B.D. Agarwal., J- This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by a group of three persons challenging the selection of the respondents as Lecturers on contract basis in Public Administration Department of Govt. colleges in the State of Mizoram. In other words the petitioners are praying for issuing a writ of certiorari so as to set aside the office order dated 24.05.2007 (Annexure-16) and also a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the State respondents to appoint the writ petitioners as Lecturers on contract basis in the aforesaid department until the posts are filled up on regular basis. 2. I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioners. The State respondents (respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4) were represented by Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. Adv. Gen. and the private respondent No.5 and 7 represented by Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned counsel. Respondent No.6 did not appear to contest the case despite being notified. I have also perused the pleadings of both the parties as well as documents filed therewith. 3. The petitioners case in brief is that they were selected as 'Guest Lecturers' in the subject of Public Administration in the year 2005 on fixed pay basis after being duly selected and recommended by a Selection Committee. Initially the petitioners were appointed for a period of 6½ months, which was extended time to time till the selection of the respondents. Thereafter the respondent No.4 issued an advertisement on 24.02.2007 to fill up as many as 62 posts of lecturers on contract basis in different disciplines in Govt. colleges. In pursuance to the said advertisement the petitioners appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee on 19.04.2007 but not recommended for appointment. Except the petitioner No. 1 the remaining two petitioners were, however, put in the waiting list. It is the case of the petitioners that there was no effective interview to select most suitable persons. The petitioners have also challenged the bonafide of evaluation of the academic record and teaching experience of the petitioners as well as their performances during viva-voce. Besides this the petitioners have also raised a question about the rationality of reserving 60% marks for personal interview. In a nutshell the petitioners have rendered entire selection process as a farce to pick up few candidates of the choice of the Lecturers. 4. Besides this the petitioners have also raised a question about the rationality of reserving 60% marks for personal interview. In a nutshell the petitioners have rendered entire selection process as a farce to pick up few candidates of the choice of the Lecturers. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Selection Committee has included one subject expert in the committee having sufficient experience in the particular discipline and as such the entire selection process cannot be said to be unfair. It was also the contention of the respondents that criteria for selection was fixed considering the nature of the job and after due evaluation the respondents were found to be meritorious than the petitioners and as such the impugned order does not deserve any interference by this Court. 5. Before I proceed further it would be apposite to look at the educational background as .well as the marks obtained by the petitioners and respondents in the interview. For easy reference the aforesaid details are shown in the following tables. TABLES SHOWING QUALIFICATIONS AND MARKS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS. Table No. 1. SI No. Name of Parties Educat­ional qualification Percen­tage of Marks 1. Mr. J. Lalhruaitluanga Petitioner No. 1 MA 57.44 2. Ms. Lalengmawii. Petitioner No.2 MA 58.50 3. Ms Lalhungehhungi Petitioner No.3 MA + MPhil 56.81 in MA 4. Ms. Tracy Lalduhawni Respondent No.5 MA 60.50 5. Ms. Laldinpuii Respondent No.6 Not available Not available 6. Ms. HD. Dothuani Respondent No.7 MA 60.56 J. LALHRUATTLUANGA KHAWLHRING VS. STATE OF MIZORAM (HQ597 Table No.2. MARKS OBTAINED IN INTERVIEW SI No. Name of parties Mark in academic record F.M.-20 Experience in college Level F.M.-20 Knowledge of subject F.M.-50 person­ality P.M.- 10 1. Mr. J. Lalhruaitluanga Petitioner No.1 9 2 22 6 2. Ms. Lalengmawii Petitioner No.2 12 2 22 5 3. Ms. Lalhunggehhungi Petitioner No.3 12 1 22 5 4. Ms. Tracy Lalduhawini Respondent No .5 13 Nil 27 7 5. Ms. Laldinpuii Respondent No.6 9 4 26 6 6. Ms. H.D. Dothuami Respondent No.7 13 Nil 25 6 6. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the selection process both on the ground of its criteria as well as evaluation of the candidates. Ms. Tracy Lalduhawini Respondent No .5 13 Nil 27 7 5. Ms. Laldinpuii Respondent No.6 9 4 26 6 6. Ms. H.D. Dothuami Respondent No.7 13 Nil 25 6 6. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the selection process both on the ground of its criteria as well as evaluation of the candidates. Besides this it was also urged that as per the resolution taken in a meeting held in the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister on 26.09.2005 the petitioners and other Guest Lecturers were supposed to have been engaged on contract basis from 1st April 2006 but defying the resolution the posts of Lecturers were filled up with new candidates. 7. With regard to the criteria of fixing 60% marks for viva-voce the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was too high giving ample scope to the Members of the Selection Committee to pick and choose their blue-eyed candidates. In this regard the learned counsel cited the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors.; reported in (1980)3 SCC 418 , Abid Ashghar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; reported in (1994) 1 SCC 150 , InderPrakash Gupta Vs. State of J& K & Ors.; reported in (2004) 6 SCC 786 . It may be mentioned here that judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Abid Ashghar (supra) was also pressed into service by the learned counsel for the private respondents. Besides this it was submitted by the learned counsel for the private respondents that if a composite selection process involving written test and personal interview is adopted then in that case allotting higher marks for viva-voce may not be advisable. But if the candidates are selected basically on viva-voce then reservation of 60% marks for interview cannot be said to be illogical and irrational. This submission was made with the aid of the judgment of the Apex Court given in the case of Mohinder Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.; reported in (1991) 1 SCC 662 . At the same time learned Additional Advocate General submitted that no yardstick can be laid down as to what percentage of marks can be allotted for personal interview as it may vary from service to service and the reforms of the Selection Committee. State of Punjab & Ors.; reported in (1991) 1 SCC 662 . At the same time learned Additional Advocate General submitted that no yardstick can be laid down as to what percentage of marks can be allotted for personal interview as it may vary from service to service and the reforms of the Selection Committee. This submission was made on the basis of the authority from the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Siya Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.; reported in (1998) 2 SCC 566 whereby the Apex Court has held that it is a matter for determination by experts. At the same time the Apex Court has put a rider that the rationality of weightage of viva-voce can of course be looked into by the Courts if exaggerated weight has been given on personal interview with proven on oblique motives. Again referring to the judgment of Chandra Prakash Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla & Ors.; reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 the Additional Advocate General submitted that the candidates who have taken part in the selection process cannot challenge the selection criteria. 8. At this stage I feel it necessary to reproduce the relevant resolution taken a high-powered committee involving Hon'ble Chief Minister, which has a direct bearing in this case. The relevant resolution are as below: "1. The Committee resolved that the tenure of present Guest Lecturer shall be for 12 months from the next financial year, and the present nomenclature of Guest Lecturer be changed to 'Lecturer on contract basis'. It was also decided that the existing Guest Lecturer be engaged up to March, 2006 at the rate of Rs. 4500/- p.m. due to constraint of funds during this financial year. 2. Regarding the continuity of their engagement as Guest Lecturer for the next financial year, the Committee decided that qualified candidates having NET/SLET qualification be given priority in the selection and those who have teaching experience in the University and College level institution shall be given some weightage at the time of fresh DPC." 9. Apropos to the aforesaid resolution the department of DP & AR also issued a circular directing the Higher and Technical Education department not to enroll any new lecturer without its prior approval. Apropos to the aforesaid resolution the department of DP & AR also issued a circular directing the Higher and Technical Education department not to enroll any new lecturer without its prior approval. In this circular the DP & AR Department also regretted that after the change of nomenclature of "Guest Lecturer" into "Lecturer on contract basis" the remuneration of Lecturers is revised to Rs.8,000/-. The contents of the circular are extracted extenso: "I.D. No: ARW/EDC/2006-2007/G-24 Date: 15.05.2006. DP & AR approved the proposal of Higher and Technical Education Department for changing existing nomenclature of "Guest Lecturer" into "Lecturer on contract basis" at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. fixed which is the minimum scale of the post. Referring to this Department's ID. No. ARW7 EDC/2005-2006/G-126 dt. 30.11.2005, the Department is informed to take every precautionary measures not to engage surplus Lecturer on contract basis. No new engagement should be made without prior approval of DP & AR (ARW) and Finance Department. However, the Department may obtain finance Department's concurrence. Secretary Under Secretary Higher & Technical DP&AR(ARW). Education Deptt." 10. A bare perusal of the resolutions dated 26.09.2005 clearly indicate that the committee had decided to change the nomenclature of the Lecturers with enhancement of remuneration of Rs. 4,500/-to Rs.8,000/- with effect from 01.04.2006. In the second resolution it was emphasized that in future only the candidates having certain qualifications with teaching experience shall be appointed as Lecturers. 11. There was no dispute from the side of the State counsel that all the writ petitioners had the requisite qualification for their appointment as Lecturers since they were not only having post graduation qualification but they had also obtained the diploma of NET. Besides this all the three writ petitioners were appointed in the month of June 2005 as Guest Lecturers after a due process of selection. Hence, I do not understand as to what was the necessity to replace the petitioners with a new set of Lecturers. To be more specific learned Additional Adv. Gen failed to produce any document to show that the petitioners' performance was not found satisfactory during their two year tenure. The affidavit of the State respondents is totally silent in this regard. To be more specific learned Additional Adv. Gen failed to produce any document to show that the petitioners' performance was not found satisfactory during their two year tenure. The affidavit of the State respondents is totally silent in this regard. The affidavit is also conspicuously silent as to on what basis the respondents had taken a decision to fill up the posts of Lecturers in Public Administration department with a new set of teachers and when this decision was taken. Hence, I hold that replacement of one set of Lecturers on contract basis with another set of Lecturers on identical terms was totally uncalled for. However, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra) and more particularly on the ground that the petitioners participated in the selection process. I refrain myself from declaring the advertisement of posts and selection of k respondents as per se illegal on this count alone. 12. With regard to the fixation of norms/criteria the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a consistent view that there cannot be any hard and fast rule as to what weight should be given to the viva-voce test as it may vary from service to service. The Apex Court has further held that in certain services persons maybe selected entirely on personal interview basis. In this regard I would like to quote few lines from the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana; reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417 which has been relied on by the Apex Court in the Anzar Ahmed case and referred by the learned counsel for both the sides and observations are as follows: "...The competitive examination may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be exclusively on interview or it may be a mixture of both. It is entirely for the Government to decide what kind of competitive examination would be appropriate in a given case ... .It is not for the Court to lay down whether interview test should be held at all or how may marks should be allowed for the interview test. Of course the marks must minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appointments where the only proper method of selection may be by a viva-voce test. Of course the marks must minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness, but not necessarily always. There may be posts and appointments where the only proper method of selection may be by a viva-voce test. .....Now if both written examination and viva-voce test are accepted as essential features of proper selection in a given case, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them 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 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-voce test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is essentially a matter for determination by experts. The Court does not possess the necessary equipment and it would not be right for the Court to pronounce upon it, unless to use the words of Chinnappa Readdy, J. in Lilla Dhar case exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives." (emphasis is mine). 13. In view of the settled position of law I would like to maintain restrain to hold that in the given facts 60% marks allotted for viva-voce was on the higher side. However, I would like to examine whether the Members of selection board has properly utilized the marks allotted for respective criteria as could be gathered from tables 1 and 2. Twenty marks which was allotted for academic record and teaching experience. It is also evident from the table 1 that there was hardly any difference in academic performance of the petitioners and respondents. There was only 3% difference from petitioner No.1 to respondent No.7. Despite that petitioner No.1 was given only 9 marks against 20 marks. Even ignoring the poor marking to petitioner No.1. I find that the petitioner No.3 was certainly more qualified than the respondents since she is also having the degree of M. Phil, which no other candidate possessed. Despite this brilliant academic record she was been placed below respondent Nos. 5 and 7. 14. Coming to the marking of teaching experience I find that 20 marks were allotted in this category. From the pleadings I find that petitioner Nos. Despite this brilliant academic record she was been placed below respondent Nos. 5 and 7. 14. Coming to the marking of teaching experience I find that 20 marks were allotted in this category. From the pleadings I find that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were having teaching experience of 3 years, 4 years and 2 years respectively. Whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 7 did not have any such experience. Teaching experience of respondent No. 6 was not available during the course of hearing. It was informed to the Court that this respondent has now been appointed on regular basis probably this may be the reason for not contesting writ petition. The affidavit of the State respondent has not clarified as to what was the basis for allotting 2 marks for teaching experience of 3 to 4 years and what was the expectation of the members of the Selection Committee. Literally if one mark so allotted for teaching experience of two years the candidates were expected to have 30 to 40 years of teaching experience to secure 20 marks allotted in the category. Needless to say that targets should be so fixed which can be achieved by the candidates, if not easily at least by way of reasonable standard of performance. If one go by the standard of marking allotted to the petitioners, it seems that the target was almost unachievable. In my considered opinion in this category also the petitioners were definitely discriminated. I am also of the view that had the petitioners been suitably remunerated in this category they would have certainly superseded the respondents since the petitioners were defeated by a thin margin. Hence, I hold that it is case in which the doctrine of "obvious oblique motives" is attracted and I hold that the selection of respondents was not totally free from nepotism, favouritism and biasness. I also do not hesitate to hold that Members of selection committee had used their unfettered powers in evaluating the teaching experience arbitrarily. On this count alone the selection of respondents deserves to be set aside. 15. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out a documentary evidence showing serious flaw and malafide in the selection process. On this count alone the selection of respondents deserves to be set aside. 15. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out a documentary evidence showing serious flaw and malafide in the selection process. Referring to the Tabulation Sheet prepared by the Selection Committee the learned counsel pointed out that the result was declared before the tabulation sheet of interview was finally prepared and published. This submission was made on the basis of the date given by the Chairman of the committee as 4/5 (meanings 4th May, 2007) in the second page of the sheet whereas rest of the Members signed the tabulation sheet on 19.04.2007. 16. The affidavit of the State respondents is totally silent to answer the aforesaid anomaly. The original tabulation sheet of interview placed before me by the Learned Advocate General, also corroborated the fact that the Chairman of the committee had put 19.04.2007 in the first page whereas 04.05.2007 was put in the second page. Learned Additional Advocate General attempted to reconcile the discrepancy submitting that possibly the final tabulation sheet was prepared and placed before the Chairman on 04.05.2007 and as such by mistake the said date was put on the second page of the tabulation sheet. In my considered opinion this submission cannot stand in judicial scrutiny. Had it been so the Chairman would have been certainly put 04.05.2007 on both the sheets. Hence, it appears to me that the result was declared on 19th April, 2007 itself without final preparation of tabulation sheet of the interview. In other words, it appears to me that the tabulation sheet must have been prepared on 04.05.2007 and signature of other Members must have been obtained with back date. I stand to get support my logic from another angle that as per the minutes of the Selection Committee the results were declared on the same date i.e. on 19.04.2007, whereas the office order of appointment of Lecturers were issued only on 24.05.2007 i.e., nearly after five weeks. Had the tabulation sheet was finally prepared and had recommendation were actually made on 19.04.2007 there should have been no reason for issuing the appointment order after more than one month. From this angle also it can be inferred that the entire process of selection was actually completed on 04.05.2007 but the results were prepared with back date. Had the tabulation sheet was finally prepared and had recommendation were actually made on 19.04.2007 there should have been no reason for issuing the appointment order after more than one month. From this angle also it can be inferred that the entire process of selection was actually completed on 04.05.2007 but the results were prepared with back date. In this way the selection of respondents also smacks of foul play and it cannot sustain in law. 17. The impugned order of selection was also assailed that as many as 85 candidates were interviewed in a single day and as such each candidate was hardly interviewed for about four minutes. In my view the Court cannot give a random opinion whether four minutes interview was sufficient or insufficient to assess the performance of a particular candidate. However, keeping in mind that 60 marks were allotted to test the knowledge of the candidates on the subject and their personality the Selection Committee ought to have interviewed the candidate's leisurely and extensively by way of stretching interview period. 18. For the reasons set out hereinabove, I hold that it is a fit case in which this court can interfere in declaring (sic) the appointments of the private respondents. Even otherwise the private respondents have been appointed on contract basis for one year only which is going to expired on 30th May, 2008. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka&Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors.; reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 employees engaged on temporary, casual, adhoc or contractual basis have no right to claim for their regularization, absorption or continuation in such posts on permanent basis. Besides this since the petitioners were also disengaged from job after the expiry of extended period of employment the same principle can also be applied to the private respondents. Accordingly, the petitioners are also not entitled to get an order of mandamus for their continuance in service. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned Office Order dated 24.05.2007 (Annexure-16) is hereby set aside with regard to the appointment of private respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7 as Lecturers on contract basis in the subject of Public Administration. The State respondents are directed to fill up these posts by way of fresh advertisement. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned Office Order dated 24.05.2007 (Annexure-16) is hereby set aside with regard to the appointment of private respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7 as Lecturers on contract basis in the subject of Public Administration. The State respondents are directed to fill up these posts by way of fresh advertisement. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that the tenure of private respondents may be extended till then.