JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and Women Development Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. 2. Petitioners were applicant for appointment on the post of District Project Manager in the Corporation, pursuant to advertisement (Annexure-1) close perusal whereof would indicate that 38 vacancies were notified for appointment and the applicants were called upon to apply giving detailed CV. Petitioners having submitted their CV were called to appear in the written test as also interview. It is submitted that out of total 38 vacancies 28 appointments have been made so far. 10 vacancies are yet to be filled up. Out of the 10 remaining vacancies 3 are general category vacancy to which the petitioners belong. It is submitted on their behalf that Advertisement (Annexure-1) did not indicate the manner of selection as only biodata CV was called for from the applicants later petitioners and other applicants were made to appear in a written test and interview of 50 marks each. These informations, petitioners have confirmed by obtaining information under the Right to Information Act (Annexure-6) as also from the result sheet (Annexure-5). 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that granting 50 marks each for interview as also for written test is arbitrary. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on two judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia V/s. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 487 paragraph-19 and over the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others V/s. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454 paragraph 29. From perusal of the aforesaid two judgments it is evident that allocation of marks for interview should not exceed beyond 12.2% of the marks allocated for written test. 4. Counsel for the Corporation however submitted that petitioners having participated in the selection process and failed in the selection test have challenged allocation of 50 marks each for written and interview at this belated stage, such challenge should not be entertained by this Court. In support of such contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar V/s. Narendra Verma, Supreme Court Services Law Judgments 2006(2) 135 and Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai V/s. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors., 2008(1) PLJR (SC)193. 5. In support of such contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar V/s. Narendra Verma, Supreme Court Services Law Judgments 2006(2) 135 and Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai V/s. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors., 2008(1) PLJR (SC)193. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the counter affidavit, it is evident that the appointment in terms of Advertisement (Annexure-1) has been made for a period of one year out of which eight months have already passed. In the circumstances, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the two submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the parties, I direct the Corporation authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment against the three vacant posts in the unreserved category as petitioners are amongst the five candidates who have secured 63 marks in aggregate. Consideration of the case of the petitioners by the Corporation in compliance of this order be made with an open mind without being prejudiced by this order within a reasonable time not exceeding two months from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith a copy of this order. It is however directed that the appointment made in terms of the Advertisement (Annexure-1) should not be allowed to continue beyond one year. The Corporation while conducting the appointment process in future should not allocate marks beyond 12.2% of the marks allocated for written test. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.