In support of her contention, Ms Jyotsna Dua Rewal has relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Kailash Chand Sharma etc. v. State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 2002 SC 2877). In the sad case, the selections to the post of primary teachers were under challenge. The man dispute in the said case was with regard to the award of bonus marks to the candidates belonging to rural areas of the district. The plea taken by the State in the present case is virtually identical to the plea taken by the State of Rajasthan in the said case. Dealing with this plea, the Apex Court observed as follows "These observations, in our view cannot be legitimately pressed into service for the purpose of justifying reservation or wightage in favour of rural candidates on the ground of nativity/residence for purposes of pubic employment The difference in approach in relation to Articles 15 and 16 was indicated by Bhagwati. J. in Pradeep Jains case (AIR 1984 SC 1420) and we have quoted the relevant passage extensively. It was made clear in Pradeep Jans case that m the matter of admissions to professional colleges the considerations were different As far as public employment is concerned, the classification on the basis of residence in a region or locality was broadly held to be constitutionally impermissible. Moreover, the preferential treatment of rural candidates m the instant case is not on the ground that they hail form the backward region. All or most of the villages in the district or the state cannot be presumed to be backward educationally or economically. Moreover, the preferential treatment of rural candidates m the instant case is not on the ground that they hail form the backward region. All or most of the villages in the district or the state cannot be presumed to be backward educationally or economically. Such a claim was not accepted in Pradip Tandons case (AIR 1975 SC 563) by a three Judge Bench, Even in Nidamarti’s case (AIR 1986 SC 1362) it was held that in absence of material, certain regions cannot be dubbed as backward. The justifiability of the plea stemming from the premise that uplifting the rural people is an affirmative action to improve their lot can be tested from the concrete situation which confront us in the present cases. We are here concerned with the selections to the posts of teachers of primary schools, the minimum qualification being SCC coupled with basic training course in teaching. Can the Court proceed on the assumption that the candidates residing m the town areas with their education in the Schools or Colleges located r the towns or &s peripheral areas stand on a higher pedestal than the candidates who had studied m the rural area Schools or Colleges? Is the latter comparatively a disadvantaged and economically weaker segment when compared to the former. We do not think so. The aspirants for the teachers Jobs m primary schools- be they from rural area or town area do not generally belong to affluent class. Apparently they come from lower middle class or poor background. By and large, in the pursuit of education, they suffer and share the same handicaps as their fellow citizens in rural areas It cannot be said that the applicants from non-rural areas have access to best of the Schools and Colleges which the well to do class may have. Further without any data, t is not possible to presume that the Schools and Colleges located in the towns small or big and their peripheral areas are much better qualitatively, that & to say, from the point of view of teaching standards or infrastructure facilities so as to give an edge to the town candidates over the rural candidates. Xxx xxxx xxxx 37. Xxx xxxx xxxx 37. Coming then to the next plea that that tine residents of towns, if appointed will hot be willing to serve the rural areas and they will be more interested in getting themselves transferred to "relatively urban area and forward districts", does not in our view, stand a moment*s scrutiny. The apprehension that teacher absenteeism will be rampant if non rural candidates are appointed, to say the feast, is based on irrelevant and unwarranted assumptions. First of al, as rightly pointed out by Dr. AM Singhvi, postings and transfers are managerial functions. The concerned authorities m-charge cannot be heard to say that there will be undue pressures from the candidates from extraneous sources and they win have to succumb to such pressures. Secondly the question of non-rural candidates trying to avoid working in villages and seeking transfer to town or urban areas does not arise for the simple reasons that the appointees would have to (sic-no) option but to work in villages coming within the jurisdiction of the concerned Panchayat Samiti The only other possibility is that they may lice to have postings m the villages dose to the town. If the non-rural candidates would like to have postings at places dose to the town, the rural area candidates may equally have the desire to get posting close to their native villages and many of them may even prefer working at places near the town. Thus desire and aspiration in regard to choosing the place of work need not be on a set pattern. Ultimately, it is a matter of regulation of postings of rural as well as non-rural candidates. As regards the candidates coming from the districts, the question of seeking inter-district transfer does not arise, as they are required to work within the particular district in which they are selected and appointed- The factors which may exist in the context of appointments to State-wide cadre does not exist here. The difficulties sought to be projected by the State appear to be more imaginary rather than real. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this argument" 12. The stand of the State Government in the present case is in fact on a much weaker footing as compared to the stand taken by the State of Rajasthan Hi Kailash Chands case (supra). We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this argument" 12. The stand of the State Government in the present case is in fact on a much weaker footing as compared to the stand taken by the State of Rajasthan Hi Kailash Chands case (supra). The sad case related to recruitment of primary teachers and even then the Apex Court has strongly disapproved the allocation of marks for candidates belonging to rural background. In the present case, the entrance test is only for admission to the JBT course. The advertisement itself very clearly lays down that the admission or qualifying the course is no guarantee for employment Thus, the stand of the State Government that the people belonging to urban background are not willing to work in rural areas, is totally meaningless. This is an issue which may arise at the stage of employment but can never be a valid criterion at the stage of undertaking admission in an educational course. 13 The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Raj Kumar [(1982) SCC 313] had struck down the rules which provided weightage of 10% to candidates who belonged to rural backgrounds The Apex Court held as follows: "The object of foe rule was to take officers who had full knowledge of rural life, its problems, aptitudes, working of the people in villages and the suitability for working as officers in the rural areas so as to be materially useful and in order to make a constructive contribution to the upliftment of rural life. But the rule failed to fulfil or carry out this object inasmuch as any person who may not have lived in a village at all can appear for SCC examination from a village and yet become eligible for selection in the competitive examination. Thus, there is no nexus between the classification made 14.While dealing with the question of reservation of seats for candidates belonging to rural areas and on the basis of the candidates having received education in rural areas, the apex Court in Suneel Jatley etc. v. State of Haryana etc. [AIR 1994 SC1S34] has held as follow:- "What was the object sought to be achieved by the classification? It was said that students taking education in common rural schools from 1st to 8th standard are at a comparative disadvantage to those taking education in urban schools in the same standards. v. State of Haryana etc. [AIR 1994 SC1S34] has held as follow:- "What was the object sought to be achieved by the classification? It was said that students taking education in common rural schools from 1st to 8th standard are at a comparative disadvantage to those taking education in urban schools in the same standards. The comparison in our opinion is fallacious for the reason that the same Government prescribes standards of education equipment grants and facilities including the qualification of the staff for being employed in urban and rural schools imparting instruction from 1st to 8th standard. However, as pointed out earlier the knowledge acquired by the students while taking instructions in Classes 1 to VIII has hardly any relevance to his being equipped for taking the test for entrance to the medical college. The real challenge would come in Standards XI and XII. In this behalf all students those coming from common rural schools and urban schools are similarly situated and yet by an reference to a past event wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved, they are artificially divided" It was however said that there was another discernible purpose in making the reservation. The urbanized students are disinclined to go to rural areas for practice or service and therefore if the students coming form rural common schools are encouraged to seek admission they may return after obtaining qualification to their childhood habitat and thus help extend efficient medical service to rural areas at present wholly neglected. It was urged if a region is woefully deficient in medical services, there occurs serious educational and health service disparity for that human region which must be redressed by a Welfare State. It was submitted that the reservation was a step m this direction. This submission was ought to be supported by referring to Jagdish Saran v. Union of India (1980 2 SCR 831: (AIR 1980 SC 820). This approach overlooks the fact that even students educated in common rural schools would be joining urban schools for four years before going to medical college and then spend about five years in medical college. There is no guarantee save a wishful thinking that they would return to rural areas. This is too flimsy a material to sustain classification". 15. This approach overlooks the fact that even students educated in common rural schools would be joining urban schools for four years before going to medical college and then spend about five years in medical college. There is no guarantee save a wishful thinking that they would return to rural areas. This is too flimsy a material to sustain classification". 15. In Miss Arti Sapru etc v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others [AIR 1981 SC 1009] while dealing with a similar question, the apex Court held that the reservations for rural area candidates cannot be sustained and that poverty in rural areas cannot be the basis of classification to support reservation for rural areas. 16. In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pradip Tandon and others [AIR 1975 SC 563] the Supreme Court while dealing with the question of reservation of seats for Medical College candidates belonging to the rural areas held that the reservation of seats for candidates from rural areas should be treated to be unconstitutional. 17. On the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments quoted above, we are, satisfied that the classification based on preferential treatment to candidates who have studied for some time in rural areas is not founded on any intelligible differentia and at any rate it has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The classification is irrational and arbitrary. The reservation based on such classification is constitutionally invalid. 18. Shri H.S. Mattewal learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Board of School Education has relied upon toe observations of the Supreme Court in para 53 of Kailash Chand’s case (supra), wherein the apex Court has observed that there is need to generate better employment opportunities to the people of rural background areas. It is, however, pointed out in the same para that the measures taken by the State on considerations of localism are not sanctioned by the constitutional mandate of equally and if any weightage is given to the candidates, toe same should be backed up by scientific study and considerations germane to the constitutional guarantee of equality Before us there is no material that any scientific study was done before making reservations for rural areas. In fact, there was no methodology given for finding out as to who were the candidates belonging to the rural areas in the advertisement first issued. By a letter sent by the State to the Board of School Education in the month of August 2004, it was decided that those candidates who had passed two of the four examinations of classes 5th, 8th, 10th and 12th from rural areas can be allotted the benefit of 10 marks. It is the moot point whether this could have been done after the issuance of the advertisement and without issuing any notice to the general public. 19. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments cited above which has been explained and crystallized in the judgment in Kailash Chands case (supra), there can be no manner of doubt that the award of 10 marks to candidates belonging to rural areas is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. 2. Allocation of 15 marks in the interview. 20. The petitioners have strongly contended that in the present case where the qualification for appearing in the entrance lest was only 10+2 and candidates of young age were to appear in level. The interview Boards were headed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). This by itself means that the interviews were to be held in various Sub Divisions all over the State of H.P and every Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) would have a different parameter far judging the candidates and different candidates appearing before different interview boards would be judged differently The interview committee is headed by a low level officer of the rank of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) who was assisted by two other persons even junior to him. Therefore, there is every possibility of out-side interference taking place and the interview cannot be said to be totally independent 21. No criteria was prescribed for the manner in which the interview marks were to be interviews, the allotment of 15 marks for interview is illegal and invalid The petitioners in support of their contentions have urged that the interviews have been held at the sub divisional allocated. The interview board had an arbitrary and unfettered discretion to award 15 marks in any manner it felt like. The interview board had an arbitrary and unfettered discretion to award 15 marks in any manner it felt like. Since no criteria was laid down for awarding marks in the interview, different selection committees all over the State of HP. must have formulated their own formulae which may have been inconsistent with each otter. 22. It is also contended that the 15 marks could be awarded in lump sum by the interview committee at it own sweet will and pleasure. The committees were not given any criteria or terns under which these 15 marks were to be divided. This according to the petitioners is an arbitrary power violative of the article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, injustice has been done. In the alternative, it is submitted that the allocation of 15% marks for a course like JBT is very much on the higher side. 23. In support of her contention, Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua has relied upon Minor A. Periakaruppan & anr. V. State of Tamilnadu and others [AIR 1971 SC 2303) wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under "14.... Even when the interviews are conducted by impartial and competent persons on scientific lines very many uncertain factors like the initial nervousness on the part of some candidates, the mood in which the interviewer happens to be and the odd questions that may be put to the persons interviewed may also go to affect the result of the interview. Xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 16. It was next urgd that no objective criterion was fixed for interview. We are unable to accept this contention as well. The selectors were asked to interview candidates on the basis of the five criteria prescribed to which we have made reference earlier. Those tests are sufficiently objective in character. Similar tests were held to be objective by this Court in Chitralekha’s case (164) 6 SCR 368 - (AIR 1964 SC 1823) (supra). It cannot be denied that extra curricular activities like sports, N.C.C., special services, general physical condition and endurance and general ability are objective tests. The aptitude referred to in the rule, in our opinion, is aptitude for medical profession. Xxxx xxx xxxx 18. We may note that the committee had not divided the interview marks under various heads nor were the marks given on itemized basis. The marks fist produced were given in a lump. This is clearly illegal. 24. The aptitude referred to in the rule, in our opinion, is aptitude for medical profession. Xxxx xxx xxxx 18. We may note that the committee had not divided the interview marks under various heads nor were the marks given on itemized basis. The marks fist produced were given in a lump. This is clearly illegal. 24. In AJay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib and others [1981 SC 487] while dealing with the question of suitability of interview as a method of judging the ability of the candidates, the Apex Court after considering a passage from M.P. Sharmas in his book Public Administration in Theory and Practice has observed as follows:- “O1 Glenn Stahl points out in his book on "public Personnel Administration" that there are three disadvantages from which the oral test method suffers, namely, “(1) the difficulty of developing valid and reliable oral tests (2) the difficulty of securing a review able record on an oral test and (3) public suspicion the oral test as a channel for the exertion of political influence" and we may add, other corrupt, nepotistic or extraneous considerations. 25. Even after holding that the method of interview is not a completely satisfactory method and suffers from various pitfalls, the Supreme Court finally held as follows: "it is therefore not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that selecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral interview in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing aid evaluating the capacity and caliber of candidates but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics aid traits, the oral interview test must at tie present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective aid based on first impression, its result is influenced by many uncertain factors aid it is capable of abuse. We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission of colleges or even in the matter of pubic employment the oral interview lest 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 and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of high integrity, caliber and qualification." 26. In Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others AIR 1987 SC 454], the Apex Curt held as under "There may also be services" to which recruitment is made form younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise and m case of such services where sound selection must be combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given to the voce test There cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva voce test as against the written examination, it must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service, the minimum qualification prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the viva coce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter of determination by experts." 27. Taking into consideration the entire law cited before us, it is no doubt true that the Supreme Court has held that viva voce test can be held to assess the suitability of the candidates. However, the question is whether such a test is necessary for admission to a course See the JBT course. A written test is being held to assess the capability of the candidate The candidates are only to be granted admission to JBT course. No employment is being given. In the last 10 -15 years, the trend has been, that so far as, admission to educational institutions is concerned, no marks or very few marks are allotted for interviews. For admission to course like MBBS/BDS, Law, M.B.A etc., no viva voce test or interviews are held. No employment is being given. In the last 10 -15 years, the trend has been, that so far as, admission to educational institutions is concerned, no marks or very few marks are allotted for interviews. For admission to course like MBBS/BDS, Law, M.B.A etc., no viva voce test or interviews are held. There is hardly any justification for keeping 15% marks for interview for admission to the JBT course especially when the interviews were conducted by separate interview Boards all over the State Every Interview Board could have evolved its own criteria and judged the candidates in a different manner. The petitioners have not been treated equally and, prima facie, award of 15 marks for interview in the present case appears to be unjust and illegal and violative of Article 114 of the Constitution of India. 28. On behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 Mr. H.S. Mattewal, learned Senior counsel has contended that since the petitioners had appeared in the written test as well as in the interview, they are debarred from challenging the sane by means of the present writ petitions. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of its plea. 29. In Om Prakash Shukla and others [1986SC 1043], white dealing with the case of recruitment to the Civil Court Ministerial staff in 1985, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner could (sic-not) have been granted relief since he has appeared in the examination without protest 30. In Madan Lai & others v. State of JAK [(1995) SCC 435} the Supreme Court while dealing with a case relating to appointment of Munsifs held that persons who had appeared in the written test without protest cannot be allowed to challenge the selection process. 31. Similar1y in Chandra Parkash Tiwari and otters v. Shakuntla Shukla and others [(AIR 2002 SC 2322} where selections to the pest Sub Inspector was in issue, the Apex Court held that the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by candidates who have taken a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately found themselves to be unsuccessful. 32. In Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana [2002 (2) SCC 615}, while dealing with the case of selection to the lecturers, the Supreme Court again held that unsuccessful candidates who had appeared without protest cannot be permitted to challenge the same by means of writ petitions. 33. 32. In Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana [2002 (2) SCC 615}, while dealing with the case of selection to the lecturers, the Supreme Court again held that unsuccessful candidates who had appeared without protest cannot be permitted to challenge the same by means of writ petitions. 33. Similar observations have been made in Vijay Syal and another v. State of Punjab and others [(2003) 9 SCC 401] while dealing with the case relating to the recruitment of Assistant District Transport Officer. 34. In our view, the law lad down by the Supreme Court cannot be held applicable to the present case. AH the cases cited before us relate to recruitment/appointment to service whereas m the present case the challenge is to the admission process to an educational course. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with young students and not with people who have completed the education and are applying for jobs. More importantly, the candidates were not even aware at the time of participating in the written test or Interview whether any criteria had been fixed for the Interview or not Nobody was aware as to whether the 15 marks have been divided in sub-groups and what those sub-groups were. 35. With regard to award of 10 marks to candidates belonging to rural areas, the Government itself in the month of August 2004, much after tee written test had already been held, fixed the fresh criteria for deciding as to who was to get this benefit This was done much after the admission process had been started and after the written test was over. Therefore, the respondents cannot be heard to urge that the petitioners have no right or locus stands to challenge the selection process. 36. In view of our above discussion, we feel that various important questions of law arise in the present petitions and, therefore, the same are admitted for hearing. The respondents, if they so desire, may file fresh replies after admission within 6 weeks and petitioners may file rejoinders), if any, within two weeks thereafter. 37. Since in our view the selection process is illegal, we direct that the respondents shall not give effect to the result declared on 16.10.2004. 38. The respondents, if they so desire, may file fresh replies after admission within 6 weeks and petitioners may file rejoinders), if any, within two weeks thereafter. 37. Since in our view the selection process is illegal, we direct that the respondents shall not give effect to the result declared on 16.10.2004. 38. On behalf of the State, it has been urged that a large number of posts of JBT teachers are lying vacant and it is m the public interest that the JBT course should be started and completed at the earliest. We do take note of this submission made on behalf of the State Government and wish to observe and direct that it shall be upto the State Government to grant admission in the JBT course for the ensuing session but such admission can be granted only on the basis of the merit as obtained in the written lest examination and while granting such admission, the marks obtained in the interview/viva voce shall be excluded. In other words, the basis of admission shall be the merit in the written examination alone. However, such admission shall abide by the result of this writ petition. 39. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the selected candidates have not been made parties and, therefore, the present petitions cannot be decided in their absence. The petitioners are not in a position to know the names of the selected candidates because only the roll numbers of the candidates have been published in the News papers of 16.10.2004 and immediately thereafter the petitions were Ned. The result giving the names and addresses of the candidates has never been published. Even otherwise, there were 1600 candidates who have been selected and candidates like the petitioners who belong to the weaker sections of society cannot be forced to make such a far large number of candidates as parties in foe present writ petitions. However, we do feel that before we finally decide these petitions, the parties likely to be affected should be heard in this matter. 40. Therefore, we direct that public notice be issued with regard to the pendency of the writ petitions in two news papers, that is, The daily Tribune (English), Chandigarh Edition and Amar Ujjala (Hindi), Chandigarh Edition. However, we do feel that before we finally decide these petitions, the parties likely to be affected should be heard in this matter. 40. Therefore, we direct that public notice be issued with regard to the pendency of the writ petitions in two news papers, that is, The daily Tribune (English), Chandigarh Edition and Amar Ujjala (Hindi), Chandigarh Edition. In this notice it should be dearly mentioned that a large number of writ petitions challenging he selection process for admission to JBT course in Himachal Pradesh especially he result declared on 16.10.2004 have been filed in this Court and have been admitted for hearing. All persons likely to be affected by the decision in the writ petitions can appear m Court in person or through their counsel and argue the matter on the date fixed for hearing. They can also fie their replies within four weeks of the publication of the notices). The respondent No.2 Board shall bear the cost of these notices. The respondent No.2 shall also issue letters along with copies of the notices to all the candidates selected by it Under Postal certificate. 41. The respondent No.2 on verification from the Registry of this Court shall deposit the publication charges of the notices within two weeks from today. 42. In view of the aforesaid order, all the miscellaneous applications shall and disposed of. 43. The matter shall be feted in the Court f or further proceedings and for appearance of the selected candidates either in person or through their counsel on 21st March, 2005.