Judgment : 1. This Writ petition has been instituted questioning the action of the respondent, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad (for short 'JNTU') in holding the written test and interview on 20-4-2010 and 21-4-2010 respectively for the post of 'Assistant Professor' in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Branch, pursuant to the advertisement dated 23-7-2009 without notifying the syllabus for the test, the nature of the test and the marks for the test and interview as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The writ petitioner has passed the 4 year B.Tech degree course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering Branch from JNTU, Anantapur in the year 2004. Thereafter, he passed and obtained his M.Tech., degree in Electrical Power Engineering Branch from JNTU, Hyderabad, in the year 2009 in First Class. He is presently working as an Assistant Professor with a local engineering college. The respondent University has issued an advertisement on 23-7-2009 inviting applications for recruitment to posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in various disciplines of Engineering and Technology/various other Science subjects. A total of seven (7) posts of Assistant Professors in Electrical and Electronics Engineering have been notified. Of them, two (2) are thrown open, while the rest five (5) are reserved amongst Scheduled castes, Backward classes and the visually challenged category. The qualifications required to be possessed for these posts had been notified as FIRST class Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology or First Class Bachelors Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology or equivalent, valid GATE score of minimum 75%, required to complete M.Tech.,/M.E., within five (5) years failing which the increments will be stopped until the post graduate degree is earned. A set of instructions have been appended to the notification. Instruction No.17 indicated that the date of interview will be intimated in due course of time. However, Instruction 21 reads as under: "Wherever necessary, the University may prefer conducting a screening/written test and based on the performance in the written test suitable number of candidates will be called for interview." 3. The last date for receipt of the applications was 17-9-2009. The writ petitioner is one of the candidates who has responded to this notification and consequently he has received on 9-4-2010, an intimation letter informing him to attend for written test scheduled to be held on 20-4-2010 at 11 AM AT Kukatpally campus of the respondent University. The last date for receipt of the applications was 17-9-2009. The writ petitioner is one of the candidates who has responded to this notification and consequently he has received on 9-4-2010, an intimation letter informing him to attend for written test scheduled to be held on 20-4-2010 at 11 AM AT Kukatpally campus of the respondent University. It was made clear that qualified candidates in the written test need to appear for an interview before the Selection committee on 21-4-2010 at 12 Noon. Such candidates were required to report one hour before the scheduled time for interview for the purpose of registering his/her name and for scrutiny of the Original certificates. It is this action of the respondent -University that is instrumental for instituting this writ petition. 4. It is averred in paragraphs (5) and (6) of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the call letter does not indicate the syllabus for the written test, the nature of the test viz., whether it is essay type or objective type, the duration of the test and the total marks for the test and the qualifying marks to be obtained. The call letter also does not specify the ratio in which the candidates will be called for interview and that there is no transparency whatsoever in the whole process of selection indicating thereby that the select list of candidates had already been prepared. It is specifically averred that the candidates in whom the establishment is interested were intimated about the written test and other details and that, it appears, a number of phone calls were received from the Ministers and powerful politicians for selection of their candidates and the selection now contemplated is merely an eye wash. It is also further pointed out that there is no reservation in favour of local candidate and there is no intimation regarding the constitution of the interview boards and that awarding of marks is not based on any rational or fair criteria and that there is no Executive council of the respondent University existing in office, for it to ratify the selections and therefore it is only appropriate that the selections be not rushed through. It is also asserted that a detailed representation has been submitted in that regard on 17-4-2010 to the respondent University and also various other organizations to withhold the selections. 5. It is also asserted that a detailed representation has been submitted in that regard on 17-4-2010 to the respondent University and also various other organizations to withhold the selections. 5. Entertaining this writ petition on 20-4-2010 an interim direction has been issued by this court not to issue orders of appointment to any selected candidates pending further orders. 6. On behalf of the respondent University, it's Registrar has filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the notification dated 23-7-2009 has been issued intending to make recruitment to various posts, as per the roster approved by the Commissioner of Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare and that the respondent University conducted selections for some of the posts during the 1st week of December 2009 and due to the unrest and agitation in the State, the selection process was postponed and the same was re-scheduled to be held between 19 to 29th April, 2010. It was further pointed out that it is a practice adopted by the respondent University to conduct a written test preferably a day before the scheduled date of interview whenever large number of candidates apply for the posts and hence necessary intimation in this regard has been furnished in instruction No.21 of the advertisement. It was further pointed out that on 17-4-2010 intimation has been sent through E-mail and short messaging services (SMS) clearly indicating that for the post of 'Assistant Professor', the written test will be conducted with 60 multiple choice questions in under graduate syllabus with one hour duration. It was further pointed out that the writ petitioner has in fact attended the written test on 20-4-2010 and his name figured in the short listed candidates for interview, which list was published at 5 PM on the notice board on the same day and that he has also appeared for the interview test on 21-4-2010. In view of his participation in the selection process, the bonafides behind the above writ petition are challenged. 7. In view of his participation in the selection process, the bonafides behind the above writ petition are challenged. 7. The writ petitioner has filed a reply affidavit pointing out that by the last date of submission of applications, the necessary data as to the number of candidates who have applied for would have become available to the respondent University and hence it ought to have notified the written test clearly specifying the syllabus, the duration, the type of test, the number of marks and the ratio in which the qualified candidates would be subjected to interview etc., This information has been deliberately held back till the very last. The petitioner has asserted that he has not received any e-mail and that since he was using a cell phone bearing a different number, than the one furnished in his application form, he did not receive even the SMS alleged to have been sent by the University and even on the cell phone number which he has mentioned in the application form also no such message is received. It was further pointed out that all communications are required to be addressed and sent to the address furnished in the application form and the mode of communication through e-mails and SMS is not one of the recognized modes of communications. Further, since candidates would be drawn from different Universities, the information that the written test will be conducted with Under-Graduate syllabus is too vague inasmuch as the said syllabus varies from University to University. This apart, the syllabus of the respondent university has undergone a change a couple of years back only. Since the selection process lacked transparency, the writ petitioner has asserted that it lacked objectivity and fairness. It was further asserted that the selections are based upon extraneous considerations rather than the merit of the candidates. In paragraph (7) of the reply affidavit, it is suggested that the respondent University should have video graphed the interview proceedings to prove their bonafides and also produce the same for verification to ensure fairness and transparency in the selection process. He therefore prayed that the selections be undertaken all over again. 8. An additional counter affidavit has been filed deposed to by the Registrar of the respondent University. He therefore prayed that the selections be undertaken all over again. 8. An additional counter affidavit has been filed deposed to by the Registrar of the respondent University. In support of its contention that the Screening Test is conducted by the respondent University wherever large number of candidates applied for the posts, the necessary data is furnished. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the notification dated 23-7-2009 as to how the selections were conducted in two phases -one in December and another in April and as to how on both occasions the written test was conducted on 1-12-2009 and 20-4-2010. It was further asserted that since the writ petitioner has already appeared for the written test and has also attended for the interview, the respondent University be permitted to finalize the selections and proceed further in the matter of making appointments in view of the urgency, as the academic year for 2010-2011 has commenced. 9. I have heard Sri G.Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondent University. 10. While reiterating the various contentions canvassed in the pleadings set up by the Writ petitioner, Sri Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the procedure adopted by the respondent university in the matter of selections of Assistant Professors is clearly lacking in transparency and fairness. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent university does not appear to realize the distinction between a written test and a mere screening test. If a written test is conducted preceding the oral interviews, then the respondent ought to have disclosed the percentage of marks, which will be taken into account and consideration for both these components viz., written test and the oral interview test. On the other hand, if the written test is merely a screening test, to screen out certain number of candidates, even then the marks that are required to be secured by the candidates to qualify in the screening test ought to have been disclosed. If on the other hand, a specified percentage of candidates alone will be subjected to the process of selection through viva voce, then the norms in that regard ought to have been disclosed. If on the other hand, a specified percentage of candidates alone will be subjected to the process of selection through viva voce, then the norms in that regard ought to have been disclosed. The University does not specify as to whether it is adopting a common cut off mark in the screening test as the qualifying mark or a proportion such as 1:5 or 1:10, which renders the candidates eligible. This itself, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, indicates that the University is flexible in devising the norms of selection and does not have fixed rules drawn before the game has commenced. More importantly, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a responsible officer like the Registrar of the University does not deny the allegation that the selection list of candidates has already been drawn much before the screening test itself because of the pressure exerted on the respondent University by Hon'ble Ministers and powerful politicians. Sri G.Mohan Rao, had also placed reliance on the Judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab ( (2000) 8 SCC 633 ) in support of his contention that not taking into account the marks secured at the written test is fatal. He finally concludes that due to the lack of fair and transparent procedure, the selections carried out by the respondent University should not be allowed to be finalized. 11. Per contra, Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent University would submit that the posts for which the selections were carried out are various teaching posts in the university and the general norm adopted for selection to such posts is invariably an oral interview test. But, however, the respondent University has adopted the practice of conducting a screening test so that few of the applicants can be eliminated based purely on their performance at the said test. He places strong reliance upon the Judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Muralidharan Menon ( (2009) 9 SCC 304 ), in support of his contention that the petitioner is estopped from raising any dispute, having participated in the selection process. 12. Let us now notice the march of law on the issue relating to the role of interview or viva voce test forming an important element of selection of candidates. 12. Let us now notice the march of law on the issue relating to the role of interview or viva voce test forming an important element of selection of candidates. Oral examination of the competing candidates is long considered to be an efficacious instrument for estimating the general suitability of the candidate for the post specified. The essential purpose of the viva voce test is to bring out sparely the abilities and also simultaneously notice the deficiencies of the candidates which may not have been brought forth clearly in the written examination. Viva voce tests are designed for making a fair assessment of the abilities, but also the aptitude, the attainments, the accomplishments and the spheres of interests in specialization of various topics or subjects, which will have a direct relevance to the suitability and the responsibilities required to be discharged by the candidates concerned. The object of interview and the important role it plays in the selection process and the consequential promise and the dangers it presents has been considered by the Supreme Court in Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan ( (1988) 3 SCC 241 ) in the following words: "............. The much desired transformation from patronage to open competition is later development, to which, now, all civilised governments profess commitment. However, though there is agreement in principle that there should be a search for the best talent particularly in relation to higher posts, however, as to the methods of assessment of efficiency, promise and aptitude, ideas and policies widely vary, though it has now come to be accepted that selection is an informed professional exercise which is best left to agencies independent of the services to which recruitment is made. The 'interview' is now an accepted aid to selection and is designed to give the selectors some evidence of the personality and character of the candidates. Macaulay had earlier clearly declared that a youngmen who in competition with his fellow-men of the same age had shown superiority in studies might well be regarded as having shown character also since he could not have prepared himself for the success attained without showing character in eschewing sensual pleasures. Macaulay had earlier clearly declared that a youngmen who in competition with his fellow-men of the same age had shown superiority in studies might well be regarded as having shown character also since he could not have prepared himself for the success attained without showing character in eschewing sensual pleasures. But the interview came to be recognised as an essential part of the process of selection on the belief that some qualities necessary and useful to public-servants which cannot be found out in a written test would be revealed in a viva-voce examination. In justification of the value and utility of the viva-voce, the committee on Class I examinations in Britain said: ...It is sometimes urged that a candidate, otherwise well qualified, may be prevented by nervousness from doing himself justice viva-voce. We are not sure that such lack of nervous control is not in itself a serious defect, nor that the presence of mind and nervous equipoise which enables a candidate to marshal all of his resources in such conditions is not a valuable quality. Further, there are undoubtedly some candidates who can never do themselves justice in written examinations, just as there are others who under the excitement of written competition do better than on ordinary occasions... We consider that the viva-voce can be made a test of the candidate's alertness, intelligence and intellectual outlook, and as such is better than any other.... As to the promise as well as the limitations of the viva-voce, Herman Finer says: If we really care about the efficiency of the civil service as an instrument of government, rather than as a heaven-sent opportunity to find careers for our brilliant students, these principles should be adopted. The interview should last at least half an hour on each of two separate occasions. It should be almost entirely devoted to a discussion ranging over the academic interests of the candidate as shown in his examination syllabus, and a short verbal report could be required on such a subject, the scope of which would be announced at the interview. As now, the interview should be a supplementary test and not a decisive selective test. The interviewing board should include a business administrator and a university administrator. As now, the interview should be a supplementary test and not a decisive selective test. The interviewing board should include a business administrator and a university administrator. The interview should come after and not before the written examination, and if this means some inconvenience to candidates and examiners, then they must remember that they are helping to select the government of a great state, and a little inconvenience is not to be weighed against such a public duty.... (See Theory and Practice of Modern Government-Herman Finer at page 779) The problems of assessment of personality are indeed, complicated. On the promise as well as dangers of the purely 'personal-interview' method, Pfiffner-Presthus in his 'Public Administration' at page 305 says: Pencil-and-paper tests that measure some aspects of personality are now available. Notable among these are the so-called temperament or personality inventories. These consist of questions in which the applicant is asked to evaluate himself relative to certain aspects of psychiatry and abnormal psychology. Such tests are subject to a great deal of controversy however, and there is a school of experimental psychologists which condemns them, mainly on two grounds. First, individuals will not give honest answers in a competitive test that asks them to describe their abnormal and intimate behaviour or beliefs. Second, it is maintained that the value of these tests lies in their use as the reputic or clinical aids rather than as vehicles for competition.... ...Appointing officers are afraid that examining procedures will fail to give proper attention to such qualifications. The result is that they often feel they could do a better job of selection using only the personal interview. There are at least two reasons why this cannot be allowed. The first relates to the protective tendency of civil service; appointing officers may appoint brothers-in-law or personal favourites. In addition, psychological research has shown that the interview is of questionable validity, even in the hands of an experienced executive." Prior thereto in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1987 SC 454 ), it has been stated as under: "22. In addition, psychological research has shown that the interview is of questionable validity, even in the hands of an experienced executive." Prior thereto in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1987 SC 454 ), it has been stated as under: "22. We do not think that the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission could be said to be vitiated merely on the ground that as many as 1300 and more candidates representing more than 20 times the number of available vacancies were called for interview, though on the view taken by us that was not the right course to follow and not more than twice or at the highest thrice, the number of candidates should have been called for interview, Something more than merely calling an unduly large number of candidates for interview must be shown in order to invalidate the selections made..........." 13. In the context where the rules do not specifically require a written test followed by an oral interview test as forming integral part of the selection process, the question as to whether the selections made on the basis of the interview test alone would become illegal had fallen for consideration by the Supreme Court in Sardara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others ( (1991) 4 SCC 555 ) and the question was answered in the following words: "7. xxxxxxxx Normally it may be desirable to conduct written test and in particular hand writing that which is vital for a Patwari whose primary duty is to record clearly entries in revenue records followed by oral interview. The rules do not mandate to have both. Options were given either to conduct written test or viva voce or both. In this case the Committee adopted for viva voce as a method to select the candidates which cannot be said to be illegal." In D.V.Bakshi and others vs. Union of India and others ( (1993) 3 SCC 663 ), the Supreme Court has noticed that the oral interview test being of highly subjective character, an allegation of arbitrariness would easily be made against it. It has been clearly stated that a heavy responsibility lies on the examinees of the oral interview test to maintain proper record of the oral test in respect of each candidate and marks must preferably be assigned under each head considered relevant to evaluate a candidate, so that there is no room for suspicion in the minds of the unsuccessful candidates that the result of the oral test is tainted with bias for or against any particular candidate. Since the oral test is highly subjective and is also susceptible to misuse, the maintenance of the record of the examinees would ultimately disclose the fair approach the examiners adopted in the matter of selections. Mere allegations based on the ipsi dixi's of the candidates, will not, without anything more, offer the necessary background for a probe into the records of the oral test maintained by such examiners. It is therefore essential that until and unless the selections are finalized, the distinguishing features between the selected and the non selected candidates would not become apparent, for any probe is to be undertaken. It will also be appropriate to notice that in Praveen Jindal v. State of Haryana (JT 1993(2) SC 311 : 1993 Supp (4) SCC 70), the Supreme Court has noticed that even if the rules prescribe a minimum percentage of marks in the written test for being called for interview, the same will not create a right in the candidate who has obtained such prescribed percentage to be called for the next stage of selection process viz., the interview test. It will also be appropriate to notice in this context that the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar ( AIR 1995 SC 77 ) has held that the process of short listing of candidates does not amount to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria inasmuch as the very process of short listing is in fact a part of the very process of selection of candidates. 14. In the light of the various principles enunciated by the Supreme Court on the subject, if we examine the factual background, the posts that are sought to be filled in are posts of Assistant Professors in one branch of engineering subject or the other. Most Universities in the country constitute Selection Committees comprising of eminent academicians/researchers of certain standing. 14. In the light of the various principles enunciated by the Supreme Court on the subject, if we examine the factual background, the posts that are sought to be filled in are posts of Assistant Professors in one branch of engineering subject or the other. Most Universities in the country constitute Selection Committees comprising of eminent academicians/researchers of certain standing. Most of the times, the Selection Committee members are drawn from outside the University which intends to make the recruitment. 15. Participation of eminent academicians who are mostly drawn from institutes or universities elsewhere in the selection process can reasonably assure that fair and objective criteria would be evolved by them in the matter of selection of the candidates. For such accomplished examiners, it would be very easy to make an assessment about the depths of knowledge of the candidate who comes before them, the areas of interests or specialization and their ability to conceive various concepts on the subject and more importantly, the articulation capabilities of such candidates. It is appropriate to remember that the respondent -University has proposed to fill up the teaching posts. A teacher is required to impart theory and practical knowledge of one branch of engineering or the other to the student community. Therefore, it is vital that such candidates must have good articulation capacity and skill to guide the students on proper lines for carrying out research. These components can easily be judged at the oral interview test by subject experts. Therefore, preference of oral interview test as the sole mode of selection by the respondent University cannot be completely faulted. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mohan Rao placed strong reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Praveen Singh's case (supra 1) in support of his contention that there should have been weightage for the marks obtained by the respective candidates at the written test. Before I undertake to analyse the ratio in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Pravin Singh's case (supra 1), I must record the assertion of the respondent University that the written test that was conducted on 20.4.2010 is only a screening test comprising of objective questions of one hour's duration. There can be two types of written examinations. Before I undertake to analyse the ratio in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Pravin Singh's case (supra 1), I must record the assertion of the respondent University that the written test that was conducted on 20.4.2010 is only a screening test comprising of objective questions of one hour's duration. There can be two types of written examinations. The 1st, a comprehensive type, where several questions will have to be answered by the candidates in the essay format and may also comprise some part of objective type assessment. The 2nd variety is purely a screening test. When large number of candidates respond to an employment notification, a screening test will be devised for purposes of pruning the members so that the best of the available talent alone can be subjected to the process of selection, thus saving enormously on the time and energy to be spent on the recruitment drive. In the instant case, the respondent University has undertaken to conduct only a screening test. It has not chosen to conduct comprehensive written examination. This was made abundantly clear in Instruction No.21. 17. In Praveen Singh's case (supra), the Punjab Public Service Commission which advertised recruitment process for 26 vacancies of Block Development and Panchayat Officers has set out that a written examination will be conducted comprising of four papers in (1) English (2) General Knowledge (3) Community Development, Panchayat Raj and Agricultural Development for 100 marks each and (4) Punjabi language test of matriculation Standard for 50 marks (in Gurmukhi Script) followed by viva voce test for 50 marks. The rules framed by the Governor of Punjab for recruitment to the said posts also required the candidates to be tested in the aforesaid manner. In the light of the above facts, the Supreme Court has set out the principle as under: 6. It is on the basis of the rules together with the information sheet as noticed herein before, that the High Court came to the conclusion that there is no arbitrariness in the matter of selection of candidates. In the light of the above facts, the Supreme Court has set out the principle as under: 6. It is on the basis of the rules together with the information sheet as noticed herein before, that the High Court came to the conclusion that there is no arbitrariness in the matter of selection of candidates. The said finding stands challenged before us principally on the ground that there is existing a dual requirement viz., written test as also the viva-voce test and the marks obtained therein in both counts ought to have formed part of the process of determining the merit and the Public Service Commission had no authority or jurisdiction to effect the selection solely on the basis of the performance of the candidates at the viva voce examination xxxxxxxx 8. xxxxxxxxx While it is true that the administrative or quasi-judicial authority clothed with the power of selection and appointment ought to be left unfettered in adaptation of procedural aspects but that does not however mean and imply that the same would be made available to an employer at the cost of fair play, good conscience and equity. This Court in the case of J.P. Kulshreshtha and Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad Univesity and others ((1980) II LLJ175 SC) did recognise the undetectable manipulation of results being achieved by remote control tactics and masked as viva voce test resulting in the sabotaging of the purity of proceedings. This Court held "interviews as such are not bad but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad". 13. ......... Be it noted that there is always a room for suspicion for the common appointments if the oral interview is taken up as the only criteria. Of course, there are posts and posts, where interviews can be a safe method of appointment but to the post of a Block Development Officer or a Panchayat Officer wherein about 4500 people applied for 40 posts, interview cannot be said to be a satisfactory method of selection though however it may be a part thereof -In the factual score we have the advantage of having the Rules prescribing the mode and method of appointments and specific marks are earmarked for written examinations of various subjects together with totality of marks for viva voce test. As a matter of fact out of 450 marks only 50 marks have been allotted for interview by the Service Commission itself - why these 400 marks allotted for a written examination in four different subjects, if interview was to be the guiding factor: there has been however, no answer to the same excepting that the Court ought not to interfere in the matter of selection process in the absence of mala fides - true it is that in the event the selection is tainted with mala fides, it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to set right the wrong -but is it also realistic to assume that when the Commission in clear and categorical language recorded that 450 marks would be the total marks for the examination and out of which only 50 marks are earmarked for viva voce test, the Commission desired that these 50 marks would be relevant and crucial and the other 400 marks would be rendered totally, superfluous and of no effect at all. The language used is rather plain and is not capable of the interpretation as is being presented before us during the course of hearing and as has been held by the High Court. Reliance on 50 marks only and thereby avoiding the other 400 marks cannot in our view having due regard to the language used, be said to be reasonable or devoid of any arbitrariness. (emphasis is mine) Therefore, in Praveen Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court has not set out that wherever a written examination is conducted, the ultimate selections of the candidates must also take into account the marks secured by such candidates at such a written examination. Unlike in the instant case, where the written test is purely a screening test, in Praveen Singh's case (supra), it's a comprehensive written examination for a maximum of 350 marks. Therefore, the principle enunciated in Praveen Singh's case is not applicable or attracted to the present case. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent University has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Muralidhara Menon's case (supra 2), wherein in paragraph (16), the Supreme Court held, that the principle of estoppel would be applicable, in the following words: "16. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent University has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Muralidhara Menon's case (supra 2), wherein in paragraph (16), the Supreme Court held, that the principle of estoppel would be applicable, in the following words: "16. The Respondents furthermore having given an undertaking and having opted to be transferred on the post of LDC could not have resiled therefrom. They could not approbate and reprobate at the same time. If an order was passed on their representations, they were bound thereby particularly when the circular letter itself suggested that an order of transfer had been passed would be final and no order for retransfer could be passed. The principle of `estoppel' would, therefore, clearly be applicable." 20. However, in the instant case, the writ petitioner is not raking up an issue about his non-selection as yet. He is making out a grievance out of the selection criteria adopted by the respondent University. Every candidate has a right to insist upon the State and its instrumentalities to adhere to fair and equitable procedures in the matter of selection. They have a fundamental right to be considered for such recruitments and they have equally enforceable right to ask or to be judged by fair and reasonable criteria but not by unfair or unreasonable criteria. Therefore, I am not able to concur with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent University that the petitioner should be held estopped from raising such contentions. 21. The writ petitioner has raised a plea that the `local candidates' are not chosen in the process of recruitment by the respondent University. The respondent University was initially constituted in accordance with Section 3 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972, Act 16 of 1972, and hence it falls within the definition of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of our Constitution. So far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, thanks to the 32nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1973, Article 371(D) has come to be incorporated in our Constitution. Article 371(D) has conferred powers on the President to promulgate orders regulating public employment and in the matter of education in our State. In exercise of such powers, the following two Presidential Orders have been promulgated. Article 371(D) has conferred powers on the President to promulgate orders regulating public employment and in the matter of education in our State. In exercise of such powers, the following two Presidential Orders have been promulgated. (1) Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 (2) Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 A closer examination of these two presidential orders clearly discloses that the concept of a `local candidate' is devised for ensuring adequate and appropriate opportunities both in the matter of admission to various educational institutions and courses of study offered by such institutions and in the matters of public employment, to be guaranteed in favour of such candidates who answer the description of `local candidate'. That was intended to ensure an equitable distribution of the opportunities that are available amongst all the regions of the State. JNTU was declared as a `State Wide University' in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. Admissions to 85% of the seats available in a State wide University will have to be made in accordance with paragraph (6) of the said Presidential Order, in the ratio of 42:36:22 amongst the local candidates of Andhra University area, Osmania University area and Sri Venkateswara University area. Therefore, there will be opportunities proportionately become available to the local candidates of the Andhra University area to the extent of 42% and to the Osmania University area to the extent of 36% and Sri Venkateswara University area to the extent of 22%. But, when it comes to employment, the 1975 Presidential Order does not deal with any employment other than those under the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, in the matter of employment in JNTU, the question of setting apart any vacancies or any percentage of vacancies in favour of local candidates would not arise. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner that no preference is given in favour of local candidates by the respondent University is a thoroughly misplaced contention. 22. Finally, the plea of the petitioner that the respondent University has not even denied the allegation levelled that the respondent University has received several phone calls from the Hon'ble Ministers and influential persons for selecting certain candidates needs to be recorded only to be rejected. 22. Finally, the plea of the petitioner that the respondent University has not even denied the allegation levelled that the respondent University has received several phone calls from the Hon'ble Ministers and influential persons for selecting certain candidates needs to be recorded only to be rejected. Firstly, such a plea is devoid of any material worth being taken into account or consideration. Such non specific and vague allegations cannot form a basis for a probe to be undertaken by this court. It lacks conviction too, for, the selection of the candidates is not completely resting in the hands of the officials of the respondent University alone. The respondent University had constituted various Selection Committees comprising of independent academicians drawn from outside. Excepting at a fairly very high level, rest of the functionaries of the Universities also may not be knowing as to who would be comprising of the said Selection Committees. The very purpose of drawing academicians from outside is to ensure that they will not have any set notions of preferences or prejudices. Their sense of fair play and objectivity is assured. Therefore, the question of the University or its high ranking functionaries tilting the balance of selection in favour of a particular candidate is so remote and obscure that it shall not warrant any further investigation. Generalised remarks or comments which are non specific and too vague need not weigh with the court for ordering a further probe in the matter. 23. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. But, however, without costs.