Judgment : In W.P. No. 15354 of 1994, the petitioner has sought for a declaration, declaring the proceedings of the Executive Director (Personnel), Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, second respondent herein made in No. 2(5)/94/E-1/1. 1994, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In W.P. No. 15355 of 1994, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint him to one of the posts of Deputy Manager (General Administration) notified in the advertisement made by the second respondent, dated 8. 1992. 3. As both the writ petitions relate to selection to the post of Deputy Manager (Administration) in Food Corporation of India, pleadings and issues raised being common, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 4. Facts leading to the writ petitions are as follows: The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. In 1974, he was graduated in Madras University. In 1976, he was selected and appointed as Assistant, Grade-III (General) in Food Corporation of India (In short "FCI"), Southern Zone at Madras. The petitioner worked as Assistant Grade-III in the Regional Office of FCI from 1976 to December 1993 and thereafter, promoted as Assistant Grade-II (General). While he was working as Assistant Grade-III, he pursued his higher studies and acquired a Post Graduate degree in Sociology (MA Sociology) and a Degree in Law (B.L. Degree). Taking Into consideration his service and higher qualifications, he was sponsored by FCI to study Master of Business Administration in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations. He was granted two years leave for the said purpose and he completed the course in the year 1989 with First Class. 5. Apart from his academic pursuit, the petitioner had taken keen interest in the welfare of the weaker Sections of the society. He was elected as Zonal Secretary of the FCI Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association for the Southern State in the year 1983 and in the year 1989, he became the Secretary General of the said Association. Both in the capacity of Zonal Secretary as well as Secretary General, the petitioner had been fighting for the cause and welfare of the employees of FCI. As a member and Office Bearer of the FCI (SC & ST) Employees Association, he had participated in several agitations claiming justice for the SC & ST employees. 6. Both in the capacity of Zonal Secretary as well as Secretary General, the petitioner had been fighting for the cause and welfare of the employees of FCI. As a member and Office Bearer of the FCI (SC & ST) Employees Association, he had participated in several agitations claiming justice for the SC & ST employees. 6. The petitioner has further submitted that he had fought for 20 stenographers of the SC & STs to be appointed in the backlog vacancies in 1981, which infuriated some of the officers of FCI. In 1983, when number of SC & ST employees belonging to Class IV were over-looked for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade HI, the petitioner led an agitation and got promotion for 240 SC & ST members. Similar agitations were made in the year 1984, 1987 and 1990, for the interests of the employees of FCI. On more than one occasions, the petitioner was sought to be suspended/punished for his association activities and subsequently, suspension orders were revoked. For example, in 1979, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment, for his effort to vindicate the cause of watchmen, who were sought to be transferred contrary to the rules. Similarly in 1987, the petitioner was suspended for a period of six months, when he sought to voice the grievance of SC & ST employees, which action came to be revoked later. The petitioner was arrested along with 1500 employees in ESMA. The petitioner has further submitted that he had played a leading role in implementation of the Special Drive to fill up the backlog vacancies for SC & STs. On account of sincere and untiring efforts taken by the petitioner and his colleagues, FCI yielded to the demand of the Association to implement the Special Drive. But for his sincere efforts, the recruitment under Special Drive would not have come through. .7. The petitioner has further submitted that by notification, dated 8. 1992, the Executive Director (Personnel), Food Corporation of India, second respondent herein, invited applications from SC & ST candidates for various posts in FCI. One of the categories, notified was the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) in the scale of pay of Rs. 3,700-140-4,400/-. The total number of posts in this category notified was 13, out of which 9 posts were ear-marked for SC candidates and 4 for ST candidates. One of the categories, notified was the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) in the scale of pay of Rs. 3,700-140-4,400/-. The total number of posts in this category notified was 13, out of which 9 posts were ear-marked for SC candidates and 4 for ST candidates. The qualifications prescribed for the above post were that the candidate should be a graduate with a Diploma in Business Management, with five years experience in Food and Allied Fields. The maximum age limit was prescribed as 35 years, which was however relaxable as per the rules of the Corporation. As per the general conditions, persons possessing higher qualification and experience would be given preference. According to the petitioner, he was holding the post of Assistant Grade III and possessed higher educational qualifications than the minimum qualification prescribed under the notification. He applied for the said post through the Regional Office, Madras. The post of Deputy Manager is in Category-I and the appointing authority for the said post is the Managing Director, as per Appendix-II of the FCI Staff Regulation, 1971, Therefore, the petitioner submitted that the second respondent was not competent to make the selection or decision in the matter of appointment to the post in question. 8. The petitioner has further submitted that many candidates have applied to each one of the categories specified in the notification. As stated supra, the petitioner possessed a Master Degree in Arts with a degree in law and a Post Graduate Degree in Business Management with 18 years experience in the Food Corporation of India. Notwithstanding the above qualifications and the fact that the petitioner had made an application, on 9. 1992, well within the prescribed time, he was not called for the Interview in September 1993, though a number of other candidates were called for the interview for the said post. The petitioner therefore, made a representation on 29. 1993 to the second respondent, bringing It to the notice of the Managing Director, FCI, all the above facts, indicating the vindictive the action of the Management. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner was called for an Interview to be held on 111. 1993 at Delhi. The said interview was however postponed thrice and ultimately, it was held on 21. 1994 and he attended the interview. .9. The petitioner has further submitted that there were five members in the Committee, including the second respondent. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner was called for an Interview to be held on 111. 1993 at Delhi. The said interview was however postponed thrice and ultimately, it was held on 21. 1994 and he attended the interview. .9. The petitioner has further submitted that there were five members in the Committee, including the second respondent. There were about 35 to 40 candidates, who appeared for the interview on the said date and the petitioner was called as the last candidate. While the interview Committee took about 5 to 10 minutes in respect of each candidate, the petitioner, who was the last candidate, was grilled for about 30 minutes. According to the petitioner, he had answered all the questions fairly well and correctly. At the time of interview, the petitioner produced all the testimonials relating to his educational qualification and experience, in original. During the second week of June 1994, the petitioner understood that his claim was overlooked on irrelevant and vindictive grounds. Therefore, he made a representation on 16. 1994 to the first respondent and sent a further representation on 8. 1994 to the Chairman, FCI, putting forth .all his qualifications and staked his claim for appointment. When the representations were pending, the petitioner came to know that the orders of appointment had already been issued in August 1994, appointing various persons including respondents 3 to 5 as Deputy Managers (General Administration) in pursuance of the notification issued on 8. 1992 and that the petitioner had not been selected to the said post. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the entire procedure adopted by the respondents was wholly irregular and contrary to law and that his claim has been overlooked on irrelevant consideration. Being aggrieved by the selection of the respondents 3 to 5 to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petitions for the reliefs as stated supra. 10. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 have raised a preliminary objection that as the alleged cause of action in the writ petitions has not arisen even in any part within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, prayed that the writ petitions have to be dismissed in limine. 10. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 have raised a preliminary objection that as the alleged cause of action in the writ petitions has not arisen even in any part within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, prayed that the writ petitions have to be dismissed in limine. Without prejudice to the above, the respondents 1 and 2 have submitted that as the petitioner had appeared in the interview conducted by the five member committee, he is estopped from challenging the selection and therefore, not entitled to the reliefs sought for in these writ petitions. 11. The respondents have denied the contention of self-appraisal of his participation, agitation etc., towards the cause of the employees association and further submitted that the averments made in this regard are not germane for proper adjudication of issues involved in these writ petitions. It is further submitted that the decision to fill up the backlog vacancies in the reserved category under the Special Recruitment Drive was taken as per the operational exigencies and on the direction of the Government of India issued from time to time and accordingly, the advertisement calling for the applications was released during August, 1992. The respondents have denied the contention of the petitioner that only because of his efforts and of the association, vacancies for the reserved candidates were filled up. 12. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) is a category I post in Food Corporation of India under the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. The qualifications and experience prescribed for the post and the mode of recruitment etc., are dealt with in Item No. 3 under Part II of Appendix I of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971. As per the said Regulations, 31-1/3% of the posts have to be filled up by direct recruitment. The qualifications and experience prescribed for the post and the mode of recruitment etc., are dealt with in Item No. 3 under Part II of Appendix I of the Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1971. As per the said Regulations, 31-1/3% of the posts have to be filled up by direct recruitment. Apart from the general conditions relating to the appointment prescribed in Regulation 5, the qualifications and experience required from the eligible applicants to the above post are as follows: .(i) He must a graduate; .(ii) He must be holding a Diploma in Business Management; (iii) He must have five years experience in Food and Allied Fields; (iv) He must not be more than 35 years of age on the date of application (in respect of candidates belonging to SC/ST category, they must not be above 40 years on the date of their application); Age is also relaxable in case of Departmental employees as per rules of the Corporation. 13. The respondents have contended that according to Section 14(4) of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, the Board of Directors of the Food Corporation of India may constitute such committees whether consisting wholly of the Directors or wholly of other persons or partially of Directors and partially of other persons, as it thinks fit, for such purpose, as it may desire. Regulation 9(b)(ii) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971, which deals with the procedure for direct recruitment of Category I posts reads as follows: "All applications received shall be scrutinised and candidates considered prima facie suitable shall be called for interview. Interview shall be held by Selection Board duly constituted from time to time for different categories of posts. The selection Board shall consist of not less than three members. The selection Board shall draw up a panel of candidates fit for selection and furnish it to the Appointing Authority together with Its recommendations in the order of merit. The number of persons on the panel shall generally be one and half times the number of vacancies and the panel shall remain valid for one year from the date of its drawn up." .14. As per the above said provisions, the Board of Directors of Food Corporation of India, in its 229th Meeting held on 2. The number of persons on the panel shall generally be one and half times the number of vacancies and the panel shall remain valid for one year from the date of its drawn up." .14. As per the above said provisions, the Board of Directors of Food Corporation of India, in its 229th Meeting held on 2. 1993, re-constituted the Selection Committee for selection of Deputy Managers (General Administration) with the Executive Director (Personnel) as Ex-officio Chairman and about six ex-pert persons of high status as members of that Selection Committees. The details of the members of the Selection Committee are as follows: .TABLE 15. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the Selection Board received applications for 13 vacancies (9-SC and 4-ST) in the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration), which were duly scrutinised. Among those applicants, 70 persons Including the petitioner were found prima facie suitable. Having regard to the educational qualifications and experience possessed by the applicants, they were called for the interview. In the interview conducted by the Selection Board, on an overall assessment of the relative merits of the interviewed candidates, appropriate marks were awarded. The inter se merit of the interviewed candidates was arranged in the order of the marks secured by them in the interview. A panel of candidates fit for selection was drawn by the Selection Board in the order of merit as required under the relevant recruitment rules and the same was placed before the Managing Director, first respondent herein, who is the appointing authority for the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration), as per Appendix-II, Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. The Executive Committee in its 181st Meeting held on 30.5.1994 ratified the Selection made to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) and accordingly, appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that the appointments were not made by the Managing Director is not tenable. .16. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the Selection Committee had decided to conduct the interview for the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) at various centres in India to suit the convenience of the applicants, so as to enable them to appear for the interview at the nearest centres. The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 21. 1994 at Bangalore. The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 21. 1994 at Bangalore. Therefore, they have denied the allegation of the petitioner that he was called for interview only after the representation made by him. 17. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the assessment of merit of the candidates related to their overall suitability for the post was done by the Selection Committee in the interview. The allegation that though the petitioner had given correct answers to all the questions in the interview, the selection committee did not select him based on his performance in the interview, has been specifically denied by the respondents. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the clause in the advertisement indicating that persons possessing higher qualifications/experience would be given preference, according to the respondents, appears to have been based on an erroneous understanding of the said clause by the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the aforesaid clause cannot imply that Irrespective of the merit of the candidates, persons possessing higher qualifications have to be given appointments. The said clause only means that when the merits of competing candidates being equal, preference would be given to those possessing higher qualifications. It was only for that limited purpose, the aforesaid clause was incorporated in the advertisement and certainly it was not intended to confer any indefeasible right in the posts on the persons possessing higher qualifications, de hors the statutory rules governing the selection. The Impugned selection of candidates was made strictly in accordance with merit as assessed by the Selection Committee and appointments were made accordingly. The petitioner could not find a place in the selection list on the basis of his performance in the interview. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to be appointed to the post, more so when the merit of the petitioner is far lower than that of the other candidates. .18. As regards bias, the respondents 1 and 2 have submitted that the then Executive Director (Personnel), who was the Ex Officio Chairman of the Selection Board, had no personal knowledge of the alleged activities of the petitioner in the Employees Association. .18. As regards bias, the respondents 1 and 2 have submitted that the then Executive Director (Personnel), who was the Ex Officio Chairman of the Selection Board, had no personal knowledge of the alleged activities of the petitioner in the Employees Association. Moreover, even according to the petitioner, his activities in the Employees .Association had taken place only at Madras, whereas, the second respondent was distinctly stationed at the Head Quarters at New Delhi and none of the orders, punishing or suspending the petitioner was passed by the second respondent and therefore, no mala fide can be attributed against him. The assessment of the merit of the competing candidates was done by the Selection Committee comprising of departmental senior officers, outside experts, officers belonging to IAS and IRS and Thiru. T.K. Sethu, Additional Financial Advisor, who was nominated as a representative of the Reserved Community. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against these members, who had drawn up the panel. 19. As regards the contention of the petitioner that he was not served with any order, setting out the reasons for his non-selection or the details about the selection of other candidates, the second respondent has further submitted that there is no rule or regulation governing the selection, requiring the Selection Board to record reasons for the Selection or non-Selection of the candidate interviewed. For the above said reasons, the respondents 1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 20. The fifth respondent, one of the selected candidate, has filed a detailed counter affidavit, opposing the writ petitions and further placed necessary service particulars in support of his contention that he was selected on the basis of his performance in the interview, by a duly constituted committee. That apart, he has also questioned the locus stand/ of the petitioner, who is an unsuccessful candidate, to challenge the selection process after participating in the interview. .21. In respect of the relief sought for by the petitioner, Mr. Jinasenan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the procedure hitherto followed for selection to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration), candidates were selected on the basis of the performance on written test as well as interview. .21. In respect of the relief sought for by the petitioner, Mr. Jinasenan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the procedure hitherto followed for selection to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration), candidates were selected on the basis of the performance on written test as well as interview. Assessing the performance of the candidates only on the basis of the Interview would pave way for nepotism, favourtism and likelihood of bias and therefore, the best course open to the respondents would have been to conduct a written test followed by an interview. When the respondents have notified that persons possessing higher qualification/experience would be given preference, they should have considered that as between the petitioner and the fifth respondent, the petitioner has got higher educational qualifications, viz., Master degree in Sociology, Master of Business Administration and Degree in Law, whereas, the fifth respondent was only a holder of P.G. Diploma in Business Management with a basic degree. Therefore, he submitted that arbitrariness in the selection conducted by the committee, is per se evident, in that several candidates, who were either graduates or diploma holders in Business Management, have been selected, ignoring the claim of the petitioner. In this context, he further submitted that the respondents ought to have allocated due marks to the higher qualification and experience, possessed by the petitioner and having regard to the nature of the post, viz., Deputy Manager (General Administration), the same should have been the objective criteria, which the interview committee ought to have adopted as the substantial basis for selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the very fact that the candidate with lesser educational qualification and experience were selected, makes it abundantly clear that the selection is based on irrelevant and extraneous circumstances. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the interview committee as well as the respondent-Corporation ought to have disclosed the norms applied for selection. According to him, about 30 to 40 candidates appeared for the interview, before the committee comprising of five members, including the Executive Director (Personnel), FCI, New Delhi, second respondent. Though the committee, took only 5 to 10 minutes, in respect of each of the candidates, the petitioner, who was called as the last candidate in the interview was grilled for nearly 30 minutes. Though the committee, took only 5 to 10 minutes, in respect of each of the candidates, the petitioner, who was called as the last candidate in the interview was grilled for nearly 30 minutes. When the petitioner had answered all the questions fairly well and satisfied the qualification prescribed in the notification, the respondents ought to have informed the petitioner, the marks secured in the interview as well as the norms applied for selection. When the selection list contained the names of persons with lesser educational qualification and experience, it shows that the respondents have applied different yardstick in the matter of selection and thus denied the legitimate claim of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager (Administration). .23. Referring to the various instances quoted in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that being a member and Office bearer of FCI SC/ST Employees Association, he had participated in many agitations, exposing the cause of SC/ST employees in matters relating to appointment and promotion. On many occasions, the petitioner was punished for his association activities. The petitioner also took part in the agitation conducted by the Association for employment under the Special Drive to fill up the backlog vacancies of SCs/STs. On account of his sincere and untiring efforts, several persons belonging to the said category were benefited and to put down the petitioner from engaging himself in welfare activities, the respondents, by applying extraneous consideration, have denied appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration). 24. He further submitted that the respondents have taken two years to conduct the special drive for this post, but for his untiring efforts, this would not have come through. Being agitated by the constant efforts taken by him, the respondents, out of mala fide and bias, have ignored the potential of the petitioner and his higher educational qualification, wantonly by selecting those with lesser experience and educational qualification. He further added that no reasons have been assigned by the respondents, explaining the inordinate delay in conducting the Interview for the said post and therefore, the averments made by the petitioner as regards bias and mala fide should be deemed to have been accepted. He further added that no reasons have been assigned by the respondents, explaining the inordinate delay in conducting the Interview for the said post and therefore, the averments made by the petitioner as regards bias and mala fide should be deemed to have been accepted. Inasmuch as the selection is vitiated by favourtism and arbitrariness, placing reliance on a decision in Krishnan Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1994 SC 2166 : (1994) 4 SCC 165 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire selection has to be cancelled to infuse confidence in the administration of Food Corporation of India. 25. Relying on Paragraph 9 of the decision in D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 2374 : (1993) 3 SCC 663 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when oral test is subjective and susceptible to misuse and bias, evaluation of the candidates should be done by holding a written test followed by an interview. Unless written test is conducted, there is every scope for ignoring the good record of service of the candidates. Even if oral test alone is the method to be adopted for evaluating the performance of the candidates, then the element of subjectivity should be checked on the basis of marks assigned under different heads in the interview. In the absence of any details of the marks allocated under different heads to the candidates, who have appeared in the interview, there is every room for suspicion of bias and favouritism in the interview conducted by the respondents. 26. Viva-voce test being a determining factor in the process of selection, tilting the marks of one candidate or the other and there is every room for arbitrariness, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of a written test, the only course open to the respondents to have allocated marks under different heads to avoid arbitrariness and favouritism and in this context, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454 : (1985) 4 SCC 417 . 27. Placing reliance on an unreported decision in W.P. No. 14739 of 1989, dated 13. 27. Placing reliance on an unreported decision in W.P. No. 14739 of 1989, dated 13. 1994, of the Andra Pradesh High Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure which is hitherto followed by the Food Corporation of India for appointment was, to hold a written examination, followed by group discussion and interview. According to him, selecting the candidates on the basis of interview for the post of Deputy Manager by allocation of marks, is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court and the judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court should be made applicable to the facts of this case. He further submitted that even if the is Court is not inclined to set aside the selection in entirety, considering the manner of selection, the arbitrariness in ignoring the higher educational qualification coupled with experience of the petitioner, and for other relevant factors, a direction may be issued to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner. 28. Responding to the submissions advanced by the petitioner and referring to the place of advertisement, viz., Delhi, place of interview, viz., Bangalore, seat of the respondents and the offer of appointment issued by the FCI to the selected candidates, Mr. P.D. Adhikesavalu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the cause of action for the writ petitions, both material and integral, did not happen anywhere within the territorial Jurisdiction of this Court. He further submitted that even If the residence of any one of the candidates falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, that would not confer any cause of action to maintain the writ petitions. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 2004 SC 2124. .29. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India springs from the cause of action and merely because the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) was notified in the advertisement issued at Delhi, spread over to other parts of the Country, that would not confer a right on the petitioner to institute a writ proceedings in this Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in 2007 (4) LW 473 . 30. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in 2007 (4) LW 473 . 30. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 2511 learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that the interview was conducted in a fair and just manner, with reference to the recruitment rules. In the absence of any specific instances of mala fide or bias, alleged and proved, against the members, who constituted the committee or in the manner of 25 allocation of marks in the interview, the contention of the petitioner to the contra has to be rejected. 131. Opposing the contention of the petitioner that the respondents ought to have given reasons for not selecting the candidates, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. K. Kalyanaraman AIR 1992 SC 1806 : (1992) Supp 2 SCC 481, submitted that the Selection Committee had been duly constituted by the Board and it consisted of experts. There was proper consideration and assessment of the relative merits of the candidates. In the absence of any rule or regulation, requiring the selection committee to record reasons, there is no need to communicate the same to the unsuccessful candidates. 132. Placing reliance on a decision reported in Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. AIR 2000 SC 3299 : (2000) 7 SCC 719 , learned counsel for the Corporation further submitted that the selection based on the interview is permissible and the petitioner, having participated in the process of selection, is estopped from questioning the same. He further submitted that all the three decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the preposition that selection should be conducted only on the basis of performance of the candidates in written and oral tests, have been dealt with in Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. (supra) case and therefore, the contentions to the contrary are liable to be rejected. He further added that Rule 12(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, discussed in Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. (supra) case, is almost pares meteria with the FCI regulations relating to appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration), where interview was the only mode of selection for the post of Principal/Headmaster of the School in the above reported decision. 133. Learned counsel for the Corporation further submitted that when the rules do not provide for allocation of marks under different heads, it is for the interviewing body to take a decision as to how marks should be awarded and merely because, the method of awarding marks is not defined in the advertisement, that would not give an inference that the selection made by the committee was done with oblique motive of favouring certain individuals. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1777 : (1981) 4 SCC 159 . He further submitted that the attempt of the petitioner to give a discarded picture that the selection has been made out of bias and favouritism, is liable to be rejected in limine, in view of the decision cited supra. 134. Placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Madanlal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1999 SC 1088, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that the petitioner, knowing fully well, the method of selection adopted by the Corporation took a calculated chance to get himself selected, and having participated in the Selection Process and became unsuccessful, later on cannot turn around and question the process of interview as unfair or alleged motive against the committee. Once the assessment of the candidates has been made by an expert committee, the subjective satisfaction of the assessment of the candidates, cannot be questioned by an unsuccessful candidate and it is not open to him to demand this Court to scrutinise the assessment made by the committee. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the process of the Interview. 135. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the process of the Interview. 135. Referring to the advertisement and the recruitment rules, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the candidates with diploma in Business Management with five years experience are also eligible for consideration to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) in the Corporation. Though one of the general conditions advertised for the above said post, states that persons possessing higher educational qualifications/experience, would be given preference, that does not preclude the Selection Committee from selecting a candidate on the basis of his performance in the interview, where relative merits of the candidates are assessed. 136. Placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, A.P.P.S.C. v. Y. V. V.R. Srinivasulu AIR 2003 SC 3961 : (2003) 5 SCC 341 , learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that preference for higher educational qualification/experience for selection would be considered only if other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal. Imposition of such condition in the advertisement would not mean to eliminate all other candidates with lesser educational qualifications and if that approach has to be applied, then there would be no meaning in assessing the relative merits of the candidates in the process of selection, i.e., interview conducted by the committee constituted for the purpose. In this context, he placed reliance on the decisions in Prem Singh and Others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Others, JT (1996) 5 SC 219 and State of U. P. v. Om Prakash AIR 2006 SC 3080 . 37. Relying on a decision in Ku. Rashmi Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission JT (2006) 10 SC 187, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed for non-joinder of selected candidates, who are likely to be affected, if the selection was to be set aside by this Court. 38. On the question of applicability of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 4739 of 1989 to the facts of this case, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the said decision is contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court cited supra. 38. On the question of applicability of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 4739 of 1989 to the facts of this case, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the said decision is contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court cited supra. As the petitioner has not raised the issue of delay in conducting the interview, as one of the grounds of attack in the writ petitions, it is not open to him to advance arguments in the said point. He further submitted that the interview was conducted, taking into consideration the need for filling up the posts and therefore, the contention of the petitioner to the contrary, that only at his instance, the selection was made, is beyond the pale of imagination and not supported by any evidence. 39. Mr. Thambusami, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, a candidate selected for the post notified, submitted that the fifth respondent possessed the required educational qualification for the post of Deputy Manager (Administration) and that he had discharged supervisory functions for eight years and therefore, he was fully qualified for the above said post. According to him, the fifth respondent possessed a basic degree in Botany, Post Graduate in History and Diploma in Business Management, besides qualified himself in Jaw. The only difference between the petitioner and the fifth respondent was with reference to P.G. Degree in Business Administration and in all other respects, the fifth respondent was qualified for appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration). He further submitted that at the time of interview on 5. 1995, the fifth respondent was working as Assistant Manager (Movements) in Executive cadre with necessary experience. He further submitted that when the first respondent constituted a committee, consisting, of five members, to conduct an interview, the petitioner and others appeared before the interview committee, without any demur, as regards the process of selection or allocation of marks as the case may be and since the fifth respondent had performed extremely well, he was selected for the post. 40. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that at the time of selection in the year 1994, the fifth respondent was having 22 years of experience in the respondent-Corporation. 40. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that at the time of selection in the year 1994, the fifth respondent was having 22 years of experience in the respondent-Corporation. He was holding higher post as Assistant Manager in Executive cadre in Category-2 post, whereas, the petitioner was working only as Assistant in Grade-II. Therefore, he submitted that when the assessment of relative merits of the candidates are based on suitability, mere possession of higher educational qualification alone is not the criteria for selection. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that in the absence of impleading all the nine selected candidates, the writ Petitions are not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. As the allegation of favouritism, nepotism are not proved with adequate and satisfactory materials, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the selection. 41. Learned counsel for the fifth respondent further submitted that pursuant to the selection made in the year 1994, the fifth respondent had been discharging his duties without any blemish. In the absence of any illegality or irregularity committed by the respondent-Corporation in the matter of selection, disturbing the appointment of the fifth respondent at this stage would cause serious prejudice and therefore, prayed to sustain the selection. 42. Byway of reply, Mr. Jinasenan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the attack is on the method of selection adopted by the respondent-Corporation, which was contrary to the procedure of holding a written examination, with viva-voce test and the relief sought for is only against the Corporation, it is suffice that the Corporation is made as a party-respondent and it is not necessary to implead all the selected candidates who are likely to be affected by the decision rendered in these writ petitions. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in G.M.S.C. Rly v. A.V.R. Siddhanti AIR 1974 SC 1755 : (1974) 4 SCC 335 . 43. Referring to Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having regard to the notification issued by the Corporation, inviting applications from candidates, working in various places across the country, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that AIR 2004 SC 2124, cannot be pressed Into service for rejecting the Writ Petition, on the ground of jurisdiction. 43. Referring to Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having regard to the notification issued by the Corporation, inviting applications from candidates, working in various places across the country, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that AIR 2004 SC 2124, cannot be pressed Into service for rejecting the Writ Petition, on the ground of jurisdiction. As part of cause of action had arisen at Madras, where an employee working at Madras had applied for the post is affected by the wrong policy decision taken by the respondents, to adopt interview as the only method of recruitment, the same can be challenged by way of writ petition before this Court and rejecting the same, without proper adjudication on merits, would amount to scuttling his right. He further submitted that in the absence of furnishing the details of marks allotted to the selected candidates under different heads and having regard to the fact that the Corporation has failed to produce the files, pertaining to the selection, before this Court, an adverse inference should be drawn as regards the manner of selection made by the respondent-Corporation. In such circumstances, he prayed that this Court to set aside the entire selection. 44. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the details about the selection were called for by him, no reply was forthcoming from the respondents and that the impugned order also does not reflect the same. In these circumstances, he contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and therefore, prayed to set aside for that reason also. He further submitted that the decisions relied on by the Corporation are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, under which, the selection was conducted, favouring certain persons and ignoring the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that he was an activist, towards the cause and welfare of the members of the association is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if this Court is not inclined to set aside the selection at this length of time, alternatively, prayed that the respondents shall consider his case for appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) in FCI. 45. Heard the learned counsel for the parties arid perused the materials available on record. 46. 45. Heard the learned counsel for the parties arid perused the materials available on record. 46. In the case on hand, the post of Deputy Manager (General) is a category-I post in FCI under the FCI (staff) Regulations, 1971. Item 3 under Part II of Appendix-I of FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1974 prescribes the qualification, experience, and the mode of recruitment for the post. As per the said regulation, 1/3rd of the posts have to be filled up by direct recruitment. Apart from the general conditions, relating to the appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) prescribed under Regulation 5, the qualifications and experience required for the post are (i) He must a graduate; (ii) He must be holding a Diploma in Business Management; (iii) He must have five years experience in Food and Allied Fields; (iv) He must not be more than 35 years of age on the date of application (in respect of candidates belonging to SC/ST category, they must not be above 40 years on the date of their application); (a) Age is also relaxable in case of Departmental employees as per rules of the Corporation. 47. For the special drive for recruitment of SC/STs, applications were invited for the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration) and other posts through advertisement issued during August 1992 from New Delhi. The number of Deputy Manager (General Administration) posts notified for selection under special drive were 13 (9 for SC and 4 for ST). Among other general conditions, Clause (b) of the condition states that persons possessing higher educational qualification/experience will be given preference. As per Section 14(4) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1964, the Board of Directors of FCI may constitute such committees, whether consisting of whole of Directors and whole of other persons or partially of Directors or partially of other persons, as it deems it fit for such purpose, as it may desire. 48. Regulation 9(b)(ii) of the Food Corporation of India(Staff) Regulation, 1971, which deals with the procedure for direct recruitment of Category I posts reads as follows: "All applications received shall be scrutinised and candidates considered prima facie suitable shall be called for interview. Interview shall be held by Selection Board duly constituted from time to time for different categories of posts. The selection Board shall consist of not less than three members. Interview shall be held by Selection Board duly constituted from time to time for different categories of posts. The selection Board shall consist of not less than three members. The selection Board shall draw up a panel of candidates fit for selection and furnish it to the Appointing Authority together with its recommendations in the order of merit. The number of persons on the panel shall generally be one and half times the number of vacancies and the panel shall remain valid for one year from the date of its drawn up." 49. It is evident from the pleadings that the Board of Directors of FCI, in its 229th Meeting held on 2. 1993, reconstituted the Selection Committee for selection of Deputy Managers (General Administration) with the Executive Director (Personnel) as Ex-officio Chairman and about six experts of high status were included in the Selection Committee as members. The details of the committee are as follows: TABLE 50. Pleadings disclose that 70 persons Including the petitioner were found prima facie suitable for selection on the basis of the educational qualifications and experience possessed by them. Having regard to the fact that applications were received from various centres, to suit the convenience of the candidates, inter-views were conducted at the nearest centres and the petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee on 21. 1994 at Bangalore. If he had any grievance about the constitution of the Committee, that it is not in conformity with the regulations or otherwise, he should have objected to the same, immediately after the interview was over. 51. In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajesthan (supra), the Selection to the post of District Munsif was challenged. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the selection has to be struck down on the ground that more weightage was given to the Interview test, in that 25% marks were allotted to viva voce. It was further contended that the allocation of marks was not done under different heads in the interview test. While dealing with the above contentions, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 8 of the judgment, held as follows: "The rules themselves do not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test. The criteria for the interview test have been laid down by the rules. While dealing with the above contentions, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 8 of the judgment, held as follows: "The rules themselves do not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test. The criteria for the interview test have been laid down by the rules. It is for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. The award of marks under different heads may lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more accurate picture of the candidates personality. It is for the interviewing body to chose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and Courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive." The Supreme Court, while laying down the said proposition, has considered the earlier decisions rendered in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1971 SC 2303 : (1971) 1 SCC 38 and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mz jib Sehravardi AIR 1981 SC 487 : (1981) 1 SCC 722 . 52. In Dr. Keshav v. U.P.H.E.S. Commission, Allahabad AIR 1986 SC 597 : (1986) 1 SCC 671 , selection to the post of Principal was challenged. It was the contention of the appellant therein that, as he possessed higher qualification and more experience, he should have been selected. Though there were several parameters for assessing the relative merits of the candidates, such as, academic attainments, teaching experience, administrative experience and suitability to the post and when 50% of the marks were allotted for the interview, marks were not allotted under each of above heads and therefore, the entire selection was vitiated. While explaining the difference between the written examination and interview, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 3 of the judgment, held that the Interviewing Board was not under any obligation to sub-divide the marks under various subheads. While explaining the difference between the written examination and interview, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 3 of the judgment, held that the Interviewing Board was not under any obligation to sub-divide the marks under various subheads. While doing so, the Supreme Court, had extracted the operative portion of the judgment in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajesthan (supra), Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (supra). It is worth-while to extract the pronouncement of the Supreme Court with regard to the object of process of selection with reference to the nature of the post. "The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily relied on the following observations of Bhagwati, J. in Ajay Hasia v. Khaiid Mujib (supra): “ The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and 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 public employment, the oral interview test 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, calibre and qualification." The observations in Ajay Hasia v. Khaiid Mujib (supra) have been explained in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (supra), and what has been said in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) has been approved by a Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Bhagwati, J. in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (supra). In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra), it was pointed out by this Court: "The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services. How should the competitive examination be devised? …….. "It is now well recognised that while a written examination assesses a candidates knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview-test there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidates initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, co-opera-tiveness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview-test, much depending on the constitution of the Interview Board "Thus, the written examination assesses the mans intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection. If both written examination and interview test are to be essential features of proper selection, the question may arise as to the weight to be attached respectively to them. In the case of admission to a college, for instance, where the candidates personality is yet to develop and it is too early to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have to be attached in later life greater weight has perforce to be given to performance in the written examination. The importance to be attached to the interview-test must be minimal. That was what was decided by this Court in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (supra), and other cases. On the other hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. There are, of course, many services to which recruitment is made from younger candidates whose personalities are on the threshold of development and who show signs of great promise, and the discerning may in an interview test, catch a glimpse of the future personality. In the case of such services, where sound selection must combine academic ability with personality promise, some weight has to be given, though not much too great a weight, to the interview-test. There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service, the minimum qualifications prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview-test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. It is a matter for research. It is not for Courts to pronounce upon it unless exaggerated weight has been given with proven or obvious oblique motives These observations in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) case were quoted verbatim in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (supra) and approved. In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) case, the Court also said: "It is true that in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) case the Court held that the non allocation of marks under various heads in the interview-test was illegal but that was because the Instructions to the Selection Committee provided that marks were to be awarded at the interview on the basis of five distinct tests. It was thought that the failure to allocate marks under each head or distinct test was an illegality. But in the case before us, the rule merely and generally indicates the criteria to be considered in the interview-test without dividing the interview-test into distinct, if we may so call them, sub-tests " 53. It was thought that the failure to allocate marks under each head or distinct test was an illegality. But in the case before us, the rule merely and generally indicates the criteria to be considered in the interview-test without dividing the interview-test into distinct, if we may so call them, sub-tests " 53. Dealing with the application of bias in the matter of assessment of relative merits of the candidates, who had appeared in viva voce test, the Supreme Court in Madanlal v. State of J & K (supra), at Paragraph 16, held that, "Merely on the basis of petitioners apprehension or suspicion that they were deliberately given less marks at the oral interview as compared to the rival candidates, it cannot be said that the process of assessment was vitiated. This contention is in the realm of mere suspicion having no factual basis. It has to be kept in view that there is not even a whisper in the petition about any personal bias of the Members of the Interview Committee against the petitioners. They have also not alleged any mala fides on the part of the Interview Committee in this connection. Consequently, the attack on assessment of the merits of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. It remains in. the exclusive domain of the expert committee to decide whether more marks should be assigned to the petitioners or to the respondents concerned. It cannot be the subject-matter of an attack before us as we are not sitting as a Court of appeal over the assessment made by the committee so far as the candidates interviewed by them are concerned." 54. In Siva Ram v. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 1470 : (1998) 2 SCC 566 , the subject matter before the Supreme Court was with regard to the selection to the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in Northern Railways, a selection post. Two main contentions raised by the unsuccessful candidate were, (i) one of the members of the Selection Board was favourably inclined towards a candidate and (ii) the Rules regarding selection permitted only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held and result merely on the basis of viva voce could not be reasonably fair and liable to lead to arbitrariness and that out of 100 marks, 50 were allotted for professional ability without prescribing any norms. While repelling the second ground of attack, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 12, held as follows: "Chief Personnel Inspector in Railways is a selection post. The Selection Board consisted of high-ranking officials, well versed with the requirements of the post to which promotion as to be made. Norms have been laid for the Selection Board to follow. No fault can be found with the same. Apart from the objection that excessive marks have been allocated for viva voce, the appellant has been unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the selection process. Functions and duties attached to the post of Chief Personnel Inspector have nowhere been set out, it is not for the Court to suggest as to what marks should be allocated for interview in a case like the present one. Sometimes, only interview is considered to be best method for certain posts. The selection made for two posts of Chief Personnel Inspector in the present case was according to rules. There is no infirmity in the selection process." 55. In Kiran Gupta v. State of U. P. (supra), the challenge before the Supreme Court was to the validity of Rule 12(3) of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. It was inter alia contended that the method of recruitment for the post of Principals/Headmasters, by not fixing the maximum marks under different heads and awarding marks in lumpsum on the basis of viva-voce test, was illegal. It was further contended that the allocation of 15% marks for the interview was arbitrary. Rule 12(3) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, which was the subject matter of challenge, as extracted in the above judgment, is reproduced hereunder. "17. Rule 12(3) of the 1995 Rules, which is the subject-matter of challenge, is extracted hereunder: "12. Procedure of direct recruitment.-(1)-(2) (3) The Commission shall hold Interview of the candidates and, for each category of post prepare panel of those found most suitable for appointment in order of merit as dis-closed by the marks obtained by them in the interview. The panel, for the post of Principal or Headmaster shall be prepared institution-wise after giving due regard to the preference given by a candidate, if any, for appointment in a particular institution whereas for the posts in the Lecturers and Trained Graduates (L.T.) grade, it shall be prepared subjectwise and groupwise respectively. The panel, for the post of Principal or Headmaster shall be prepared institution-wise after giving due regard to the preference given by a candidate, if any, for appointment in a particular institution whereas for the posts in the Lecturers and Trained Graduates (L.T.) grade, it shall be prepared subjectwise and groupwise respectively. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in interview, the name of the candidate who has higher quality points shall be placed higher in the panel and if the marks obtained in the interview as well as the quality points of two or more candidates are equal, the name of the candidate who is older in age shall be placed higher. In the panel for the post of Principal or Headmaster, the number of names shall be three times of the number of the vacancies and for the post of Teachers in the Lecturers and Trained Graduates (L.T.) grade, it shall be larger (but not larger than twenty-five per cent) than the number of vacancies. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-rule the word group-wise means in accordance with the groups specified in the explanation to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11." Repelling the said contention of the unsuccessful candidates, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 22, held as follows: "22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview-test has to be decided on the facts of each case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for inter-view in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. The Courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for interview does not arise." 56. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, all the three judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz., Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (supra), D. V. Bakshi v. Union of India (supra) and Krishnan Yadav v. State of Haryana (supra) have been well considered in Kiran Gupta v. State of U. P. (supra) and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to revert back to the earlier decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made in W.P. No. 4739 of 1989, dated 13. 1994. 57. While laying down the preposition that oral interview can be prescribed as the only method of selection, the Supreme Court has considered a decision in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. C. M. Ashok Raju AIR 1995 SC 39 : (1994) 5 SCC 359 , In that case, the posts of Manager in A.P. Financial Corporation were to be filled up by interview without a written test. The Corporation approved the promotion criteria by viva voce without a written test and allocated marks under various heads; among them for interview 25% and for length of service 15 marks were prescribed. A Division Bench of the Andra Pradesh High Court, while upholding the allocation of marks under various heads, reduced the percentage of marks for interview from 25% to 15% and increased percentage of marks for length of ‘service from 15% to 25%. A Division Bench of the Andra Pradesh High Court, while upholding the allocation of marks under various heads, reduced the percentage of marks for interview from 25% to 15% and increased percentage of marks for length of ‘service from 15% to 25%. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that 25% marks for the interview were, on the facts of that case, was excessive and the Supreme Court observed that there was no dispute that no written test was prescribed for promotion to the post of Manager and above and the selection/promotion was only by viva voce test and therefore, no limit could be imposed for prescribing the marks for the interview. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the selection of candidates by interview without written test was valid. 58. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 395 , the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was right in prescribing minimum pass marks in the Written Examination and Oral Examination for the post of District Munsif in Kerala Judicial Service. The unsuccessful candidates challenged that in the absence of any specific legislative mandate under Rule 7(1) of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, prescribing cut-off marks in the oral examination and fixing of separate minimum comprehensive written test, touching the required subjects in detail, was violative of the statute. It was further contended that no supplementary list was prepared with respect to the reserved category candidates and therefore the selection was violative of rule of reservation, as provided under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the unsuccessful candidates, at paragraph 54, taking into consideration the nature of the post, opined that: "The interview is the best mode of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position. While the written examination will testify the candidates academic knowledge, the oral test alone can bring out or disclose his overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership, etc. which are also essential for a judicial officer." 59. It is now well settled that while written examination assesses a candidates knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates overall intellectual and personal qualities. which are also essential for a judicial officer." 59. It is now well settled that while written examination assesses a candidates knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview test is valuable to assess a candidates overall intellectual and personal qualities. When written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview-test, there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a candidates initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, co-operativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. The Supreme Court in Lila Ohar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) case, have held that some of these qualities may be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by an interview-test, much depending on the constitution of the Interview Board. The Supreme Court in the said judgment further explained that the written examination assesses the mans intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection. In the matter of admission to a college or university, the importance to be attached to the interview-test must be minimal. But in the case of service, to which, recruitment is necessarily to be made from the persons of mature personality, the interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. To subject such persons to a written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its being an act of cruelty to those persons. 60. It could be noticed in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) ease, the Supreme Court opined that the applicants should satisfy the basic and essential academic and professional requirements to the said post. As regards weightage to be given for the academic ability vis-a-vis performance in the interview, it is well defined that the percentage of weightage varies from service to service, according to the requirements of service. As pointed out in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) case, the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. 61. As pointed out in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) case, the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. 61. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (supra), he Supreme Court opined that the oral interview evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant, though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and 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 public employment, the oral interview test 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, calibre and qualification. 62. Even in Siva Ram v. Union of India (supra) when the selection to the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in Railways was under challenge, only oral test was prescribed for selection and the Supreme Court rejected the contention that selection in the absence of written examination would not lead to arbitrariness, as the interview was considered to be the best method of selection. It would be appropriate to extract the passage from the judgment in Union of India v. N. Chandrasekharan AIR 1998 SC 795 : (1998) 3 SCC 694 , where the importance of the interview in selecting a candidate, brought about by the Union of India is as follows: "Interviews through personal interactions of the candidates with the committee are meant to find out the strength and weaknesses of the total personality and potential of the candidates to hold a particular post which may involve considerable interpersonal interactions too. It provides an opportunity to observe the nonverbal cues like facial expression, mannerism, emotional stability, maturity, attitudes, approach etc. It gives a first-hand impression on what a candidate is saying of what he feels to say. It provides an opportunity to observe the nonverbal cues like facial expression, mannerism, emotional stability, maturity, attitudes, approach etc. It gives a first-hand impression on what a candidate is saying of what he feels to say. Due to its spontaneity it demonstrates the candidates perceptiveness, clarity of thought, analytical ability, aspirations, motivation, interest etc. The behaviour of individual in the personal interviews has a definite bearing on his personality and behavioural attributes at work; But the immediate inferences drawn from the above would be more objective and reflect on reality if it is appropriately supported by the ratings in the theoretical knowledge tested through written test and as well as the CR ratings." 63. It is relevant to consider some of the case laws dealing with preferential right of more qualified persons in the matter of selection over the candidates possessing basic and minimum qualifications prescribed for the post notified by the employer. 64. In Prem Singh and Others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Others (supra), some of the candidates, who were not selected/appointed to the post notified by the employer and one person, who became eligible soon after the last date fixed for receiving applications, challenged the selection by filing writ petitions before the High Court, the petitioners therein inter alia contended that no real benefits were given to the candidates, possessing higher qualification, even though it was represented in the advertisement that preference would be given to the candidates possessing higher qualification. The High Court accepted the said contention that as the Board had decided to give preference to the candidates possessing higher qualifications, it could not have made the selection "without specifying any advantage to the candidates." In the absence of any explanation given by the Board at the time of hearing of the writ petitions "as to how many marks were fixed for those having the minimum qualifications and how many marks were fixed for those having the higher qualifications", the High Court held that the board did not "at all keep in mind the contents of the advertisement while laying down the criteria for award of marks." This omission and deviation from the condition mentioned in the advertisement, according to the High Court, resulted in denying benefit of higher qualifications possessed by the petitioners therein and other similarly placed persons. The High Court, therefore, allowed the petitions and quashed the selection and appointments made by the Board. Dealing with the above aspect of giving weightage on the basis of higher qualifications, possessed by the contestants, the Supreme Court, held that: "Ordinarily, giving of preference for higher qualifications would imply that other things being equal the candidates with higher qualifications will be preferred. The representation made in the advertisement did not imply or convey that the selection was to be made in two stages, that is, firstly, the candidates having higher qualifications were to be considered and only thereafter the candidates with minimum qualifications were to be considered and that too if adequate number of candidates possessing higher qualifications did not become available. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents has to be rejected." 65. In Secy. (Health) Dept. of Health & F.W. v. Anita Puri (1996) 6 SCC 282 the Punjab Public Service Commission had invited applications for the post of Dental Officers, indicating preference for higher Dental Qualification. It was pleaded before the High Court that the Public Service Commission acted contrary to the guidelines issued in the matter of qualification and also acted against the spirit and intention of the appointing authority. The High Court held that such persons with higher qualification are entitled to be selected and appointed, unless and otherwise held to be not suitable. The State preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. In the advertisement, it was clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for the post was BDS. There were candidates with MDS, which is the higher qualification. According to the unsuccessful candidates, on the basis of higher qualification, they claimed preference under the notification. Explaining the scope of giving priority to the higher qualified persons in the matter of selection, vis-a-vis the minimum qualification prescribed for the post, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 17, held as follows: "17. Admittedly, in the advertisement which was published calling for applications from the candidates for the posts of Dental Officer it was clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for the post is B.D.S. It was also stipulated that preference should be given for higher dental qualification. There is also no dispute that M.D.S. is a higher qualification than the minimum qualification required for the post and respondent 1 was having that degree. There is also no dispute that M.D.S. is a higher qualification than the minimum qualification required for the post and respondent 1 was having that degree. The question then arises is whether a person holding a M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be selected and appointed as of right by virtue of the aforesaid advertisement conferring preference for higher qualification? The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the negative. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference should be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the higher qualified candidates. But by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and appointed. In adjudging the suitability of person for the post, the expert body like Public Service Commission in the absence of any statutory criteria has the discretion of evolving its mode of evaluation of merit and selection of the candidate. The competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of the qualification he possesses but also taking into account the other necessary factors like career of the candidate throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field in which the selection is going to be held, his general aptitude for the job to be ascertained in course of interview, extracurricular activities like sports and other allied subjects, personality of the candidate as assessed in the interview and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability of the candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be held. In this view of the matter, the High Court in our considered opinion was wholly in error in holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like respondent 1 was entitled to be selected and appointed when the Government indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification person would get some preference. The said conclusion of the High Court, therefore, is wholly unsustainable and must be reversed." 66. In Secretary, A. P. P. S. C. v. Y. V. V.R. Srinivasulu (supra), the contention of the unsuccessful candidates was that preference ought to have been given to those, who possessed higher or additional qualification for selection. The said conclusion of the High Court, therefore, is wholly unsustainable and must be reversed." 66. In Secretary, A. P. P. S. C. v. Y. V. V.R. Srinivasulu (supra), the contention of the unsuccessful candidates was that preference ought to have been given to those, who possessed higher or additional qualification for selection. The Supreme Court, after considering the earlier decisions in Government of A. P. v. P. Dilip Kumar (1993) AIR SCW 848: (1993) 2 MLJ 28 , Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 1503 : (2002) 4 SCC 16 and the statutory rules pertaining to the notified post, at paragraphs 10 and 11, held as follows: "10. Both on account of the scheme of selection and the various stages disclosed as necessary to be undergone by every candidate and the manner of actual selection for the appointment in question, the candidates were required to be selected finally for appointment on the basis of the ranks obtained by them in terms of the inter se ranking based on the merit of their respective performance. There is no escape for anyone from this ordeal and claim for any en bloc favoured treatment merely because, any one of them happened to possess an additional qualification than the relevant basic/general qualification essential for even applying to the post. The word preference in our view is capable of different shades of meaning taking colour from the context, purpose and object of its use under the scheme of things envisaged. Hence, it is to be construed not in an isolated or detached manner, ascribing a meaning of universal import, for all contingencies capable of an invariable application. The procedure for selection in the case involves a qualifying test, a written examination and an oral test or interview and the final list of selection has to be on the basis of the marks obtained in them. The suitability and all-round merit, if had to be adjudged in that manner only, what justification could there be for overriding all these merely because, a particular candidate is in possession of an additional qualification on the basis of which, a preference has also been envisaged. The Rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The Rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The "preference" envisaged in the Rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. A mere rule of preference meant to give weightage to the additional qualification cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or rule of complete precedence. Such a construction would not only undermine the scheme of selection envisaged through the Public Service Commission on the basis of merit performance but also would work great hardship and injustice to those who possess the required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate their superiority merit wise and their suitability for the post. It is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for consideration. On the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when any one or more of them are found equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection. 11. Whenever, a selection is to be made on the basis of merit performance involving competition, and possession of any additional qualification or factor is also envisaged to accord preference, it cannot be for the purpose of putting them as a whole lot ahead of others, de hors their intrinsic worth or proven inter se merit and suitability, duly assessed by the competent authority. Preference, in the context of all such competitive scheme of selection would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred. There is no question of eliminating all others preventing thereby even an effective and comparative consideration on merits, by according en bloc precedence in favour of those in possession of additional qualification irrespective of the respective merits and demerits of all candidates to be considered. There is no question of eliminating all others preventing thereby even an effective and comparative consideration on merits, by according en bloc precedence in favour of those in possession of additional qualification irrespective of the respective merits and demerits of all candidates to be considered. If it is to be viewed the way the High Court and the Tribunal have chosen to, it would amount to first exhausting in the matter of selection ail those, de hors their inter se merit performance, only those in possession of additional qualification and take only thereafter separately those with ordinary degree and who do not possess the additional qualification. Assuming for consideration without even accepting the same to be right or correct view to be taken, at least among the class or category of those possessing the additional qualification, inter se merit performance should be the decisive factor for actual selection for appointment and relief could not have been granted to the respondents for the mere asking only on the basis of the interpretation of the provision to someone who came to Court, ignoring the fact that those before the Court at any rate in spite of the view taken do not come up to the level of selection considered in the context of numerous others with higher ranks of merit performance, in addition to they being also in possession of the additional qualification, as those before the Court. That apart, the old rule relating to the post of ACTO, which has become obsolete having been superseded, or even the advertisement if it has stated on the basis of the obsolete rule, that preference will be given first to candidates who possess a degree in Commerce and degree in Law, secondly, to those who possess a degree in Commerce and thirdly, to those who possess a degree in Law, cannot either support the claim of respondents 1 and 2 nor in any manner lend credence to the interpretation placed by the High Court and the Tribunal. The word "first" has to be construed in the context of even giving preference only in the order and manner indicated therein, inter se among more than one holding such different class of degrees in addition and not to be interpreted vis-a-vis others who do not possess such additional qualification, to completely exclude them en bloc." 67. The word "first" has to be construed in the context of even giving preference only in the order and manner indicated therein, inter se among more than one holding such different class of degrees in addition and not to be interpreted vis-a-vis others who do not possess such additional qualification, to completely exclude them en bloc." 67. In yet another decision in State of U.P. v. Om Prakash (supra), preference was given to the degree holders for the post of Homeopathic Medical Officers under Rule 8 of U.P. Homeopathic Medical Service Rules, 1990. The contentions of unsuccessful candidate were similar to the earlier decisions and after considering the judgment in Secy. (Health) Dept. of Health & F.W. v. Anita Puri (supra) and Secretary, A.P.P.S.C. v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu (supra), the Supreme Court at paragraph 20, held as follows: "20. In the instant case, the requisite academic qualification for the post of Medical Officer of Homeopathy as prescribed in the advertisement was a recognised degree in homeopathy or a recognised diploma in homeopathy. A proviso has been added that preference will be given to degree-holders. This would mean that a recognised diploma in homeopathy prescribed in the advertisement is also a required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those candidates possessing the degree. The word "preference" would mean that when the claims of all candidates who are eligible and who possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement are taken for consideration and when one or more of them are found equality positioned, then only the additional qualification may be taken as a tilting factor, in favour of candidates vis-a-vis others in the merit list prepared by the Commission. But preference does not mean en bloc preference irrespective of inter se merit and suitability." 68. On the aspect of mala fide, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service a decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (supra), where selection to the post of Haryana Civil Services and other allied services was challenged. The selection to the above said post was based on the written as well as Interview. It was inter alia contended that the marks awarded for ex-service man officers for viva-voce test was high, compared to the other candidates, though they did not secure high marks in the written examination. The selection to the above said post was based on the written as well as Interview. It was inter alia contended that the marks awarded for ex-service man officers for viva-voce test was high, compared to the other candidates, though they did not secure high marks in the written examination. The spread of marks in the viva voce test being enormously large compared to the spread of marks in the written examination, the viva voce test tended to become a determining factor in the selection process, because even if a candidate secured the highest marks in the written examination, he could be easily knocked down from the "race by awarding him the lowest marks in the viva voce test and correspondingly, a candidate who obtained the lowest marks in the written examination could be raised to the top most position in the merit list by an Inordinate high marking in the viva voce test. It was also contended that the viva voce test was not conducted fairly and honestly and the selections made were vitiated on account of nepotism, favouritism and political motivation. The Supreme Court, after considering various decisions, on the aspect of process of selection for entry into public service, at Paragraph 26, held that, "the allocation of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3 per cent opens the door wide for arbitrariness and in order to diminish, if not eliminate, the risk of arbitrariness, the percentage needs to be reduced. But while considering what percentage of marks may legitimately be allocated for the viva voce test without incurring the reproach of arbitrariness, it must be remembered that ex-service officers would ordinarily be middle-aged persons of mature personality and it would be hard on them at that age to go through a long written examination involving 8 subjects and hence it would not be unfair to require them to go through a shorter written examination in only 5 subjects and submit to a viva voce test carrying a higher percentage of marks than what might be prescribed in case of younger candidates. The personalities of these ex-service officers being fully mature and developed, ft would not be difficult to arrive at a fair assessment of their merits on the basis of searching and incisive viva voce test and therefore in their case, the viva voce test may be accorded relatively greater weight. The personalities of these ex-service officers being fully mature and developed, ft would not be difficult to arrive at a fair assessment of their merits on the basis of searching and incisive viva voce test and therefore in their case, the viva voce test may be accorded relatively greater weight. But in any event the marks allocated for the viva voce test cannot be as high as 33.3 per cent," 69. In the above reported decision, at Paragraph 27, the Supreme Court held as follows: "The viva-voce test in the general category, too, would consequently tend to become a determining factor in the process of selection, tilting the scales in favour of one candidate or the other according to the marks awarded to him in the viva voce test. This is amply borne out by the observations of the Kothari Committee in the Report made by it in regard to the selections to the Indian Administrative Service and other Allied Services. The competitive examination in the Indian Administrative Service and other Allied Services also consists of a written examination followed by a viva voce test." 70. In yet another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Krishnan Yadav v. State of Haryana (supra), on the aspect of "mala fide", the Supreme Court considered a case of recruitment to the post of Taxation Inspector. The Board conducted examinations in various centres of Haryana and on receipt of the answer books from different centres, a key book was prepared by the Secretary of the Board with the help of the confidential branch. This key book contained the following particulars, viz., (i) the name of the candidate with their parents name, (ii) Roll Number and (iii) the details of the subject of the written test. Fictitious roll numbers were allotted to each candidate in key book by removing the original roll number slips. Thereafter, the answer books were sent to different examiners for evaluation. After examining the answer books, the examiners were required to prepare an award list, which is a summary indicating the fictitious number of the candidates and the marks obtained by them in each subject. On receipt of the answer books, the marks obtained by the candidates in each subject were entered in the key book. After examining the answer books, the examiners were required to prepare an award list, which is a summary indicating the fictitious number of the candidates and the marks obtained by them in each subject. On receipt of the answer books, the marks obtained by the candidates in each subject were entered in the key book. On the basis of the key book, award lists and answer books, the result of the written test was prepared by the Board. Any candidate, who desired to get his answer book re-checked could do so within a period of 30 days from the declaration of the result of written test only after depositing the prescribed fee. This was also the practice prevalent in the Board. However, strangely, inter-views were directed to take place on 10. 1989 after the expiry of only 17 days at three different centres. It was the case of the appellants therein before the Supreme Court that he had performed well in the interview and therefore, if judged on the basis of the written test and performance of the interview, they ought to have been selected on the basis of merit. It was the contention that the Chairman of the Board resigned and after his resignation a new Chairman, in his place was appointed by the State Government. After the appointment of the new Chairman, on the next day, the selection list for the post in question was finalised. That list was sent to the Department secretly. The selection list was kept confidential and it was sent to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner by hand. Appointment letters were issued after calling the selected candidates. Joining reports from all the selected candidates were obtained in Chandigarh on the spot. Some of them were shown to have joined the respective place of posting. No medical examination for selected candidates was conducted nor were their antecedents got verified before the actual appointment. Added to that, original records including necessary answer papers were also destroyed. This was attacked by the appellants therein before the Supreme Court. In this back-ground, the Supreme Court, taking a serious view of the destruction of records, passed orders directing the State Government to refer the matter to the CBI for investigation and to complete the investigation within three months. After considering the report of the CB1, the Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 19 and 20, observed as follows: "19. In this back-ground, the Supreme Court, taking a serious view of the destruction of records, passed orders directing the State Government to refer the matter to the CBI for investigation and to complete the investigation within three months. After considering the report of the CB1, the Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 19 and 20, observed as follows: "19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless. 20. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything." To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors." 71. In view of the above observations rendered in the backdrop of the fake and ghost interview, tampering with the records, fabricating of documents, destruction of the answer books, extreme acts of nepotism, fraud and arbitrariness, the Supreme Court, in the light of the detailed report of the CBI, set aside the entire selection. The facts of this case relied on by the relied counsel for the petitioner is not at all applicable to the present case. 72. The facts of this case relied on by the relied counsel for the petitioner is not at all applicable to the present case. 72. On the issue of mala fide, the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia and Others AIR 2005 SC 4217 : (2005) 7 SCC 764 (2005) 7 SCJ at paragraph 52 of the judgment, held as follows: "It is well settled that the burden of proving mala fide is on the person making the allegations and the burden is "very heavy" (vide E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another). There is every presumption in favour of the administration that the power has been exercised bona fide and in good faith. It is to be remembered that the allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than made out and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high decree of credibility. As Krishna Iiyer, J.). stated in Gulam Mustafa and Other, "It (mala fide) is the last refuge of a losing litigant." 73. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in M V. Thinrmaiah v. UPSC (2008) 2 SCC 119 selection to the post of IAS from non-State Civil Service Officers was challenged. The unsuccessful candidates inter alia contended that the selection process was vitiated because the Chairman of the Selection Committee was favoured with allotment of a plot by the Bangalore Development Authority, and in turn he selected some favoured candidates. Similar plea was also raised against the Chief Secretary (BSP), who recommended the allotment of plot, but he was not impleaded as respondent. While considering the aspect of mala fide made in the selection process, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held that, "The allegation of mala fide is very easy to be levelled and it is very difficult to substantiate it, specially in the matter of selection or whoever is involved in the decision-making process. People are prone to make such allegations but Courts owe a duty to scrutinise allegation meticulously because the person who is making the allegation of animus does sometimes bona fidely or sometimes mala fidely due to his non-selection. He has a vested interest. Therefore, unless allegations are substantiated beyond doubt, till that time the Court cannot draw its conclusion. Therefore, allegation of mala fide is rejected." 74. He has a vested interest. Therefore, unless allegations are substantiated beyond doubt, till that time the Court cannot draw its conclusion. Therefore, allegation of mala fide is rejected." 74. It is worthwhile to consider some of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the aspect of "bias." In G.N. Nayak v. God University AIR 2002 SC 790 : (2002) 2 SCC 712 , the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the word "bias." At Paragraph 33, the Apex Court held as follows: "33. Bias may be generally defined as partiality or preference. It is true that any person or authority required to act in a judicial or quasi judicial matter must act Impartially. If however, ‘bias and partiality be defined to mean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of paper. We are born with predispositions and the processes of education, formal and informal, create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular instances and which, therefore; by definition, are prejudices." 75. The Supreme Court in Kumaon Vandal Vikaa Nigam Ltd. v. Girija Shankar Pant AIR 2001 SC 24 : (2001) 1 SCC 182 , at Paragraphs 10 and 11 held as follows: "10. The word ‘Bias’ in popular English parlance stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word matice, which in common acceptation mean and imply spite or ill-will (Strouds Judicial Dictionary (5th Ed.) Volume 3) and it is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence available on record so come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. 11. While it is true that legitimate indignation does not fall within the ambit of malicious act, in almost all legal enquires, intention, as distinguished from motive is the all important factor. In common parlance, a malicious act has been equated with intentional act without just cause or excuse (see in this context Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) v. Steven (1955) 1 Q.B. 275)." 76. In common parlance, a malicious act has been equated with intentional act without just cause or excuse (see in this context Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) v. Steven (1955) 1 Q.B. 275)." 76. In State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna AIR 2001 SC 343 : (2001) 2 SCC 330 , after elaborately considering the concept of Administrative action and wide impact of the word "bias", the Supreme Court held as follows: "Whereas fairness is synonymous with reasonableness – bias stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word "malice" which in common acceptation means and implies "spite" or ill will." Mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will, there must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact, there was a bias or a mala fide move which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Bias is included within the attributes and broader purview of the word "malice." Therefore, the factual details are relevant to determine whether there was existing cogent evidence of improper conduct and motive resultantly a mala fide move on the part of the appellants against the respondent." 77. Some of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the aspect of unsuccessful candidates, challenging the process of selection, without impleading the selected candidates, who are likely to be affected, in the event of selection being set aside, are extracted hereunder. 78. In Ishwar Singh v. Kuldip Singh (1995) Supp 1 SCC 179, Iswar Singh and Others were selected and appointed as Inspectors of Industries/Managers, Industrial Estate for Small-scale Cottage and Village Industries, Haryana. The selection and consequent appointments were challenged by two unsuccessful candidates before the High Court primarily on the ground that the interviews held for the said selection were a sham affair. The Ex-servicemen also challenged the selection on the ground that the dependants of Ex-servicemen were selected in preference to Ex-servicemen. The High Court quashed the selection and appointment, finding that the interviews held were neither fair nor proper, thereby vitiating the selection. Special Leave Petitions were filed by the selected candidates. The Ex-servicemen also challenged the selection on the ground that the dependants of Ex-servicemen were selected in preference to Ex-servicemen. The High Court quashed the selection and appointment, finding that the interviews held were neither fair nor proper, thereby vitiating the selection. Special Leave Petitions were filed by the selected candidates. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgments of the High Court, held that the selections and appointments have been quashed behind the back of the selected candidates and the High Court was not justified in hearing the writ petition in the absence of the selected candidates, especially when they had already been appointed. 79. In Madanlal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), the selected list of District Munsif/Judiciay Magistrates, consists of 70 candidates. The appellants therein contended that they were challenging only the list to a limited extent and therefore, there is no need to implead all the selected candidates. Repelling the same, the Supreme Court held that, "It was, therefore, imperative that all the candidates in the select list should have been impleaded as parties to the writ petitions as otherwise they will be affected without being heard. Publication in the newspaper does not cure this defect. There are only a specified definite number of candidates who had to be impleaded, namely, 70. It is not as if there are a large unspecified number of people to be affected. In such cases, resort cannot be made to Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules. That rule can be applied only when very large number of candidates are involved and It may not be able to pinpoint those candidates with details. In our view, the writ petitions have to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties also." 80. In B. Ramanjini and Others v. State of A.P. AIR 2002 SC 2023 : (2002) 5 SCC 533 , the issue was with regard to the validity of the selection to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in the department of School Education in Andra Pradesh. The selection process had commenced in the year 1998 and the selected candidates were not impleaded as party respondents in the proceedings. The Supreme Court, while considering the maintainability of the Writ Petition, took a very strong note for having entertained the writ petition in the absence of the selected candidates. At Paragraph 19, the Supreme Court held as follows: "19. The Supreme Court, while considering the maintainability of the Writ Petition, took a very strong note for having entertained the writ petition in the absence of the selected candidates. At Paragraph 19, the Supreme Court held as follows: "19. Selection process had commenced long back as early as in 1998 and it had been completed. The persons selected were appointed pursuant to the selections made and had been performing their duties. However, the selected candidates had not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings either in their individual capacity or in ally representative capacity. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have examined any of the questions raised before it in the proceedings initiated before it. The writ petitions filed by the respondents concerned ought to have been dismissed which are more or less in the nature of a public interest litigation. It is not a case where those candidates who could not take part in the examination had challenged the same nor was any public Interest, as such, really involved in this matter. It is only in the process of selection and standardisation of pass marks that some relaxation had been given which was under attack. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have examined the matter at the instance of the petitioners, particularly in the absence of the parties before the Court whose substantial rights to hold office came to be vitally affected." 81. In Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Alt Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619 , the unsuccessful candidates for the post of Armed Constables, filed large number of writ petitions, challenging the recruitment process. The selected candidates were not impleaded as parties. However, the High Court, after realising the fact that the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties, adjourned the date of hearing of the petition and when few of the selected candidates approached the High Court, they were not supplied with the pleadings or copies of the petitions in time. While dealing with the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of non joinder of parties, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 63, held as follows: "The course taken in inviting objections of selected candidates who were never bothered to be made parties to the writ petitions is not satisfactory. While dealing with the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of non joinder of parties, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 63, held as follows: "The course taken in inviting objections of selected candidates who were never bothered to be made parties to the writ petitions is not satisfactory. The single Judge, after realising the fact that the selected candidates were not joined as a party, though the selection lists were available to the petitioner, had merely advertised about the dates of hearing of the petitions and when few of the selected candidates approached the High Court, they were not even supplied with the pleadings or the copies of the petitions in time. All this amounted to denial of an appropriate opportunity to the selected candidates. All this has been dealt with by both the Courts below and particularly the Division Bench in a very casual manner holding that the decisions relied on by the appellants were individual cases. Even if they were so, the principles stated in those cases regarding the natural justice were most apposite." 82. In G.M.S.C. Rly v. A.V.R. Siddhanti (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the challenge before the Court was with regard to the validity of the policy decision of the Railway Board, regulating the seniority of the railway staff on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The relief was claimed only against the Railways relating to seniority. Inasmuch as the challenge was with reference to a policy decision taken by the Railway Administration, regarding the fixation of seniority, the Court, on the facts of that case, held that it was sufficient if Railway Administration aione was impleaded and non joinder of employees likely to be affected, by the decision of this case, would not be fatal to the Writ Petition. The Supreme Court, held that the employees were at the most, appropriate parties and not necessary parties. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that the selection was notified for 13 vacancies for the posts of Deputy Manager (Administration) under the Special Drive for SC/ST candidates, the petitioner has impleaded only three candidates. The persons selected and appointed pursuant to the selection made in the year 1994, are now working in the post for the past 14 years. The persons selected and appointed pursuant to the selection made in the year 1994, are now working in the post for the past 14 years. Considering the limited number of selected candidates, it is imperative that all selected candidates should be impleaded as party respondent to the writ petition, otherwise their interest would be affected in the event of quashing the selection list. .83. Let me now extract few decisions of the Supreme Court on the aspect of an unsuccessful candidate challenging the process of selection after acquiescing himself to the process put to challenge. .84. In Madanlal v. State of J & K (supra), the unsuccessful candidates challenged the process of selection of the District Munsifs in the State of Jammu and Kashmir undertaken by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission on the ground, inter alia that they faired well in the written examination and they were not selected. Besides, they also alleged bias and mala fide in the process of assessment. The Supreme Court rejected the above contentions and while dealing the locus of the unsuccessful candidates, who had acquiescence themselves to the selection process, at paragraph 8, held as follows: ."The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted." 85. In Union of India v. N. Chandrasekharan (supra), selection to the post of Assistant Purchase officer, was challenged. The unsuccessful candidates have challenged the process of selection. The Tribunal quashed the promotions made on the basis of the panel of Assistant Purchase Officers. In Union of India v. N. Chandrasekharan (supra), selection to the post of Assistant Purchase officer, was challenged. The unsuccessful candidates have challenged the process of selection. The Tribunal quashed the promotions made on the basis of the panel of Assistant Purchase Officers. While allowing the appeals preferred by the Union of India, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 13, held as follows: "It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected, by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and that the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report." 86. The Supreme Court in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh (supra), at Paragraph 35, held that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process, except in certain cases where exceptions have been carved out by the Supreme Court. 87. As regards the contention that the respondents ought to have given some reasons for not selecting the petitioner, who had a preferential right on the basis of his higher qualification, than the fifth respondent, who was only a diploma holder in Business Management, the decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. K. Kalyanaraman (supra), would be the effective answer. In the above reported judgment, the respondent applied for the post of Professor in Neurology. Among the other grounds, the High Court allowed the writ petition stating that the selection committee did not give any reasons, however brief, to establish any rational nexus between the facts said to have been considered by the Selection Committee and the conclusion drawn by it on the basis of those facts, and the proceedings of the Selection Committee cannot, notwithstanding the eminence of the persons in the Selection Committee, be, upheld. On appeal, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 7, held as follows: "7. We will first consider the second point. In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. On appeal, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 7, held as follows: "7. We will first consider the second point. In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. The High Court seems to be in error in stating that the Selection Committee ought to have given some reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as against the other candidate. The selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the required eligibility. There is no rule or regulation brought to our notice requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons. In the absence of any such legal requirement the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. The High Court in support of its reasoning has however, referred to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87 : (1973) 2 SCC 836 , That decision proceeded on a statutory requirement. Regulation 5(5) which was considered in that case required the Selection Committee to record its reasons for superseding a senior member in the State Civil Service. The decision in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) case was rendered on 29. 1973. In June 1977, Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting the requirement of recording reasons for the supersession of senior officers of the State Civil Services. The Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) case cannot, therefore, be construed as an authority for the proposition that there should be reason formulation for administrative decision. Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Days v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 593 : (1986) Supp SCC 617 in which Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) case was also distinguished." 88. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Days v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 593 : (1986) Supp SCC 617 in which Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) case was also distinguished." 88. In the light of the above discussions, the following conclusions are arrived at, .(i) In the absence of any mandate in the recruitment rules that the selection process should comprise of both written and interview, it is open to the employer to devise any process of selection, even without a written examination, depending upon the nature of the posts for which the selection is made. An aspirant to a post can at best demand the employer to follow the recruitment rules and seek for its enforcement through Court of law and beyond that, he cannot insist or has no legal right to compel the employer to adopt a particular mode of selection, not specifically prescribed under the rules. To avoid arbitrariness, bias and favouritism, it is always better to devise appropriate norms for selection to any post, for which, the process of selection is purely based on interview, but it is mandatory. The allocation of marks under different heads has been held by the Supreme Court as not mandatory and therefore, the appointing/Selection authority is not bound to disclose the marks to the candidates. The assessment of the candidates for the post of Deputy Manager (General), purely on the basis of the interview does not pave way for nepotism, favouritism, bias and in such circumstances, this Court is unable to subscribe to the contention of the learned counsel that the respondents have committed an error in not prescribing a written test as one of the process for selection. .(ii) Even if the notification contains a condition that persons possessing higher qualification/experience would be given preference in the matter of selection, the Selection Committee can select candidates with lesser educational qualifications, which is the academic requirement for the post and imposition of such general condition in the advertisement would not preclude the authorities from selecting the candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview. The imposition of such condition in the advertisement does not mean to eliminate all other candidates with lesser educational qualifications and only after selecting the candidates with higher educational qualifications, the Selection Committee should fall back on the persons with lesser educational qualification/experience. The imposition of such condition in the advertisement does not mean to eliminate all other candidates with lesser educational qualifications and only after selecting the candidates with higher educational qualifications, the Selection Committee should fall back on the persons with lesser educational qualification/experience. The condition imposed in the notification that preference would be given to higher qualification would mean that when relative merits of the competing candidates are equal, then preference would be given to those, who possessed higher qualifications. It does not confer an indefeasible right on the persons, possessing higher qualification, to be selected. If such method has to be adopted, then the very purpose of conducting a test in the form of an interview to assess the relative merits of the candidates, subject to certain parameters prescribed by the Board would be defeated. Preference to higher educational qualifications in the matter of selection can be given weightage only if others things are found to be equal. (iii) When selection to a post notified is solely based on interview, the Selection Committee is not bound to allocate marks under the heads for higher qualifications/experience and other objective criteria, which form the substantial basis for selection. If for any reasons, the interview committee does not allocate the marks under different heads, the evaluation of the candidates in the absence of written test, cannot always be said to be susceptible to misuse and bias, warranting interference from the Court. .(iv) When the oral test alone is the method adopted for evaluation of the performance of the candidates and in the absence of any provision in the rules or regulations for allocation of marks under different heads to the candidates, the Court in the absence of strong and credible materials, cannot draw an adverse inference of bias and favouritism against the Selection Committee, comprising of experts? (v) Merely because, the respondents have selected persons with lesser educational qualifications and failed to communicate the marks secured by the petitioner in the interview, that does not amount, to ignoring his potential and having regard to his role as an Office Bearer of FCI SC/ST Association, exposing the cause of members against the Management, are sufficient to constitute bias and mala fide. .(vi) In the case on hand, the notification was issued in Delhi. The application of the petitioner was forwarded from the office at Madras. .(vi) In the case on hand, the notification was issued in Delhi. The application of the petitioner was forwarded from the office at Madras. Taking into the convenience of the candidates, the petitioner and some others, were interviewed at Bangalore. Merely because the advertisement and the results of the interview were published at Delhi, that would not fore close a right of a petitioner from challenging the selection list on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. One of the cause of action for applying to the above said post sprang out from the place where his candidature was sponsored. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 that the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition before the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, is rejected. The petitioner, who is an employee of FCI, serving at Madras, can maintain a writ petition, within the jurisdiction of this Court, even though the notification for a particular post was advertised at Delhi, the interview and the subsequent result, being a material and integral to the notification. The applicants, who had applied and sponsored from various places of the country, cannot be made to institute the proceedings only at Delhi. (vii) In the absence of any rule or regulation, which provides for allocation of marks under different heads in the interview, it is open to the interviewing body to take a decision as to how the marks should be awarded for the purpose of assessing the relative merits of the candidates for selection. But the Selection Committee has to devise a methodology to avoid favouritism. (viii) The petitioner is aware that the selection to the post of Deputy Manager (Admn.) is made solely on the basis of interview, for which notification was made on 18. 1992. Knowing fully well the process of selection, he had applied to the said post. He has made any objections to the process of Selection nor he has been placed reliance on the recruitment rules that written test should be a part of the process of selection. In such an event, an unsuccessful candidate, who had participated in the process of selection, taking a calculative chance to get himself selected, cannot subsequently turn around and question the process of selection as susceptible to bias. In such an event, an unsuccessful candidate, who had participated in the process of selection, taking a calculative chance to get himself selected, cannot subsequently turn around and question the process of selection as susceptible to bias. In the absence of any objection at the threshold, an unsuccessful candidate is estopped from challenging the process of selection on the ground that there is no scope for considering the record of service. .(ix) In the absence of proof of allegations of bias, mala fide, favouritism and nepotism in the selection, Court cannot interfere with the assessment of a duty constituted selection committee, consisting of experts of high status. It is also well settled that Whenever allegations of mala fide are levelled, specific instances have to be quoted and the person against whom the allegations are levelled should be arrayed as party respondents to the proceedings to rebut such allegations of mala fide. .(x) The selection was made for filling up of 13 vacancies under the Special Drive for SC/ST candidates, in the post of Deputy Manager (Administration) in FCI. It is not suffice to implead only 3 selected candidates out of 13 in the writ petitions, when the challenge is made to the entire selection. In the tight of the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is imperative that all the selected candidates should be impleaded as party respondents to the writ petitions, as otherwise, their interests will be affected. When the selection is assailed, all the selected candidates are the necessary as well as proper parties for effective, adjudication, as the right of such candidates to hold the post, pursuant to the selection is under challenge. It is a well settled legal position that the selection of a candidate cannot be said at naught without providing a reasonable opportunity to him to sustain the same. Before depriving a selected candidates right to hold the post, he has to be necessarily heard. Therefore, the writ petitions have to fail for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. .(xi) Recruitment rules do not mandate conducting any written test to assess the proficiency in the subject. As per Regulation 9(b)(ii) of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971, the Interview shall be held by Selection Board duly constituted from time to time for different categories of post. The Selection Board consists of not less than three members. .(xi) Recruitment rules do not mandate conducting any written test to assess the proficiency in the subject. As per Regulation 9(b)(ii) of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971, the Interview shall be held by Selection Board duly constituted from time to time for different categories of post. The Selection Board consists of not less than three members. The Selection Board shall draw up the panel of candidates fit for selection and furnish it to the appointing authority together with its recommendations in the order of merit. The contention of the petitioner that the post of Deputy Manager is borne in Category-I of the services and the Executive Engineer (Personnel), second respondent is not competent to make the selection or decision in the matter of appointment to the said post is not supported by FCI (Staff) Regulations. There is no regulation prohibiting the Executive Director (Personnel), to be a member of the Selection Committee. Therefore, the constitution of the Board is in accordance with the FCI (Staff) Regulations. Having appeared before the Selection Committee, comprising of members of the high status and repute, without any protest, it is not open to the petitioner to question the presence of the Executive Director in the Selection Committee. (xii) The contention of the petitioner that he was called for the interview only after his repeated representation and therefore, it is suffice to hold that bias and prejudice on the part of the Selection Committee to ignore his potential and consequentially, his candidature, is not acceptable. (xiii) As regards the allegations of mala fide, it could be seen that the Selection Committee comprises of Departmental Senior Officials and outside experts, including IAS and IRS officials. There was also a representative from the reserved community. No specific acts of mala fide are imputed against the members of the Selection Committee and none of them have been arrayed as party respondents. No materials have bee placed before this Court to prove that the members of the Selection Committee were personally involved in the action taken against the petitioner for his activities at Madras and therefore, a bare allegation of ill-motive cannot be attributed against them. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Selection Committee cannot be said to be arbitrary, un loss the petitioner is able to prove bias. (xiv) Where selection is held for a particular post, innumerable candidates may apply. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Selection Committee cannot be said to be arbitrary, un loss the petitioner is able to prove bias. (xiv) Where selection is held for a particular post, innumerable candidates may apply. Some applications may be rejected at the threshold for not satisfying the eligibility criteria or at the time of verification of testimonials and documents, or for other valid reasons, such as not securing adequate marks and so on so forth. No rule or regulation has been brought to the notice of this Court that all the non-selected candidates, who had applied for the post have to be informed the reasons for rejecting their candidature either at the threshold of scrutiny of their applications or after the selection process is over. Therefore, it is suffice that the selected candidates are informed as per the procedure contemplated under the Recruitment Rules. (xv) No rule or regulation has been brought to the notice of this Court, requiring the Selection Committee to record their reasons. If the overall assessment is made by the Committee on subjective criteria and if a inter se merit list is drawn, there is no compulsion on the part of the Selection Committee or the employer to record any specific reasons as to why the candidates, who had applied, were not selected. A panel of candidates drawn in the order of inter se merit is sufficient. In the absence of any such legal requirement, an unsuccessful candidate has no statutory or legal right to compel the authorities or the Selection Committee to communicate the reasons for non-selection. (xvi) The contention that there was unnecessary detay in the conduct of interview and therefore, there is bias and favouritism in selecting the candidates, is not acceptable. The delay in conducting the interview has not been raised as one of the grounds of attack and more so, that would not be fatal to the selection. Any delay caused due to administrative reasons cannot be attributed to the Selection Committee or the Corporation for that matters. (xvii) Comparative analysis of the qualifications of the petitioner vis-a-vis fifth respondent, shows that at the time of interview, the fifth respondent was working as Assistant Manager (Movements) in the Executive cadre with necessary experience, whereas the petitioner was working only as Assistant Grade II. (xvii) Comparative analysis of the qualifications of the petitioner vis-a-vis fifth respondent, shows that at the time of interview, the fifth respondent was working as Assistant Manager (Movements) in the Executive cadre with necessary experience, whereas the petitioner was working only as Assistant Grade II. Though the difference between them is possession of P.G. Degree in Business Administration, the selected candidate cannot be said to be less meritorious than the petitioner. Further, he has satisfied the eligibility criteria presented for the post. 89. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the selection to the post of Deputy Manager (General Administration). Bias, prejudice and mala fide are not substantiated by materials. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.