JUDGMENT Z. Angami, J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner have challenged the validity of notification dated 13.5.2005 and have also prayed for a direction from this Court to call for records of written examination and viva voce interview in respect of the results declared on 6.2. 2005. By notification dated 13.5.2005, the candidates who have applied for the posts in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.2.2005 have been short listed. The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have applied for the post of Lecturer in Education under SCERT (Class-1 Gazetted) and their names have not appeared in the list notified on 13.5.2005. In pursuance of advertisement No. 1/2004-05 dated 31.5.2004, the Petitioner No. 1 had applied for the post of Lecturer in Education and she was also called for interview for personality test vide interview call letter dated 15.1.2004 after having appeared in the written test. Pending disposal of the application, by order dated 20.6.2005, this Court ordered that the oral interview for the posts of Lecturer m English and Education as per advertisement dated 7.2.2005 shall not be processed by NPSC without permission of the court. 2. The Petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the post of Lecturer in Education under DIET (SCERT) and contract appointment was also extended. It is their case that in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.2.2005 they had submitted applications but they were not called for interview. It is the further case of Petitioner No. 1 that she possesses the requisite qualification as having possessed a degree of MA (Education) 1st Class, B.Ed (2nd Class). It is also the case of Petitioner No. 2 that she possessed a degree in MA (Education) and she has also completed the course in B.Ed at the time of submitting her application. It is contended by the Petitioners that their names have not been included by the impugned order dated 13.5.2005 although they are qualified to be called for interview as per conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 17.2.2005. It is also contended that the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) had adopted method/formula of short listing candidates without conducting examination at their whims and the same is unknown in any interview conducted by the Commission. It is also contended that the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) had adopted method/formula of short listing candidates without conducting examination at their whims and the same is unknown in any interview conducted by the Commission. It is also contended that the waiting list prepared by the NPSC has a validity of 6 (six) months as per OM dated 31.8.1995 and there is every likelihood of Petitioner No. 1 being in the waiting list in respect of the result declared on 6.2.2005 and as such a basis for calling the records of the interview in respect of result declared on 6.2.2005. An affidavit has been filed by the Chairman, NPSC, subsequently substituted by the NPSC contesting the case of the Petitioners. In the affidavit, it is stated, inter alia, that in pursuance of a requisition sent by the Education Department vide letter dated 15.2.2005, the NPSC had issued advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.2.2005. The applications so received were also scrutinized by the NPSC in terms of the criteria laid down by the Government in the requisition and the NPSC in terms of its practice selected candidates for interview in the ratio of 1 : 6, i.e., for every one vacancy, 6 applications were to be accepted. In the present case, there were 6 posts of Lecturer in Education and out of which 2 went to the backward tribes as against the reservation and as against general category 24 applications were selected and 4 applications were selected against backward quota for interview. It is further explained that the NPSC had made evaluation of the applications in terms of criteria for selection prescribed by the Government and the Petitioner's application was rejected as against general category as the marks she had secured did not entitle her to be placed among the selected candidates for interview. Petitioner No. 2 was not called for interview as because on the date of her application, she did not posses the requisite qualification, i.e., B.Ed qualification. An affidavit was filed by Petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the Petitioners in reply to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. In the said affidavit in reply, contending that the method of selection adopted by the NPSC is arbitrary and not based on reason, it is also stated that the ratio of 1: 6 has not been applied strictly in respect of other posts. In the said affidavit in reply, contending that the method of selection adopted by the NPSC is arbitrary and not based on reason, it is also stated that the ratio of 1: 6 has not been applied strictly in respect of other posts. Stating that Petitioner No. 1 secured 61.37% (1st Div) in MA (Education) and 2nd Div. in B.Ed and Petitioner No. 2 secured 60.12% (1st Div.) in MA (Education) and passing 1st Div in B.Ed by result dated 21.5.2005, it is also pointed out that Petitioner No. 3 who had only secured 48.37% (2nd Div.) in MA (English) and completed her B.Ed on deputation under SCERT like that of Petitioner No. 2 was called for interview subsequently. Therefore, it is contended by them that it is a case of pick and choose and discrimination on the part of the NPSC. The name of Petitioner No. 3 was struck off vide order dated 21.8.2005 passed by this Court. 3. Heard Mr. Imti Longchar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, i.e., Nagaland Public Service Commission and Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent authorities. 4. While referring to the basis for short listing candidates, Mr. A. Zhimomi has referred to the requisition sent by the Government to the NPSC in order to show that there is only draft Service Rules, which is yet to be finalized. Reference also has been made to Annexure-II to the requisition by which weightage of mark is to be given on the basis of academic performance. As already been explained in the affidavit, the short listing was made on the basis of marks as evaluated on the basis of academic performance. Mr. Imti Longchar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Annexure-II to the requisition has originated from the Director of SCERT and the same cannot be taken as the valid criteria laid down by the Government. To this argument Mr. A. Zhimomi submits that the criteria so mentioned by the Director is counter signed by Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland and the same should be treated as approved by the Government. It is the contention of Mr. Imti Longchar that the Petitioners are entitled to be called for interview and there is no legal basis for not calling them for interview. Mr. of Nagaland and the same should be treated as approved by the Government. It is the contention of Mr. Imti Longchar that the Petitioners are entitled to be called for interview and there is no legal basis for not calling them for interview. Mr. A. Zhimomi also submits that OM dated 3.8.1995, which speaks of a waiting list validity for 6 (six) months should be understood as only in respect of posts advertised and since no selected candidates have surrendered their appointments, the waiting list is of no consequence and as such there is no basis for this Court to call for records of the interview with respect to advertisement No. 1/2004-05 dated 31.5.2004. 5. As regard the prayer for calling of the records of the interview in respect of the result declared on 6.2.2005, it is specifically stated in the affidavit of Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioners were not selected and that the existence or non-existence of the waiting list has become an academic question as in the same year none of the selected candidates surrendered their appointments. There are no materials otherwise placed by the Petitioners to take a, view to the contrary. Taking the view that the waiting list may reasonably be understood as in reference to the post so advertised and the waiting list may only come into play when some selected candidates opt not to accept the recommendation, I am inclined to hold that there is no legal basis for calling for the records of the interview at this stage. Accordingly, I am to hold that the prayer of the Petitioners, in the present case Petitioner No. 1, does not have merit and accordingly the same is rejected. 6. As regard the part of the relief for setting aside the impugned notification dated 13.5.2005, it is not disputed that short listing of candidates was made on the basis of evaluation based on the criteria allotting marks against academic performance. Accepting the position that the criteria referred to as Annexure-II to the requisition sent by the Government as to be duly approved by the Government as such, there is only one possible view to take and that view is the selection of candidates for recruitment has to be made on the basis of interview, not involving written examination. Accepting the position that the criteria referred to as Annexure-II to the requisition sent by the Government as to be duly approved by the Government as such, there is only one possible view to take and that view is the selection of candidates for recruitment has to be made on the basis of interview, not involving written examination. What is commonly understood as to the method of short listing of candidates is the method adopted by way of conducting competitive written examination. Candidates when found to be in possession of the requisite qualification and fulfilling conditions as advertised, would normally be called for interview when there is no written competitive examination. Therefore, the issue that has been raised is whether the Public Service Commission can short list candidates as has been admittedly done. In the present case, the marks allocated for academic performance is stated to be 100 marks and viva voce 50 marks. There are no materials to show that there is a direction from the State Government to the extent that short listing of candidates may be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in reference to the academic performance. Even if assuming that the Public Service Commission can adopt norms for selecting the candidates, the question that has been raised as regard short listing of candidates on the basis of academic performance requires examination. From the materials on record, it is possible to take the view that the number of candidates are not unreasonably large as to call for short listing of candidates in a ratio of 1:6. In fact, such ratio could not be applied in all the categories of posts simply for the reason of not having sufficient candidates. In the present case, oh the admission of the NPSC, Petitioner No. 1 is found eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer in Education. As stated above, the selection of candidates is to be made only on the basis of interview and for that purpose 100 marks is allocated against the academic performance and 50 marks against viva voce. Having laid down conditions as to the eligibility, a view may be taken that exclusion of eligible candidates must be founded on sound reason and reasonable classification. Having laid down conditions as to the eligibility, a view may be taken that exclusion of eligible candidates must be founded on sound reason and reasonable classification. In the instant case, while the method of selection is to be based on interview, there are no materials as to draw an inference that there is a direction from the State Government as a matter of policy to short list the candidates on the basis of academic performance as against 100 marks allocated for academic performance as part of the interview. 50 marks is found to be allocated for viva voce, the marks of which also leaves enough room for competitive assessment of the eligible candidates. Therefore, when selection is to be made on the basis of interview, there appears to be no reasonable basis to short list candidates for viva voce on the basis of the evaluation made on the academic performance as forming part of the interview itself. When the selection is to be made alone on the basis of interview and the conditions having been already stipulated in the advertisement, there should be materials to show that there is a reasonable classification for the purpose of short listing the eligible candidates on the basis of academic performance and to exclude the eligible candidates. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and in particular when it is not established that there are large number of candidates, I am not inclined to hold that there is a reasonable classification for the purpose of short listing candidates as was done in the present case. Having found that there is no reasonable classification for the purpose of short listing the candidates on the basis of academic performance and further taking the view that 50 marks, which is 50% of the marks allocated for academic performance, would leave enough room for competitive assessment of candidates. I am also inclined to hold that the impugned order of short listing the candidates suffers from legal infirmities as being arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as the order has the effect of excluding the eligible candidates as found at least in the case of Petitioner No. 1. I am also inclined to hold that the impugned order of short listing the candidates suffers from legal infirmities as being arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as the order has the effect of excluding the eligible candidates as found at least in the case of Petitioner No. 1. Taking the view that requisition having been sent to the Commission as conveying the intent of the State Government to make selection on the basis of interview and there being no specific direction of the State Government to allow the Public Service Commission to adopt the procedure of short listing the candidates on the basis of academic performance, I am prompted to make further discussion on this aspect of the matter. Reference may be made to a decision reported in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Manjit Singh and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 559 . In the background of the fact that a policy decision taken by the State Government to the extent that candidates belonging to schedule caste/backward classes possessing minimum prescribed qualification be subject to only interview and the Public Service Commission having adopted a further procedure of screening test and in fixing cut off marks for such candidates and the High Court having held that the action of the Commission in holding the screening test and prescribing minimum qualifying marks was unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently giving further direction to proceed with the interview, the State and the Public Service Commission having preferred appeal against the decisions of the High Court, while dismissing the same appeal, the Apex Court in by above case held, inter alia, that the selection was by interview of the eligible candidates and that while independent and fair working of the Commission is of utmost importance, it is not also supposed to function under any pressure of the Government but at the same time it has to conform to the provisions of law and has also to abide by the rules and regulations on the subject and to take into account the policy decision, which are within the domain of the State Government and that it cannot imposed its own policy in a matter beyond its purview. In the present case as earlier pointed out, it is apparently the intent of the State Government to hold selection on the basis of interview, which consist of academic performance as well as viva voce. For this purpose, the eligibility of candidates has already been prescribed. If this be the case, it is only logical that all the eligible candidates be called for interview. Therefore, the method adopted by the Commission based on short listing of candidates, apart from appearing to be arbitrary and discriminatory, may also be understood as contrary to the policy of the State Government and thereby to hold that the action of the Commission is otherwise bad in law. On the basis of the discussions made above, I am inclined to hold that the impugned notification dated 13.5.2005 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned notification dated 13.5.2005 in relation to the posts of Lecturer in Education covered by advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.2.2005 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.