Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. The selection by the Oil Palm India Ltd. to the post of Watchman/Messenger/Attender held during the year 2001 had been subjected to attack by a few persons, but the learned Judge had found that there was no justification to interfere with the selection process or consequent appointment. The petitioner in O.P.No.11718 of 2001 has chosen to file an appeal challenging the finding as above. 2. We had opportunity to hear Dr. K.P. Kyalasanatha Pillay appearing for the appellant as also Sri. Antony Dominic appearing for respondents 2 to 5. Government Pleader was also heard in the matter. 3. The method of selection to the post was as per the rules, viz., a written test followed by interview. The minimum qualification was prescribed as 15 years of service as a worker in the company. Consequent to the invitation for selection, it appears that a large number of person had responded. The conduct of a written test was entrusted with an expert body. It was also decided that as there were 12 posts to be filled up, 36 persons might be called up for interview. However, before the date interview, a further decision has been taken that 48 persons could be invited and the cut off marks could be treated as 46 out of 100. 4. The Selection Committee consisted of Chairman of the Company, Managing Director, Under Secretary to the Department of Agriculture, Government of Kerala and an outside expert member from the Kerala State Productivity Council, Kalamassery. According to the appellant/petitioner, he had secured good marks for the written test, but did not get included in the final select list. He had challenged the method of selection pointing out that in mid way, the rules were changed and favouritism had played a large role. 5. On examining the issue in detail, the learned Judge was not prepared to accept the contention as above. It had been observed that nothing prevented the institution from laterally extending the field of choice before the interview was held. There was also no rule prescribing that 50% marks is minimum for the purpose of interview. 5. On examining the issue in detail, the learned Judge was not prepared to accept the contention as above. It had been observed that nothing prevented the institution from laterally extending the field of choice before the interview was held. There was also no rule prescribing that 50% marks is minimum for the purpose of interview. It had been also held that although mala fides had been alleged, there was no plea in that regard and no persons were impleaded to the proceedings so that it could have been possible for any of such persons to answer the allegations even of general nature. 6. Substantially, the same contentions had been urged before us as well. Dr. Kylasanatha Pillay submits that prescription of 50% marks for interview was arbitrary, and the best method of assessment would have been the result of a written test taking notice of the job. This would have avoided arbitrariness. It had also been stated that the increase in the number whereby it would have been possible for further candidates to be brought to the final stage of selection, was an act of favouritism. It affected the chance of other candidates who were initially adjudged as possessing better merit. 7. We find hardly any substance in the arguments as above. Interview was a mandatory step to be followed. In the matter of selection to the post of Watchman, we feel it is more appropriate to set apart 50% marks for the interview. Physical fitness and personality are essential requirements for a watchman; Resourcefulness, aptitude and initiative are qualities essential for a Messenger and Attender, apart from the bookish knowledge. The above qualities are best assessable by an interview. 8. We find that no statutory rules have been violated nor any procedure overlooked. The decision to take in candidates four times the number of posts for interview, instead of originally fixed three times is not shown as actuated by mala fides. There were four high ranking officials entrusted with the duty of selection. It may be easy to allege that favouritism played a major roll, but difficult to substantiate. In this case, it remains as an allegation. The learned Judge had noticed that although 11 persons had been additionally included in the field of selection, only two person had been selected from the said group. This also shows that the allegations are shallow, if not empty. 9. In this case, it remains as an allegation. The learned Judge had noticed that although 11 persons had been additionally included in the field of selection, only two person had been selected from the said group. This also shows that the allegations are shallow, if not empty. 9. Therefore, according to us, rightly a decision has been arrived at. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal. It is dismissed.