JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board is presently headed by the 4th respondent-Sri. A.B. Pradeep Kumar, as its Chairman. 2. The petitioner, Sri. K.S. Govindan Nair, has challenged the appointment of Sri. A.B. Pradeep Kumar, made by the Government through Ext.P9, on various grounds, but primarily that the process of selection, which culminated in the said appointment, has been vitiated by the illegal elimination of eligible persons, including himself; thereby having created an unlawful favourable terrain for certain candidates of the choice of the Selection Committee. The petitioner also alleges that his elimination from the process of selection was on account of caprice and mala-fides on the part of the members of the Selection Committee and thus, prays that the appointment of Sri. A.B. Pradeep Kumar be set aside by this Court. 3. I have heard Sri. Jaiju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. Brijesh Mohan, appearing for the petitioner - Sri. K.S. Govindan Nair, Sri. Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. Gayathri Potti, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent - Sri. A.B. Pradeep Kumar the learned State Attorney, Sri. K.V. Sohan, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. T. Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Kerala State Pollution Control Board. 4. As I have said above, the accusations in this writ petition, made by Sri. K.S. Govindan Nair, rest in part on the assertions of malice and mala-fides on the part of the members of the Selection Committee, but when this matter was considered today, his learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Jaiju Babu, submitted that such contentions are not being vehemently pressed and that they are intended only as a support to the main contention, namely, that the Selection process has been rendered untenable on account of the unlawful elimination of eligible candidates, including his client. 5. Sri. Jaiju Babu, submitted that such contentions are not being vehemently pressed and that they are intended only as a support to the main contention, namely, that the Selection process has been rendered untenable on account of the unlawful elimination of eligible candidates, including his client. 5. Sri. Jaiju Babu submitted that, as is limpid from Ext.P1 notification dated 27.02.2018, the Government of Kerala has prescribed the qualifications for the post of Chairman of the Pollution Control Board - which is, in fact, in obedience to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Techi Tagi Tara vs. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and Others, 2018 (11) SCC 734 , which are: (a) Masters Degree in Science Technology Engineering, with specialization in environmental issues; (b) experience of working in an institution engaged in environmental protection activities for a minimum period of 15 years or experience of a minimum of 15 years in industrial pollution, water purification and air pollution. 6. The learned Senior Counsel then showed me that, based on the qualifications so prescribed, the Government, thereafter, issued Ext.P3 notification, dated 05.05.2020, calling for applications from interested persons with requisite qualifications as mentioned above, to be made to the Principal Secretary, Environmental Department of the Government. He says that his client accordingly made Ext.P4 application and was expecting to be called for interview, but that he was taken aback when Ext.P9 order was issued by the Government - appointing Sri. A.B. Pradeep Kumar as the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board. The learned Senior Counsel thus contended that Ext.P9 order and the process that led to it, are both vitiated; and consequently, amenable to interference of this Court, under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In response to the afore submissions of Sri. Jaiju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Ramesh Babu, appearing for Sri. A.B. Pradeep Kumar, commenced his arguments by saying that neither the process of selection nor the issuance of Ext.P9 order in his client's favour, can be called into question by the petitioner because, going by the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board is to be “nominated” by the State Government. He submitted that this is in contradistinction to the provisions in the Act with respect to the appointment of a full time member Secretary, which stipulates that such officer shall be “appointed” by the State Government. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is a world of difference between these two words used in the Statute and that this has been employed deliberately, so that the Government gets a free hand in appointing any person of its choice as the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board. 8. After contending as afore, Sri. Ramesh Babu, submitted that the factual allegations impelled by the petitioner have absolutely no legs to stand on, because the Selection Committee - which was nominated by the Government through Ext.R1(d) order dated 18.06.2020 - comprised of the Chief Secretary as the Chairman and the Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Government of Kerala; along with Dr. K.P. Sudheer, who is the Vice Chairman of the KSCSTE and holding the temporary charge of the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board, as its members. He showed me that this Committee was, through the said order, authorized to scrutinize all the applications received; to conduct the interview and to make recommendations of a suitable candidates. 9. The learned Senior Counsel further explained that, as is manifest from Ext.R1(c), the Committee appears to have first done a broad screening of all the applications and to have found only 17 out of the 23 applicants to be eligible as per the qualifications prescribed; proceeding to thereafter call for the Annual Confidential Reports of those candidates who are already serving the Government and Reports from the Heads of Organizations and Departments of the candidates, along with their vigilance clearance from the Director of Vigilance, as is clear from Ext.R1(e) Minutes of their meeting. He said that this eventually led to Ext.R1(f) Minutes of the Committee to be recorded; wherein, out of 17 candidates mentioned above, only 8 were found eligible, as per the prescribed criterion, to be called for the interview. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is, thereupon, that the Committee interviewed these 8 people and finally recommended the name of his client, through Ext.R1(i). 10. Sri. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is, thereupon, that the Committee interviewed these 8 people and finally recommended the name of his client, through Ext.R1(i). 10. Sri. Ramesh Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, thus predicated that the Selection Committee has acted expressly in terms of the mandate given to them by the Government through Ext.P3 order and therefore, that the allegations made against them are completely without basis and intended only to subvert the legally completed process of selection. He relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Ushamani M. vs. State of Kerala, ILR 2008 (4) KER 729, to contend that this Court has therein approved a selection, which was done based on the interview alone, after the candidates were shortlisted by the Management, declaring that one who makes such appointments is authorized to do so, as long as it is based on reasonable and acceptable criteria. The learned Senior Counsel then tries to impress upon me that, as is unmistakable from Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner-Sri. Govindan Nair, which is in the same format as in the case of all candidates, including his own client, every one of them was asked to declare their details of experience; administrative experience; professional experience; membership in expert committee/professional bodies; involvement and formation of environmental programmes; scholarly achievements; publications; research projects; and honours/awards and fellowships. 11. The learned Senior Counsel thus contended that when the criterion for evaluation of the merit of a candidate was so prescribed, even in the applications made by the candidates - which all of them have unequivocally accepted without any challenge - the Selection Committee was legally sanctioned to evaluate them on the basis of these yardsticks, before they were interviewed. He concluded his submissions by saying that this is exactly what the Selection Committee has done in this case, where each one of the 17 candidates, who were earlier found qualified as per Ext.P1 notification, were shortlisted for being called for interview on the basis of the marks awarded to them under the heads: (i) professional experience; (ii) administrative experience; (iii) publications; (iv) exposure; (v) projects and (vi) awards. He resultantly prayed that this writ petition be dismissed, particularly because the edifice of the petitioner's case, on the alleged malice and mala-fides on the part of the members of the Selection Committee, has been given up, since it is obvious that it lacks substance to be established. 12. Shri K.V. Sohan, learned State Attorney, appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, justified the actions of the Selection Committee by asserting that, even in the case where a process of selection has only the component of interview, it is up to the Committee authorized to conduct the same and to shortlist the candidates based on the number of vacancies that are available. He submitted that since it is admitted that there was only one vacancy for being filled up in this case and when 17 candidates were found eligible, the Selection Committee was competent to make a short list out of them, based on the sanctioned criterion, as had been already published by the Government, which was available in the application format of the candidates. 13. Shri K.V. Sohan, drew strength for his contentions from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal, (2016) 10 SCC 484 , Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Another, (1994) 6 SCC 293 , K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and that of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Sivadasan C.T. vs. High Court of Kerala, (2018) 1 SCC 239 . 14. The learned State Attorney argued that the ratio of the afore cited precedents is unmistakable that when the vacancies are lesser in number and the applicants are much higher, a process of shortlisting is permissible in law, even where the only component of the selection is an interview. 15. The learned State Attorney then submitted that the Government had expressly authorized the Selection Committee, through Ex.R1(d), to scrutinize the applications also, apart from conducting the interview, which can only be to mean that they could assess the qualifications of each of the candidates, based on their declarations in the applications and to evaluate them, leading to the preparation of a list of those who are most eligible to be called for the interview. 16. Sri. 16. Sri. K.V. Sohan, in conclusion, argued that this is precisely what that the Committee has done and asserted that they have not travelled beyond their jurisdiction or authority, vested in them through the Government Order and further that the Government has ratified all their actions consequently, paving way to the appointment of the 4th respondent-Shri A.B. Pradeep Kumar. 17. Finally, Shri T. Naveen, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board, started his submissions by adopting most of the assertions of Shri Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel; adding that this is not a case where the petitioner or any other eligible person had been eliminated from the process of selection, but that their credentials - based on the declarations in their applications - were evaluated by the Committee, leading to a shortlist of the best to be called for interview, applying the prescribed criterion. 18. Shri T. Naveen, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot have any cause for grievance, particularly when the Selection Committee found the 4th respondent-Shri A.B. Pradeep Kumar, to be the most eligible among the candidates for being appointed and that, in any event of the matter, it was up to the Government to take a final call to appoint anyone one of their choice - even disregarding such recommendations - but that they have chosen to accept the same, clearly establishes that, after going through all the files, the Government thought that the best candidate available was 4th respondent-Shri A.B. Pradeep Kumar. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 19. An overview of all the submissions made before me as afore and the crux of the pleadings and counter pleadings available on record, ineluctably invites this Court solely to the consideration as to whether the Selection Committee has acted correctly in exercise of their jurisdiction, as vested in them through relevant Government Order; or whether they can be found fault with having dilated from the delineated confines of their competence and to have acted capriciously, without forensic basis. 20. An evaluation of the afore aspect would certainly require me to first see Ext.P1, which is the notification prescribing the qualifications for the post of Chairman of the Pollution Control Board. 20. An evaluation of the afore aspect would certainly require me to first see Ext.P1, which is the notification prescribing the qualifications for the post of Chairman of the Pollution Control Board. This notification crystally provides for the educational qualifications and experience as have already been recorded above, in addition to which, there are certain desideratums mentioned therein, namely, that the candidate must have experience in conducting environmental programmes for Officers and to have made publications involving innovative experience and capability in handling environmental problems. 21. Perspicuously, therefore, going by the notification, there are certain essential qualifications for each candidate and certain desirable additions to the same. It is based on this that Ext.P3 notification was issued, wherein, the mandatory qualifications and the desirable additions have been shown in two different columns. This notification invited candidates to offer their applications to the Principal Secretary, Environment Department; and thereafter, through Ext.R1(d) Order, the Government constituted the afore mentioned Selection Committee, granting them the competence to scrutinize the applications; to conduct the interview and make recommendations of a suitable candidate/candidates. 22. The Selection Committee so constituted appears to have met several times and two of their Minutes are available on record, along with the statement filed on behalf of the State of Kerala, as Exts.R1(e) and R1(f). 23. The first among the said Minutes, namely Ext.R1(e), shows that the Committee found 17 candidates, out of the 23 who had applied, to be “eligible” and this is also reflected in Ext.R1(c) compilation, wherein each candidate has been shown to be assessed on the mandatory and desirable qualifications, thus being found either eligible or ineligible. On such basis, the Committee, as is also evident from Ext.R1(e), decided to call for the Annual Confidential Reports of the candidates, who are working with the Government and the report of the head of the organization/department of the candidates who are otherwise, along with Vigilance Clearance from the Director of Vigilance. 24. Subsequently, as is recorded in Ext.R1(f) Minutes, the Committee affirms that all the reports as afore have been obtained and that they were all examined, along with the bio data of the 17 candidates mentioned above. 24. Subsequently, as is recorded in Ext.R1(f) Minutes, the Committee affirms that all the reports as afore have been obtained and that they were all examined, along with the bio data of the 17 candidates mentioned above. The Committee has further recorded that all those persons, against whom disciplinary proceedings and adverse vigilance reports were found pending, are eliminated and then proceeds, rather abruptly, that ‘based on the professional and administrative experience, publications, exposure outside the State and Country, projects executed, awards received, leadership demonstrated, vision based on the vision statement and public impact’ (sic) it is decided to call only eight among the 17 for interview. 25. A reflection on the opinion of the Selection Committee, as afore, is available from the second page of Ext.R1(g), where a consolidated score card appears to have been framed by them, adopting the following marking criteria: Marketing Criteria Professional 15 Years 10 Marks 1 Mark for every additional year >20 Years 15 Marks Administrative 0.5 Mark for each year >10 Years 5 Marks Publications 0.5 Mark for each publication/Book chapter >20 Years 10 Marks Exposure 2.5 Marks for each exposure visit >4 Years 10 Marks Projects 2.5 Marks for each research/consultancy >4 Years 10 Marks Awards 2.5 Marks for each award >4 Years 10 Marks After thus creating a ‘short list’ the Committee appears to have interviewed the eight candidates in it, to finally conclude that the 4th respondent-Shri A.B. Pradeep Kumar, is the most suitable for being appointed, leading to their recommendation to the Government through Ext.R1(h). 26. When the afore modus - adopted by the Selection Committee, is carefully inspected, it becomes rather undeniable that at the initial stage it operated as a Search Committee and weeded out six candidates, to find only 17 to be eligible. Normally, therefore, going by the purlieus of the jurisdiction vested in them by the Government, they ought to have interviewed all the said 17 candidates, provided they had favourable vigilance clearance and recommendations from the Heads of Department/Institution. In the case at hand, it is admitted - at least not being disputed - that the petitioner had obtained affirmative vigilance clearance, as also recommendations from the Head of the Department. 27. In the case at hand, it is admitted - at least not being disputed - that the petitioner had obtained affirmative vigilance clearance, as also recommendations from the Head of the Department. 27. But, the Interview Board, rather ineffably, decided to conduct a further screening - as if it was operating as a Search Committee again - and eliminated 9 among the 17 eligible candidates from the list for being called for the interview; and has justified this by saying that all the candidates were assessed on the criterion as afore recorded. 28. It is without requirement of further expatiation that the criterion followed by the Selection Committee are not ones that were prescribed in the notifications of the Government laying the qualifications or in inviting candidates to the post of Chairman, Kerala Pollution Control Board; but have been extrapolated by them, presumably from the applications of the candidates, taking note of the various heads included therein. 29. Irrefragably, the only impression that one can inevitably gather from this exercise is that the Selection Committee was again trying to eliminate candidates based on the credentials fixed on their own choice, though they were aware that all of them are fully eligible for being interviewed, going by the mandatory and “desirable” qualifications, as prescribed in Ext.P1 Government Order. 30. Therefore, the acme question is whether the Selection Committee could have employed eliminatory norms by themselves, to avoid calling eligible candidates to the interview; and this assumes great amount of significance in the backdrop of the admitted fact that, as per Ext.R1(d) Government Order, the only manner of selection was through interview. 31. Indubitably, therefore, when the petitioner and other qualified persons were eliminated from the interview, the only inferential conclusion can be that they were eliminated from selection process itself. I say this because, had the process been postulated to have several components, then certainly, if the candidates had gone though a few of them without being invited to the interview, the submissions of Shri T. Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board - that all of them had gone through the selection process - would have found some credence. 32. 32. However, in the case at hand, the sole component of the process of selection is the interview to be conducted by the Selection Committee and when eligible candidates were not interviewed by them, based on an elimination they effected - on certain criteria that they themselves fixed - this Court cannot find favour with such process and is constrained to hold that is vitiated and incapable of being granted imprimatur in law. 33. Before concluding my thoughts as afore, I must certainly evaluate the judgments that have been cited before me by the respondents, since they assert that the Selection Committee was entitled to eliminate candidates even before the interview. 34. The judgment cited by Shri Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel, namely Dr. Ushamani M. (Supra) was involving a factual scenario, where the management, which is the appointing authority, had shortlisted candidates, who alone were called for the interview. There is no doubt that the learned Judge, in Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said judgment, held that the mere fact that all applicants were not called for the interview is not a ground on which the selection process can be called into question and that the appointing authority had the competence to shortlist candidates based on reasonable and acceptable criterion. It was also noticed therein that the available vacancies are few, while the number of applicants were large, leading to the conclusion that it was open to the appointing authority to restrict the zone of consideration, subject to any minimum prescribed in the Rules and further that, if there was no such prescription, then the said authority only had to ensure the availability of reasonable number of candidates, as against the number of available vacancies, following acceptable criteria. 35. I am afraid that the observations and the holdings in Dr. Ushamani M. (Supra) cannot apply to the facts of this case because, unlike therein, what is assailed in this case is the process adopted by the Selection Committee, which certainly is in conflict with the delegation of power offered to them by the Government, through Ext.R1(f) order, in which it has been specified that their jurisdiction is limited to scrutinizing the applications and in conducting the interview, leading to a recommendation. 36. This is more so because, unlike Dr. 36. This is more so because, unlike Dr. Ushamani M. (Supra) the Selection Committee in this case is not the appointing authority but only a recommending body and has been constituted by the Government obviously to ensure that the best is made available for their final choice. Apodictically, the Selection Committee had the duty to interview all the eligible and qualified candidates and to place their recommendations before the Government, so that the best among them could have been appointed. For these reasons I cannot find Dr. Ushamani M. (Supra) to be applicable to the facts of this case, as I have said above. 37. Coming to the learned State Attorney, Shri K.V. Sohan, he relies vehemently on Salam Samarjeet Singh (Supra) and Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (Supra), again, to contend that the shortlisting by the competent Commission/Committee cannot be seem to be altering the nature of the selection process and that, it is, in fact, necessary to fix the limit of applicants to be called for interview, on some rational and objective basis, so that the credentials and merit of the candidates to be interviewed are pre-assessed and pre-valuated. He invited my attention to Paragraph 9 of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (Supra) to drive home the point that the process of shortlisting as afore has been declared to be not amounting to altering or substituting the eligibility criteria and that, as along as the Selection Committee applies its mind to evolve any rational and reasonable basis for such shortlisting, the process of selection cannot be found to be in error. 38. Sri. K.V. Sohan, also falls upon K. Manjusree (Supra) and Sivadasan C.T. (Supra), wherein the question considered by this Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court respectively, was whether a minimum qualifying mark could have been adopted during the process of interview, so as to scale down the number of candidates for being considered for selection and that this has been found favour by the Courts as being not violative of the fundamental selection process. 39. Interestingly, Shri Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied on K. Manjusree (Supra), along with Sreekumar vs. T.D. Board, 1993 (1) KLT 740 and Praveen S. Lal vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (4) KLT 712 , in substantiation of his predication that the Selection Committee obtains no jurisdiction to refuse to interview all the qualified candidates. 40. Interestingly, Shri Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied on K. Manjusree (Supra), along with Sreekumar vs. T.D. Board, 1993 (1) KLT 740 and Praveen S. Lal vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (4) KLT 712 , in substantiation of his predication that the Selection Committee obtains no jurisdiction to refuse to interview all the qualified candidates. 40. There can be little doubt that the declarations in Manjusree (supra) are to the effect that once a process begins, its terms cannot be altered in detriment to the candidates; and as far as Sreekumar (supra) and Praveen S. Lal (supra) are concerned, they are precedents for the ratio that a selection committee, which is constituted for the purpose of interview, cannot lay down oppressive criteria so as to eliminate candidates from it. 41. What is vitally important in this case is that the process of identification of the best candidate for being appointed as the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board has been explicitly stipulated by the Government to be through an interview conducted by the Selection Committee constituted as per Ext.R1(d). Going by this order, the Government has authorized the said Committee only to scrutinize the applications, thus to identify the eligible candidates qua Ext.P1 notification; and then to interview them and make a recommendation. 42. As I have already noticed above, initially, the Selection Committee acted correctly by arriving at Ext.R1(c) list of eligible candidates, but then egregiously erred in prescribing criterion of their own, for the purpose of eliminating 9 among the 17 eligible candidates from the interview. What is of some consternation of this Court is that even the process of shortlisting - assuming it can be found to be legally correct – has been done without proper thought by the Selection Committee because, it is obvious that the 8th person in Ext.R1(f) shortlist, a certain Dr. Sudheer Padickal, had been earlier found by the Committee themselves to be not eligible as per Ext.P1 notification. 43. That apart, as has been indited by me more than once before, when the Government invited candidates for the process of selection - which was specified to be only on interview - it was incumbent upon the Selection Committee to subject all eligible among them to such process and could not have eliminated them on their own whim and fancy. 44. 44. I am reminded of the famous words of Benjamin Cordazo - which he, of course, spoke in relation to Judges - to hold that the Committee could not have acted like a Knight- Errant, roaming on their own free will, pursuing their own notions of beauty and goodness. Even though the Committee may have acted bona-fide to select the best among the available candidates, as long as they obtained no jurisdiction or competence to eliminate eligible candidates before interview, such action cannot be found to be legally correct, whatever be the thought behind it. 45. In that perspective, when I examine the whole process panoptically, it is rendered doubtless that when 17 eligible candidates were identified to be eligible for being interviewed initially, there was no preceptible requirement for the Committee to have further pruned it - employing certain criterion which they themselves fixed - to bring the number down to eight and to confine the interview among such persons. This certainly removed several admittedly qualified candidates from the field of consideration of the Government, since, as is rightly submitted by Sri. Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel, it is the Government which has to finally make the nomination as per Section 4(a) of the Act. In fact, by doing so, the Committee has deprived the Government of being able to make an informed choice from among all the qualified candidates available. 46. There is another reason why I am persuaded to the afore opinion, which is that, had the number of candidates been disproportionately high, certainly, the process of shortlisting could have been considered, but with the prior sanction of the Government. However, the admitted position herein is that only 23 candidates had applied, out of whom 17 alone were found to be qualified by the Selection Committee through the initial screening. Obviously, therefore, the Committee could have easily conducted interview for all the 17 candidates and there is no cogent or compelling reason available on record as to why 9 among them had been eliminated in the manner as has been done through Ext.R1(f). This is especially because the Committee was open to interviewing candidates through videoconferencing also and it is admitted that two among the candidates mentioned in Ext.R1(f) were so interviewed. 47. This is especially because the Committee was open to interviewing candidates through videoconferencing also and it is admitted that two among the candidates mentioned in Ext.R1(f) were so interviewed. 47. This Court, therefore, is unable to comprehend why the Committee should have eliminated candidates like the petitioner and others from the zone of consideration, thereby effectively removing them from the process of selection, which, as I have already seen above, is only the interview and nothing else. 48. In real effect, what the petitioner and others like him, have faced in these factual background is to have been not allowed to participate in the process of selection, even though the Government invited him, through Ext.P2 notification and though he was found qualified as per Ext.P1 notification by the Selection Committee themselves. 49. In the conspectus of the above, I cannot grant the stamp of approval to the process now completed by the Government, and am, therefore, constrained to set aside the same; nevertheless, with liberty being reserved to redo the process in terms of law and abiding the statutory provisions implicitly. 50. However in the interregnum, I am of the view that the 4th respondent-Sri. A.B. Pradeep Kumar, should be allowed to continue as the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board provisionally, because I have not found anything against him nor do I find any reason why he could not have been selected by the Government, had the process been completed as per law. 51. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside the process of selection, which has finally culminated in Ext.R1(h); with a consequential direction to the Government to ensure that all the eligible candidates, as mentioned in Ext.R1(c), are interviewed by the Selection Committee, culminating in an appropriate recommendation from them; leading to the consequential nominations to be made by the Government as per the mandate of Section 4(a) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 52. Until such time as the afore exercise is completed and for which purpose I fix the time frame of four months from today, I allow the 4th respondent to function as the Chairman of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and his continuance therein will be subject to the decision to be taken by the Government consequent to the afore exercise.