Order: Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.V.Uma Devi, representing Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. None appeared for the 5th respondent. 2. In response to the advertisement issued by the 2nd respondent-Bharath Dynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad on 09-12-2013, the petitioner applied for the post of Management Trainee (Finance). The requisite qualifications for the post are a pass in final examination of Chartered Accountant or ICAI or a Post Graduate Degree in MBA (Finance) with minimum aggregate marks of 55% for SC and ST candidates. The post is reserved for ST category and the petitioner belongs to Lambada community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner submitted application online and he was issued admit card. A written test was conducted on 18-01-2014 online. The results of the written test were published on 23-01-2014 and the cut off mark for the ST candidates for the purpose of selection was stated to be 85. As per online information, the petitioner secured 102 marks in the written examination conducted online out of 150 marks and he was hoping to get selection as he secured the highest marks in the written examination. He was called for interview on 08-02-2014 and attended the interview. He fared well in the interview, which was conducted by a 5-member interview board. The petitioner was hoping that as he secured 102 marks in the written examination even if he gets less marks in the interview he was sure to get appointment. He submits that to his utter surprise when he saw the list of selected candidates on the website of the 2nd respondent-BDL, he could not find his name and that the 5th respondent was selected in ST category for the post of Management Trainee (Finance). When the petitioner enquired the 2nd respondent-BDL, he came to know that the 5th respondent was selected under ST category though he got far less marks than the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the entire information in respect of the marks obtained by him and also in respect of the other candidates including the selected candidate i.e. the 5th respondent (Puvva Chandrakanth). The 2nd respondent-BDL furnished the information to the petitioner which shocked him as the person who got far less marks in the written test was awarded higher marks in the interview and was shown as selected. The 2nd respondent-BDL furnished the information to the petitioner which shocked him as the person who got far less marks in the written test was awarded higher marks in the interview and was shown as selected. The details are given as below: Subsequently, the petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act (the RTI Act, for short) and came to know that he failed in the interview since he could not get 50% of the minimum marks allotted for the interview. The total marks allotted for interview are 15 and according to the respondents 2 to 4, one should get minimum of 7.50 marks (i.e. 50%) for qualifying for selection of the post applied for. 3. The petitioner submits that it is mentioned in the advertisement that one should get minimum of 60% marks in respect of OCs, 50% marks in respect of SCs and STs in the written test to qualify themselves for further selection. But, nowhere it is mentioned that one should get more than 50% marks in the interview. It is further submitted by him that no such rule exists in respect of the recruitment procedure in any organisation and for the first time a novel method was introduced by the respondents-organisation only to see that candidates of their choice would be selected by depriving the fair chances of meritorious candidates who secured higher marks in the written test. Nextly, it is submitted that the said procedure is unknown to law and in usual parlance even a candidate gets far less marks in the interview if he secured good marks in the written test, the aggregate of both has to be taken into consideration and the candidates who secured higher percentage of marks will be automatically selected without there being any condition that one should secure certain minimum marks in the interview. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that the aforesaid method adopted by the respondents 2 to 4 is against the provisions of the Constitution of India, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India and known principles of recruitment procedure and the above action in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. The interview was only a formal one. The interview was only a formal one. Only some general questions were put in the interview relating to the family background, educational qualifications and interest in the subjects taken. Therefore, according to the petitioner, only to eliminate the prospective and meritorious candidates, a novel method was adopted by awarding below 50% marks out of 15 marks in the interview obviously to reject the meritorious candidates and to select the candidates of the choice of the respondents. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in selecting the 5th respondent to the post of Management Trainee (Finance) under ST category who secured 63.43 marks which are far less than the marks secured by the petitioner i.e. 63.80 is totally arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the selection of the 5th respondent and to direct the appointment of the petitioner by passing appropriate orders. 5. The respondents 2 to 4 filed a Counter Affidavit contending, inter alia, as follows: The computer based online test comprised of 150 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), out of which 100 MCQs were based on Subject/Discipline Knowledge and 50 MCQs were based on General Aptitude. A category wise merit list was prepared based on the marks secured by the candidates in the online test. In order to limit the candidates in ratio of 1:7, based on the merit list, cut-off mark was finalised for each category separately to short list the candidates for interview. The list of candidates short listed for interview along with the cut-off mark for each category was hosted on the respondents website on 23-01-2014. The petitioner secured 102 marks out of 150 marks and the cut-off mark for ST category candidates was 85 marks. Total number of 8 candidates who secured more than 85 marks were called for interview against one ST vacancy of Management Trainee (Finance). The petitioner secured the highest marks among the 7 short listed candidates in the concerned category. 6. The interview for the post concerned was conducted on 08-02-2014. Out of 8 candidates called for in the ST category, 6 candidates attended the interview including the petitioner. The Interview Committee consisted of 5 members including one member as representative for SC/ST. The petitioner secured the highest marks among the 7 short listed candidates in the concerned category. 6. The interview for the post concerned was conducted on 08-02-2014. Out of 8 candidates called for in the ST category, 6 candidates attended the interview including the petitioner. The Interview Committee consisted of 5 members including one member as representative for SC/ST. Based on the performance of the candidates in the written test and interview, the Board submitted its recommendations. The list of candidates selected for the post of Management Trainee (Finance) was hosted on the website of the respondents on 14-02-2014. Mr. Puvva Chandrakanth (5th respondent) got selected as Management Trainee (Finance) in the ST category. 7. The contention of the respondents is that as per para 2.13.3 (B) of Recruitment Rules of the BDL, the selection process of Management Trainees comprises of written test (online test) and interview. The criteria and weightage in the selection process is as follows: i) Written Test - 85 Marks ii) Interview - 15 Marks As per para 2.13.3 (C) of Recruitment Rules of the BDL, minimum qualifying marks in each criterion for the ST category candidate is 50% i.e. the candidate has to secure minimum 7.5 marks in the interview. The marks obtained in the written test (i.e. out of 150 marks) is converted in accordance with the weightage of the written test criterion i.e. 85 marks. The petitioner has secured 102 marks in the online test, which is converted into 85 weightage i.e. 57.80 marks. He has secured 6 marks in the interview. Hence, the total mark secured in the selection process out of 100 marks is 63.80. Whereas, the selected candidate Mr. Puvva Chandrakanth (5th respondent) secured 89 marks in the online test whose converted weightage is 50.43 and secured 13 marks in the interview. The total marks of Mr. Chandrakanth are 63.43. In view of the Extant rule position, as the candidate has to secure 50% marks in the interview to get selected and the petitioner has secured only 6 marks out of 15 marks, he could not be selected. In view of the aforesaid contentions, the respondents 2 to 4 prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Chandrakanth are 63.43. In view of the Extant rule position, as the candidate has to secure 50% marks in the interview to get selected and the petitioner has secured only 6 marks out of 15 marks, he could not be selected. In view of the aforesaid contentions, the respondents 2 to 4 prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 2 to 4 for the first time in the counter disclosed the Recruitment Rules of BDL prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview but the same has not been mentioned in the Notification. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if according to the respondents 2 to 4, the condition of securing minimum marks is stated in the recruitment Rules unless it is made known to the candidates, rejection of the candidature at a later stage on the premise that the candidate failed to secure the minimum marks is arbitrary and illegal, which requires to be set aside by this Court in the present writ petition. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would contend that all the applicants have generated their application forms from the website of the respondents which also contains the Recruitment Rules and therefore, they cannot plead ignorance of the minimum qualifying marks relating to the interview. 10. Indisputably, the requirement of obtaining minimum marks in the interview was not notified in the advertisement made by the respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner could be able to know the said fact only when he obtained information from the respondents under the RTI Act as to how he was not selected for the post. Only at a later point of time, the petitioner was made aware that he was not selected as he could not secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the fact before appearing for the interview that he has to secure minimum 50% of the marks in the interview to become eligible for the post which he applied for and appeared. 11. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the fact before appearing for the interview that he has to secure minimum 50% of the marks in the interview to become eligible for the post which he applied for and appeared. 11. The only question which falls for consideration in the present writ petition is that on account of non-mentioning of the requirement of securing minimum marks in the interview whether the selection of the 5th respondent is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be appointed in his place ? The marks obtained in the written test and the total marks obtained by the petitioner (in the written test + interview) are higher than the marks obtained by the 5th respondent. The only difference is that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum 7.5 (50%) marks in the interview, whereas the 5th respondent got 13 marks in the interview. Therefore, the total marks obtained by the 5th respondent though are lesser than the marks obtained by the petitioner, the 5th respondent was selected for the post. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on K.MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P., in which case the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for the selection of District and Sessions Judges (Grade II) introduced minimum marks for the interview after Notification. The earlier recruitment never insisted upon the minimum marks to be obtained in the interview. The Supreme Court dealing with the situation took the view that the introduction of requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. 13. The facts in K.MANJUSREE (1 supra) are not exactly identical to the facts of the present case since in the case before the Supreme Court, no rules have been framed by the High Court prescribing the minimum marks for the interview and the criterion of prescribing minimum marks for the interview was introduced after completing the written examination as well as the interview. Whereas, in the instant case, the respondents 2 to 4 framed rules indicating the requirement of obtaining minimum marks in the interview but they have not mentioned the same in the advertisement whereunder they invited applications from the candidates. 14. Whereas, in the instant case, the respondents 2 to 4 framed rules indicating the requirement of obtaining minimum marks in the interview but they have not mentioned the same in the advertisement whereunder they invited applications from the candidates. 14. Another judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is BISHNU BISWAS v. UNION OF INDIA, in which case interview was never part of recruitment process and the Recruitment Rules only provide for a written examination having 50 maximum marks. Successful candidates were called for interview. Though such interview was not part of recruitment process, interviews were conducted. The Selection Committee allocated equal marks for the interview and also for the written test i.e. 50% each. 15. Therefore, the facts of the case in BISHNU BISWAS (2 supra) are also not identical to the facts of the present case since the selection in the present case is based on interview as well as written test. 16. However, the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court while disposing of the case in BISHNU BISWAS (2 supra) are crucial. The Supreme Court observed as follows: 20. The manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The candidate who secured 47 marks out of 50 in the written test had been given only 20 marks in the interview while large number of candidates got equal marks in the interview as in the written examination. Candidate who secured 34 marks in the written examination was given 45 marks in the interview. Similarly, another candidate who secured 36 marks in the written examination was awarded 45 marks in the interview. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that if the whole selection is scrapped, most of the candidates would be ineligible at least in respect of age as the advertisement was issued more than six years ago. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the direction of the High Court to continue with the selection process from the point it stood vitiated stating that it does not require any interference. 17. No doubt, it is within the competence of the respondents to prescribe minimum marks for the interview, the Appointing Authority can always prescribe the rules relating to recruitment and such rules cannot be questioned so long as they are not arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. 17. No doubt, it is within the competence of the respondents to prescribe minimum marks for the interview, the Appointing Authority can always prescribe the rules relating to recruitment and such rules cannot be questioned so long as they are not arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. However, this Court cannot refrain from taking into account the manner in which the marks were awarded to the candidates in the interview. There was only one post notified for the Management Trainee (Finance) under ST category. 7 candidates who secured the qualifying marks in the written test were called for interview. The marks allotted for written test are 85 and the marks allotted for interview are 15. Among all the candidates who appeared for the interview, the 5th respondent only got 13 marks whereas all the remaining candidates got less than 7.50 marks i.e. less than the minimum marks prescribed for the interview for the purpose of selection for the post. The manner in which the marks were awarded to the candidates in the interview clearly demonstrates that to enhance the prospects of the 5th respondent, he was made the only candidate who was awarded 13 marks and all the remaining candidates were awarded less than the minimum marks. In any event, this Court is of the view that the petitioner or any other candidate who applied for the post is under no obligation to know the method of selection other than which was indicated in the advertisement. Even if it is mentioned in the rules relating to the organisation of the respondents pertaining to the method of selection about the necessity of obtaining minimum marks in the interview, unless it is notified in the advertisement, the respondents cannot disqualify a candidate who failed to secure minimum marks in the interview though he got higher marks in the written test. The manner in which the selection of the 5th respondent was made thus does not stand to the legal scrutiny. The same is obviously arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. 18. Consequently, the selection of the 5th respondent for the post of Management Trainee (Finance) is set aside and the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to appoint the petitioner for the post of Management Trainee (Finance) within a period of 2 (two) months. The writ petition thus succeeds and is allowed, without any order as to costs. 18. Consequently, the selection of the 5th respondent for the post of Management Trainee (Finance) is set aside and the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to appoint the petitioner for the post of Management Trainee (Finance) within a period of 2 (two) months. The writ petition thus succeeds and is allowed, without any order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.