JUDGMENT R.S. Dalvi, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. These are four of the several writ petitions filed in this court challenging orders of cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners to various posts in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, State of Goa, the Code of Conduct having come into force in view of the elections. Certain complaints having been received with regard to the appointments in certain specified sectors as having been made despite and after the Code of Conduct having come into force and having been made known to the appointing authority, the State Government instituted an inquiry. The result of the inquiry demonstrated various irregularities and illegalities in the selection process. Hence, the State Government issued orders of cancellation of appointments. Two of the writ petitions challenge such notification and orders and pray for various ancillary reliefs. Two other writ petitions require the issue of appointment order and a fresh selection process under a fresh advertisement to be issued by the State Government. 3. In essence, the petitions are similar and call for a similar yardstick for determination of the questions arising therein. 4. There has been a tidy jurisdiction with regard to the selection process. The parameters of examinations for selecting the candidates are laid down by the Supreme Court. These are essentially dependent upon the kind of process to which the selection has to be made, as also the number of vacancies that would be required to be filled in. No hard and fast rule is laid down. The parameters would vary on case to case basis, but upon the definite principles. 5. In view of the fact that the fact situation in two petitions is different from the two other, it would be material to first analyse the settled propositions of law and then to apply them to the facts of each of the aforesaid cases. 6. The seminal principle for selection and appointment has been laid down in the case of Jitendra Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 2 SCC 161 , closely followed in the case of Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology and another vs. M. Pushkaran (2008) 1 SCC 448 by the Supreme Court and thereafter by our Court. (a) The rule is that a selectee as such has no legal right to appointment just because his name may appear in the select list. What has been observed is that a notification issued by way of an advertisement or otherwise is only an intention of the Government to make an offer to the citizens to apply for the posts which are advertised therein. The contract of employment would come into force only when the offer made by the applicant is accepted by the State by virtue of an order of appointment. (see Pritpal Singh vs. State of Haryana and ors. (1994) 5 SCC 696)). (b) For the culmination of the selection process into an order of appointment, settled principles of law which reflect bona-fides and fairness as part of a public policy would have to be applied and shown. (c) Where the process has been duly satisfactorily followed, the appointments would have to be made as per the result of the selection in public interest. Hence, the action of the State to interfere with the good work done by the previous Government solely because of change in regime must be deprecated ( see Jitendra Kumar (supra)–para 57). (d) If illegalities have been committed, the same should be rectified. If a reasonable apprehension is shown in the mind of the State, upon the overall situation, including the post-haste manner in which actions had been taken to cause an inquiry to be made and suspend the process, the decision would not be taken to be arbitrary or unreasonable ( see Jitendra Kumar (supra)–para 57). (e) Where no illegalities are apparent and where beneficiaries of irregularities or illegalities could be weeded out, the entire selection process cannot be cancelled (see Union of India and ors. vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and another (2003) 7 SCC 285 ). (f) Where, however, the beneficiaries of such illegalities or irregularities cannot be identified and some of the candidates will have deserved selection, whilst others will have not, no weeding out would be imperative. The public interest would outweigh the interest of the candidates who were in the wrong. They would be entitled to compete again in the next selection process. (see Pritpal Singh (supra)). (g) The two views of selection process contained in a written examination and an interview are largely settled to be accepted modes for recruiting the candidates by the Government. The public interest would outweigh the interest of the candidates who were in the wrong. They would be entitled to compete again in the next selection process. (see Pritpal Singh (supra)). (g) The two views of selection process contained in a written examination and an interview are largely settled to be accepted modes for recruiting the candidates by the Government. A written test would be an objective criteria. The interview would largely be dependent upon a substantive satisfaction of the interviewer. Whereas the former would reflect merit on intellect and knowledge, the latter would be prone and susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness, favouritism, nepotism, etc. Hence: (i) the guidelines generally followed is to have not more than 15 % of marks for an oral interview since the case of Mohinder Sain Garg vs. State of Punjab (1991) 1 SCC 662 in the case of candidates who are fresh from colleges/schools. This would be for the candidates requiring to be appointed in mass appointments to lower cadres such as clerks etc.. Higher posts such as that of Principals/Headmasters/Medical Officers, etc. would necessitate a different selection process, requiring more emphasis on interview to determine their intelligence and emotional quotients as also personality. However, percentages for written test and oral interview could vary. (ii) Twenty percent marks for viva voce as against 80% marks for written test has been held to be in order in case of Jasvinder Singh and ors vs. State of J&K and ors., (2003) 2 SCC 132 . (iii) Similarly, 50% marks for academic performance and 50% for interview as selection method was held acceptable in the case of Azar Ahmad vs. State of Bihar and others, (1994) 1 SCC 150 . The real test was whether the allocation of such marks was with an oblique intention or so arbitrary as capable of being abused and misused in its exercise. (iv) Similarly for recruitment to the posts of Principals/Headmasters, selection solely based on interview was held to be not per se illegal (see Kiran Gupta and ors. vs. State of U.P. And others (2000) 7 SCC 719 ). It was observed that there was no rule of universal application with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview which depends on several factors and the permissible percentage has to be decided on the facts of each case. vs. State of U.P. And others (2000) 7 SCC 719 ). It was observed that there was no rule of universal application with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview which depends on several factors and the permissible percentage has to be decided on the facts of each case. (v) In a selection process, upon elimination of the candidates securing lesser than minimum marks and where more than 1200 candidates appeared for the interview for only 54 posts, it was held that the process cannot be vitiated merely on that ground that there was an excessively high percentage of marked for viva voce test. (see Mohinder Sain Garg vs. State of Punjab and ors.) (vi) Similarly fixation of 35% marks for interview to the post of Munsif was accepted and was observed that the same has to be respected (see State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin, (1988) 1 SCR 794 ). (h) The number of candidates taken up for the interview may be a guide to consider, but the magnitude of the number of candidates interviewed on a specified day cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the selection process was a farce and that a fair chance was not given to each candidate (see Joginder Singh (supra)) in which only a practical examination and interview was held to be enough for the Class-IV post of learner bookbinder. (i) Shortlisting of candidates upon any written examination is an accepted mode. Of course, the method of shortlisting as set out in the case of B. Ramakichenin vs. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 362 ) would have to be adopted. This may be adopted even if it is not mentioned in the advertisement. (j) Though the State has a right to cancel or nullify the selection process since the candidate has no vested right to be appointed upon a mere selection which is only a recommendatory exercise, after the exercise of selection has been done by the Commission or by the Committee by holding a written test, preparing a select list and then communicating it to the Government - “the Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reasons nullify the whole exercise.” The State cannot act in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona-fide for appropriate reasons and not on its whims. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona-fide for appropriate reasons and not on its whims. (see Daulatrao V. Rane Sardessai vs. State of Goa, 2013 (2) ALL MR 94). 7. Consequently, each act in the selection process by itself is not capable of denunciation. Several acts taken together must be seen to conclude whether it would exhibit an unfair and arbitrary process smacking of the vice of favouritism or nepotism. It would be much like the doctrine of reading a document or a statute as a whole; the selection process as whole would have to be viewed. 8. In Writ Petition No.78/2013, 27 posts of Attendant Dresser and 12 posts of Field Assistant were to be filled in by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Government of Goa. The selection process would reflect the following chronology : a) An advertisement was published in the newspaper on 25th October, 2011; b) The candidates applied on various dates between 8th October, 2011 and 11th November, 2011 for the post of Attendant Dresser; c) Interview was fixed on 26th November, 2011; d) By Letter dated 14th November, 2011 sent to the candidates offer of temporary appointment was made; e) The appointment was accepted on 23rd December, 2011; f) Office order for appointment was issued on 23rd December, 2011 and 26th December, 2011. It was subject to producing medical certificate and character and antecedents certificate; g) Medical certification was done between 23rd December, 2011 to 26th December, 2011 in case of most of the candidates; h) The Model Code of Conduct came into force on 24th December, 2011; i) Duty joining report was filed by the candidates on 26th December, 2011; j) The Notification for not giving effect to the order of appointment of the candidates until the Model Code of Conduct was lifted was issued on 7th January, 2012. 9. In Writ Petition No. 79/2013, various posts of Bull Attendant, Driver, Milkman, Labourer/Worker, Laboratory Attendant, Peon, and Field Assistant were to be filled in by the same Department. The selection process would reflect the following chronology : a) An advertisement was published in the newspaper on 30th August, 2011; b) The applications were received from the candidates between 5th September, 2011 and 15th September, 2011; c) Temporary appointment offer was made between 24th October, 2011 and 4th November, 2011. The selection process would reflect the following chronology : a) An advertisement was published in the newspaper on 30th August, 2011; b) The applications were received from the candidates between 5th September, 2011 and 15th September, 2011; c) Temporary appointment offer was made between 24th October, 2011 and 4th November, 2011. d) The appointment was accepted between 24th October, 2011 and 9th November, 2011 e) Medical certification was done between 3rd November, 2011 and 14th November, 2011; f) Office orders for appointments were issued to all the candidates on 21st December, 2011 subject to producing character and antecedent certificate; g) The Model Code of Conduct came into force on 24th December, 2011; h) The candidates joined service between 24th December, 2011 to 26th December, 2011; i) The Notification for not giving effect to the order of appointment of the candidates until the Model Code of Conduct was lifted was issued on 7th January, 2012. 10. In Writ Petition No.91/2013, an advertisement for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), Public Works Department was given on 17th June, 2011. (2) The Departmental Selection Committee had a meeting on 12th August, 2011 for selection of candidates. (3) The offers of appointment were dated 16th December, 2011; (4) The Model Code of Conduct came into force on 24th December, 2011; (5) The appointments were accepted by the candidate on 28th December, 2011; (6) The appointments were kept on hold in view of the Election Code of Conduct which had come into force. (7) The appointment has been cancelled/revoked and fresh appointment is sought to be made under a fresh advertisement dated 2nd July, 2012. 11. In Writ Petition No.505/2013, an advertisement for three posts of Lower Division Clerk was published on 3rd October, 2011. (2) The applications were received on 4th October, 2011; (3) The candidates were called for computer test on 18th November, 2011; (3) By Government letter dated 10th November, 2011, certain candidates were shortlisted for oral interview scheduled on 15th December, 2011 under letter of the Government dated 2nd December, 2011; (4) The offer of temporary appointment was made on 22nd December, 2011; (5) The Model Code of Conduct came into force on 24th December, 2011; (6) The candidates accepted offers on 26th December, 2011 (7) They have not been given appointment orders in view of the Circular dated 9th January, 2012 of the Government. 12. 12. In view of the aforesaid chronology what transpired in the selection process would have to be viewed. Similar affidavits are filed in Writ Petition Nos.78 and 79 of 2013 by the present Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Government of Goa to show the alleged illegalities/ irregularities. That reply may be considered in both the petitions together. Enumeration of the illegalities/irregularities may be considered essentially in order of their gravity brought out in the inquiry being conducted by the Anti Corruption Branch, Directorate of Vigilance, Government of Goa, Altinho, Panaji, Goa thus: (a) The entire process was commenced and completed posthaste and even after the Model Code of Conduct came into effect and despite information of it being given to the then Director of Animal Husbandry Department on 28th November, 2011. (b) Interviews of 1457 candidates were conducted from 21st September, 2011 to 29th September, 2011. On an average more than 100 candidates were interviewed on a single day. These interviews were for different posts with different categories conducted at once. On an average 2 to 7 minutes are stated to have been devoted to a single candidate even on the premise that the interviews continued from morning till evening. (c) The Departmental Selection Committees were wrongly constituted. Certain Departmental Selection Committee were concerned with the same department. Only in one case there was outside Departmental Selection Committee. ST-OBC members who were to be mandatorily on the Departmental Selection Committee were not present and have not interviewed the candidates. (d) The Members of the Departmental Selection Committee separately conducted the interviews, instead of jointly conducting them, to share the candidates between them. Several candidates have been interviewed by a single member of the Departmental Selection Committee. (e) Note of the pencil entries have been destroyed and not found. Members of the Departmental Selection Committee have not signed the minutes on the same day. It has been shown to be signed on 12th December, 2011. (f) Offers of temporary appointments are shown to have been sent by ordinary post on 21st December, 2011. However, all the petitioners submitted their acceptance on 23rd December, 2011 within two days of the date of dispatch of the letters. Several candidates have deposed in the inquiry that they were handed over offers of temporary appointment in person and hence sending them by ordinary post letter would be only a creation of record. However, all the petitioners submitted their acceptance on 23rd December, 2011 within two days of the date of dispatch of the letters. Several candidates have deposed in the inquiry that they were handed over offers of temporary appointment in person and hence sending them by ordinary post letter would be only a creation of record. These appointment orders mention that they were sent by registered post which is incorrect. These offers were subject to production of medical certificate and character antecedents certificate in one petition and subject to character and antecedent certificate in other petition. (g) The medical certificate would have to precede appointment order as per rules, as after appointment it is futile to test the medical condition of an employee. The medical certificates were without photographs of the candidates and issued upon payment of fees between Rs.10/- to Rs.120/-. These certificates were handed over by the candidates themselves and were submitted by them in their respective departments, a procedure contrary to the regulated procedure which required the department as also the medical attendant to communicate the requirement of a medical test and the result of the medical test between themselves. The certificate of character and antecedent was similarly obtained on the next day. (h) 65 to 75 marks were allotted for the educational qualification. The minimum eligibility criteria was passing of Standard VIII. Five additional marks were to be given for passing Standard X. Five further marks were to be given for passing standard XII. Five extra marks were to be given to co-curricular activities and sports and 5 marks were allotted for experience. The viva voce was given 15 marks. There was no written examination. It is argued that everybody got 65 marks and in view of no written test, it is understood that the marks allotted for the interview are more than 15%, a condition that would breed arbitrariness and favouritism. (i) A majority of the candidates hailed from Ponda Taluka. They gave different addresses for correspondence. However, their certificates of residence showed that most of them were from Ponda. Favouritism is accordingly alleged. (j) The candidates from Employment Exchange have not been considered as they were not sponsored. 13. The aforesaid classification of marks does not show that interview was the only criteria, though there was no written examination. The posts were of Bull Attendants, Drivers, Milkmen, Labourers/Workers, Laboratory Attendants, Peons, and Field Assistants. Favouritism is accordingly alleged. (j) The candidates from Employment Exchange have not been considered as they were not sponsored. 13. The aforesaid classification of marks does not show that interview was the only criteria, though there was no written examination. The posts were of Bull Attendants, Drivers, Milkmen, Labourers/Workers, Laboratory Attendants, Peons, and Field Assistants. Such posts do not merit written examination. Of course, they are all candidates of lower cadres and hence, only interview is also not merited for such candidates. However, in this case educational qualifications have been given some weightage. Even if a large part of the classification of marks would be for the minimum qualification and each candidate would obtain those marks, the candidates who are more qualified would obtain higher marks. Hence, per se the classification is not wholly erroneous, in view of the aforesaid judgments laying down that there can be no straight jacket formula for percentage of marks reserved for interview and that it may vary from case to case. Similarly, relying upon passing of examination would show some percentage of marks reserved for educational qualification which may suffice to give a candidate an edge in a cadre to which he applied for the government service. 14. Candidates joined service after the code of conduct came into effect. 15. It is alleged that one Vikrant Dessai has been taken/continued in service after report of the ACB though the entire selection process was sought to be cancelled. The Government has conceded his candidature since there was no complaint for the post of Milkman to which post he had applied. His character and antecedent certificate was submitted on 26th April, 2012 by the District Magistrate, South Goa and received on 3rd May, 2012. A complaint was received only for the posts of Field Assistant and Attendant Dresser. Hence, the appointment of all other persons to other posts is not under challenge, including that of Vikrant Dessai. 16. In Writ Petition No.91/2013, there was no written examination conducted for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) PWD, as per Memorandum/Circular dated 5th March, 2007. The circular shows that different methods are and may be observed by different Departments for selection process so far as they are impartial and objective. It observes that open competitive examination is an ideal mode of recruitment. The circular shows that different methods are and may be observed by different Departments for selection process so far as they are impartial and objective. It observes that open competitive examination is an ideal mode of recruitment. This may be based exclusively on written examination or it may be exclusively on interview or it may be a mixture of both. It is for the Government to decide which would be appropriate. The circular says that the marks for oral interview must be minimal so as to avoid charges of arbitrariness upon subjective test. The pattern of the examination (oral, written, marking scheme etc.) is to be based on the requirements of the service, the minimum qualifications prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, etc. to be decided by the experts in the field. Weightage to the oral interview is also to be based upon those factors. Consequently, there is procedure in the fixation of the classification for selection. The Memorandum shows that for the candidates of Groups C and D, the posts requiring lower qualification, competitive examination must invariably rely heavily on written examination and resort to the interview test must be minimal and in such cases the weightage for oral interview should be to the extent of 15%. For higher posts and cadre requiring experience, interview test would be given more weightage. Further oral interviews should not be the only and exclusive test for recruitment. It should be preceded by short-listing based on merits. Written test would be a qualifying test which is like an elimination test, followed by an interview. 17. Though there was no written examination, 65 marks were allotted to the candidates having a degree/diploma, 5 marks were for AutoCAD/computers, 10 marks for sports and curricular activities and 5 marks for previous apprenticeship, leaving 15 marks for oral interview. It is contended that this in effect is leaving 100 marks for the interview. All the candidates would be having degree or diploma and hence, all would get 65 marks. However for computer, marks would be given on merits. Experienced candidates would get further marks for apprenticeship training. This would give the candidates with merits an edge. Similarly, 10 marks for sports cannot be by way of substantive satisfaction. It will have to be given on giving certificate showing merit in such activity. However for computer, marks would be given on merits. Experienced candidates would get further marks for apprenticeship training. This would give the candidates with merits an edge. Similarly, 10 marks for sports cannot be by way of substantive satisfaction. It will have to be given on giving certificate showing merit in such activity. Consequently, the selection process cannot be stated to be solely based on interview. The Office Memorandum cannot be stated to be an imperative, mandatory direction to have the written examination. For engineers the examination already given by way of Diploma/Decree may be in order. 18. Of course, the conduct of the interview would depend much upon the character of the interviewer and the responsibility with which he carries out his function of appointing the Engineers in Government service in the country. Merits of an interview cannot be underestimated. It is a personalized test and specially to higher cadres it becomes apt. Merits of a test by interview has been observed in the case of Daulatrao v. Rane Sardessai, supra thus : “It is indeed not always that a person who scores high marks at the written examination does as well or well in the interview and vice-versa. The importance of an interview can never be undermined. It often helps in appointing the most suitable candidate for the post. It happens ever so often that a candidate who scores lower marks in the written examination is found to be more suitable for a post than the one who scored higher marks at the written examination. This is a subjective fact dependent considerably upon the perception of the interview panel. Thus, the mere fact that a candidate is selected in preference to another although he scored lower marks at the written examination would not indicate any mala fides or impropriety in the selection process.” 19. Of course, if integrity of interviewer is compromised, the interview would do as much harm. Thus giving greater weightage to qualifying test, previous qualification, written examination or any other form of shortlisting on merits would be in order. 20. Taking into account the aforesaid factors in the above writ petitions, it will have to be determined separately in each writ petition for specified candidates whether or not their appointments could come under fire, necessitating them to be revoked or cancelled. 20. Taking into account the aforesaid factors in the above writ petitions, it will have to be determined separately in each writ petition for specified candidates whether or not their appointments could come under fire, necessitating them to be revoked or cancelled. As aforesaid, the Court will have to consider the lack of any vested right in the candidates vis-à-vis the sanctity of an interview which cannot be “quietly and without good and valid reasons” nullifiled, as observed in the case of Daulatrao (supra). Further, merely because the Code of Conduct comes into effect and penultimate or the ultimate stage of the selection process is left incomplete before such date, the entire selection process cannot stand vitiated as observed in the case of Jitender Kumar (Supra). Similarly, taking further from the aforesaid judgment, some irregularity may not render itself singularly to revocation; several irregularities smacking of indiscriminate haste and illegal procedure to achieve the ends, would certainly be depracable and consequently such appointments may be nullified. 21. The complaints made to the Government in Writ Petition No.78 and 79 of 2013 were not for all the posts; They were for the posts of Field Assistant and Attendant Dresseser. The appointments of those persons are seen to have been made upon the entire selection process which deserves to be condemned and consequently cancelled. The Government action in that behalf cannot be successfully challenged. 22. However, for the candidates in Writ Petition No.91/2013, the mere non-following of the memorandum in setting out a separate written examination cannot vitiate the selection process in view of certain marks having been allotted for previous such examination undertaken by the candidates, leaving a part of the process determinable by the interview. In the absence of showing gross misconduct of the interviewer or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance, setting aside the appointments made in that case, which commenced from issuance of advertisement dated 17th August, 2011 and which culminating in offers of appointment dated 16th December, 2012, well prior to the Code of Conduct coming into force, would be to nullifying the whole exercise of the selection process “quietly and without good and valid reasons” which cannot be permitted by the Court. 23. For the petitioners in Writ Petition No.505/2013, the selection process must be viewed upon the premise that 3 Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) were to be appointed. 23. For the petitioners in Writ Petition No.505/2013, the selection process must be viewed upon the premise that 3 Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) were to be appointed. These clerks would require essentially to work on computers for data entry, etc.. The Computer test was taken. The candidates were shortlisted. Thereafter, interviews were conducted. The argument on behalf of the Government is that the computer test is only to see the computer proficiency without more and hence must be rejected, as written examination was not held. LDCs may not be required to show their proficiency either in language, general knowledge or any technical expertise and hence the computer test for them would be the written test. That having been taken, it cannot be said that they were appointed only by oral interview, which led to arbitrariness and favouritism. The process for their appointment commenced from 4th October, 2011 when the Code of Conduct was no where in sight. The computer test held on 18th November, 2011 was followed by an interview on 15th December, 2011.Four weeks’ gap would show consideration of the computer test result, without any haste. The interviews in this case are not alleged to have been conducted by a wholly illegal process. The offers of appointment have also been made prior to the code of conduct coming into force. The petitioners have accepted their appointments after the code came into force. The petitioners were ordinary citizens and were not aware of the implications of the code. It appears that the petitioners’ medical certification and the certification of character is not shown to have been done prior to the order of appointment as required under the rules. New selection process has commenced. The petitioners have applied pursuant to the new advertisement and have followed the selection process. 24. In view of the above, the selection process and consequent letters of appointment to the posts of Field Assistant and Attendant Dresser in Writ Petitions No.78 and 79 of 2013 are correctly cancelled and the order of cancellation challenged by the petitioners is not interfered with. The appointments of other persons being Driver, Milkman, Labourer, Attendant, Peon are not interfered with and shall continue. The appointment of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.91/2013 dated 6th December, 2011 is held to be correctly made and must be given effect to. The appointments of other persons being Driver, Milkman, Labourer, Attendant, Peon are not interfered with and shall continue. The appointment of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.91/2013 dated 6th December, 2011 is held to be correctly made and must be given effect to. However, the fresh advertisement dated 18th December, 2012 which is sought to be revoked/cancelled may not be revoked/cancelled upon the petitioners’ appointment being effected with reference to the offer of appointment dated 16th December, 2011 and following the prescribed procedure for the ultimate appointment order. 25. In Writ Petition No.505/2013, writ of mandamus to issue an appointment order which would not have been issued due to the Code of Conduct coming into force, cannot be directed. Similarly, in view of the fact that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.505/2013 has applied for appointment under fresh selection process also, no relief needs to be granted. 26. Consequently, the petitions of the Field Attendant and Attendant Dresser being Writ Petition Nos.78 and 79 of 2013 stand dismissed. The Rule is discharged in both the petitions. The Rule is granted in the above terms in Writ Petition No.91/2013. Writ Petition No.505/2013 stands dismissed, with no order as to costs and the rule is discharged.