JUDGMENT : MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. These intra court appeals are filed challenging orders dated 08.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in different writ petitions, whereby, the action of the appellant-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short ‘the appellant-Public Service Commission’) insofar as calling the qualified candidates for interview in connection with different recruitments without adding weightage marks towards academic performance, has been held to be illegal. Consequently, respective results declared by the appellants have been quashed with a further direction to the appellant-Public Service Commission to first add the marks of screening test/objective type test and of academics and thereafter declare the revised results and then proceed to hold interview. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge further show that though other issues were also raised, but those issues have been kept open. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that all these appeals, except D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022, arise out of orders passed in writ petitions challenging recruitment to the posts of Veterinary Officer, Assistant Agricultural Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry), Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry), Botany, Assistant Agricultural Officer and Assistant Fisheries Development Officer, because all those cases are based on the common ground and pari materia provisions contained in respective recruitment rules, identical terms, conditions and recitals in the advertisements though for different category of posts. Further, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022 has been filed by the appellants who were writ petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020 with the prayer that the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of not deciding the prayer no. (ii)(a), (ii)(b), (ii)(c), (ii)(d) and (ii)(f) in the aforesaid writ petition be quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed in terms of all the prayers made in the writ petition. Therefore, all the appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for convenience, facts mentioned in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 568/2022 which arises out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020 are being taken as the lead case. 2. The appellant-Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 22.10.2019 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Veterinary Officer. The respondents-writ petitioners and other candidates applied for the posts. However, for convenience, facts mentioned in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 568/2022 which arises out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14328/2020 are being taken as the lead case. 2. The appellant-Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 22.10.2019 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Veterinary Officer. The respondents-writ petitioners and other candidates applied for the posts. After holding an objective type test based on multiple choice, the Public Service Commission prepared and declared the result on 26.11.2020 wherein 1878 candidates were declared shortlisted for the purpose of interview. As the roll numbers of the respondents-writ petitioners did not find place in the result declared for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview, writ petitions were filed. Challenge was made to the process of selection and preparation of list of successful candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview on various grounds. According to the respondents-writ petitioners, the result was declared without issuing final answer key upon consideration of the objections to the model answer key, without issuing cut off marks for respective category, without revealing zone of consideration for the purpose of shortlisting and also without disclosing criteria of giving weightage marks for the academics. One of the main grounds to attack the process of selection and shortlisting was that the list of successful candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview was prepared without adding the weightage marks of academics to the marks secured by the candidates including the respondents-writ petitioners in the screening test/objective type test which according to the respondentswrit petitioners was against the provisions of the governing rules as contained in the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Recruitment Rules of 1963’), the procedure for selection provided in the advertisement and otherwise arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory and unfair. 3. In its return, the appellant-Public Service Commission defended its action by submitting that shortlisting for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview is based on common selection process, i.e, comparative merit and the candidates were called for interview on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the objective type test. 3. In its return, the appellant-Public Service Commission defended its action by submitting that shortlisting for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview is based on common selection process, i.e, comparative merit and the candidates were called for interview on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the objective type test. According to the appellants, the candidates were notified for interview without adding weightage marks of academics as the candidates had secured marks in their academic examinations from different institutions on variable standards which were to be added only after the candidates based on their performance in the common test were interviewed. According to the appellant-Public Service Commission, this procedure was followed by the Commission as a measure of fair treatment to all the candidates and the Public Service Commission had the power to evolve its own procedure of shortlisting the candidates for the purposes of calling them for interview which was neither in contravention of any of the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules of 1963, nor against the procedure of selection provided in the advertisement. It was also highlighted that the Public Service Commission had followed its consistent past practice. In the return, it was also disclosed that as the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test were to be finally added and the merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test, interview including weightage marks of academics, categorywise list was also prepared. 4. The learned Single Judge, however, examined one issue as to whether the action of the appellant-Public Service Commission in calling the candidates for interview based only on the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test was proper or not. In the impugned order, learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.03.2022 opined that the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Recruitment Rules of 1963 and the procedure of selection provided in the advertisement required the appellant-Public Service Commission to add the weightage marks of academics to the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test and then prepare a merit list for the purpose of calling the candidates for interview. It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the procedure adopted by the appellants can neither said to be against the provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1963, nor the criteria and the procedure of selection prescribed in the advertisement. He would submit that on 24.04.2019, it was resolved under Agenda No. 4 in the meeting of the Public Service Commission that in future classification of weightage marks of 20 would be according to the category of posts. Learned Advocate General would further submit that it is not a case where such procedure was adopted only in respect of the present process of selection. He would submit that criteria for shortlisting after screening test/objective type test is not required to be expressly mentioned in the advertisement and it is always open for the Public Service Commission to evolve its own internal process of shortlisting and unless it is found to be against the express provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1963 or the terms of the advertisement, it is not open to challenge. He would further submit that the decision of the appellants to call the candidates for interview on the basis of the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test without adding weightage marks of academics is based on sound principles with regard to fairness that the candidates should be first subjected to the process of screening test/objective type test and interview which is common to all the candidates and thereafter, weightage marks of academics have to be added as the candidates’ performance in their respective academic field is not based on any common pattern of examination but on variable standards which could not be made a basis at the initial stage of recruitment for shortlisting the candidates before calling them for interview. 6. It is next submitted that finding of the learned Single Judge that the advertisement prescribed the procedure of adding weightage marks to the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test before calling the candidates for interview is not based on correct reading of the advertisement. 6. It is next submitted that finding of the learned Single Judge that the advertisement prescribed the procedure of adding weightage marks to the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test before calling the candidates for interview is not based on correct reading of the advertisement. According to learned Advocate General, there is nothing in the advertisement which either expressly or impliedly provide that before calling the candidates for interview, weightage marks had to be first added to the marks obtained by the candidates in the screening test/objective type test. Referring to the averments made in the additional affidavit and the documents filed therewith, learned Advocate General would submit that after the decision was taken by the Public Service Commission in its meeting dated 24.04.2019, the Public Service Commission has consistently followed the same procedure in all examinations where weightage marks have been added only after subjecting the candidates to interview after shortlisting the candidates based on their performance in the screening test/objective type test. 7. Learned Advocate General would lastly submit that in the absence of there being any arbitrariness, illegality or violation of statutory rules governing the recruitment or the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the scope of judicial review in the matter of evolving process of selection and shortlisting is beyond the scope of challenge in a writ petition. 8. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others (1999) 7 SCC 120 ; Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath and Others (2009) 5 SCC 1 ; West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Others vs. Abdul Halim and Others, (2019) 18 SCC 39 ; Union Public Service Commission vs. M. Sathiya Priya and Others, (2018) 15 SCC 796 ; Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 22 ; Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 22 ; Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 122 , decisions of Karnataka High Court in the case of Ramanagouda Hanumantha Patil vs. High Court of Karnataka, ILR 1996 KAR 1730, decisions of this Court in the cases of Shashi Kumar Purohit vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 1989 (2) R.L.R. 217; State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Kavita Godara and Others (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 103/2021 and connected appeals decided on 02.03.2021). 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on plethora of decisions which have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge to conclude that criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the mid or after the process of selection had commenced. He would argue that either in the Recruitment Rules of 1963 or in the advertisement, the procedure as has been adopted by the Public Service Commission was not disclosed that before calling the candidates for interview, weightage marks for academics would not be added but it would be added only after the interview. According to him, the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Recruitment Rules of 1963 read with selection procedure as provided in the advertisement clearly indicate that the selection is based on performance of the candidates in the screening test/objective type test, academic performance and interview. Therefore, in such a case, it goes without saying that before calling the candidates for interview, the Public Service Commission is required to first award weightage marks towards academics and then add the same to the marks obtained by the candidates in screening test/objective type test. The total of the aforesaid two heads alone could be made basis to shortlist the candidates categorywise and call them for interview and then prepare a final merit list based upon the marks obtained in three heads. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge rightly held that even though discretion was available with the recruiting agency to adopt any suitable procedure to adjudge the suitability of the candidates, but the same has been done arbitrarily and contrary to the advertisement itself. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge rightly held that even though discretion was available with the recruiting agency to adopt any suitable procedure to adjudge the suitability of the candidates, but the same has been done arbitrarily and contrary to the advertisement itself. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his arguments, while relying upon the decisions which were relied upon by the learned Single Judge, has also placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs. and Others vs. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 750; Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and Others (2009) 3 SCC 227 ; Saurav Yadav and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 1034 and Pradeep Singh Dehal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 276 . 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records of the case including the Recruitment Rules of 1963, various decisions taken by the Public Service Commission from the time to time as also various authorities cited at the bar. 11. Though, in the writ petition, number of grounds were urged by the respondents-writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions only on the ground that calling of the candidates for interview by shortlisting them only on the basis of marks obtained by them in screening test/objective type test without adding weightage marks for academics is contrary to the terms of the advertisement. Learned Single Judge has held that as per selection process provided in the advertisement, total 40 marks have been fixed towards screening test/objective type test; 20 marks towards academics followed by interview of 40 marks. Therefore, it has been held that it is clear that the marks awarded towards screening test/objective type test plus marks towards academics would be taken into consideration before proceeding for interview. No other question has been considered by the learned Single Judge and all other issues have been kept open. 12. Present case relates to recruitment to the post of Veterinary Officer. indisputably, recruitment to the post of Veterinary Officer is governed and regulated by the Recruitment Rules of 1963. No other question has been considered by the learned Single Judge and all other issues have been kept open. 12. Present case relates to recruitment to the post of Veterinary Officer. indisputably, recruitment to the post of Veterinary Officer is governed and regulated by the Recruitment Rules of 1963. Part III of the Recruitment Rules of 1963 deals with the provisions relating to recruitment. As per Rule 6, one of the methods of recruitment is by direct recruitment, in accordance with the provisions contained in Part IV of the Recruitment Rules of 1963. Part IV of the Recruitment Rules of 1963 deals with the procedure for direct recruitment. Amongst other provisions, Rule 19 provides for screening of applications. Said rule is extracted for ready reference herein-below: “19. Scrutiny of Applications-The Commission shall scrutinise the applications received by them and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these Rules as seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview.” 13. Rule 19 of the Recruitment Rules of 1963 confers plenary power and authority on the Public Service Commission which is clearly discernible from the language of the rule. According to the aforesaid provision, the Public Service Commission may require as many candidates qualified for appointment under the Rules as seem to them desirable to appear before them for interview. Thus, the aforesaid Rule, on its own plain and logical meaning, confers power on the Public Service Commission to evolve its process and lay down the criteria for calling the candidates for interview. The power of the Commission to evolve a fair process of shortlisting of the candidates for the purpose of calling for interview, has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1963. Further, such procedure as may be decided to be adopted for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates before calling them for interview has to be otherwise in accordance with the procedure laid down by it in the advertisement. In other words, the procedure laid down in the advertisement would not be allowed to be altered once the process of selection has commenced as it is the settled legal position. In other words, the procedure laid down in the advertisement would not be allowed to be altered once the process of selection has commenced as it is the settled legal position. As long as the procedure for shortlisting the candidates is not in contravention of the rules governing the recruitment, terms and conditions of the advertisement or otherwise arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or against any other provision of law governing recruitment, reservation etc., it would not be open to challenge. In other words, the scope of judicial review would be limited and confined to aforesaid aspects. It is neither for the candidates, nor for the courts to suggest other alternative mode or procedure for selection to a post. 14. In the case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & Others (supra), their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the implicit authority of the public service commission constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution of India to evolve its own procedure as below: “23. The appellant Commission which has been constituted in terms of Article 315 of the Constitution of India is bound to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State in terms of the Rules framed by the State. It is, however, free to evolve procedure for conduct of examination. While conducting the examination in a fair and transparent manner as also following known principles of fair play………………. 25. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S. Jaffer Saheb vs. State of A.P. (1985) 2 APLJ 380 . Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The correctness of the said decision, as noticed hereinbefore, is not in question having attained finality. The matter, however, would be different if the said Rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefor. The matter, however, would be different if the said Rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefor. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair.” 15. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shashi Kumar Purohit etc. vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra) upheld the action of the Public Service Commission in laying down appropriate criteria for shortlisting while interpreting pari materia provisions contained in Section 19 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967. The contention that the criterion for shortlisting is required to be mentioned in the advertisement was negatived. Contentions and the relevant rule were noticed as below: “9. As against this Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true that it was not published but merely by non-publication of the criterion the whole of the criterion cannot be quashed. According to the learned counsel, it is the Government who has to devise certain criterion to short listing of the larger number of the applications, more than 7000 and for that some rational principle has to be evolved. Mr. Joshi submitted that according to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1967’) the application has to be scrutinised by the appointing authority in the present case. Therefore, for that purpose some rational method has to be evolved for scrutinising the application and, therefore a criterion was laid down for short listing the application. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1967 reads as under: “19. Therefore, for that purpose some rational method has to be evolved for scrutinising the application and, therefore a criterion was laid down for short listing the application. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1967 reads as under: “19. Scrutiny of Applications :—The Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall scrutinise the applications received by them/it, require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these rules, as seem to them/it desirable to appear before them/it for interview: Provided that the decision of the Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, regarding the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final.” In pursuance of the aforesaid Rules, the Appointing Authority laid down the criteria for scrutinising the applications. Looking to the huge number of the applications, the respondent evolved certain criterion and they uniformally applied the criterion for short listing the applications.” Having noticed the contention and the provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967, the legal position was explained as below: “10. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel, and perused the record. I think that non-publication of the criterion cannot result in quashing of the whole of the criterion. Rule 19 confers power on the appointing authority that they can scrutinise the applications for examining the eligibility or otherwise of the candidate. For that purpose the aforesaid criterion was laid down. It is nobody’s case that aforesaid criterion was not honestly applied for short listing the applications. The contention of Mr. Mridul is that if they want to use this criterion, for short listing, then they should have mentioned that in the advertisement. In the advertisement for inviting the applications, it is not necessary to mention criterion for short listing the applications. The advertisement has to be in terms of the Rules of 1967. It is an internal matter of the respondents to scrutinise the applications and evolve some rational methods, so that the interviews or selections could be effectively held in terms of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, in this view of the matter the criterion, as reproduced above was laid down by the Government for short listing the applications. Such criterion for short listing does not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.” 16. Therefore, in this view of the matter the criterion, as reproduced above was laid down by the Government for short listing the applications. Such criterion for short listing does not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.” 16. The advertisement issued on 22.10.2019 (copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 with Writ Petition No. 14328/2020), among other things, lays down the process of selection. The said provision, being relevant and crucial for adjudicating the controversy involved herein is reproduced as below: p;u izfØ;k vH;fFkZ;ksa ds p;u gsrq p;u izfØ;k fuEukuqlkj jgsxh %& laoh{kk ijh{kk esa izkIrkdksa dk 40 izfr’kr Hkkjkad dh x.kuk vdknfed dk Hkkjkad lk{kkRdkj dk Hkkjkad dqy iw.kkZad 40 vad 20 vad 40 vad 100 vad 17. The process of selection apparently involves assessment of merit of the candidates on three counts, namely, marks obtained in screening test, weightage marks of academics and the marks obtained in interview. It also makes it clear that the selection is based on marks out of 100 marks obtained by each candidate. 40 marks are allotted for screening test/objective type test, 20 marks for academics and 40 marks for interview. 18. However, the aforesaid process of selection and criteria neither expressly, much less impliedly states that before calling the candidates for interview, weightage marks of academics had to be first added to the marks obtained in screening test/objective type test and then only, shortlisting of the candidates has to be done for the purpose of calling them for interview. Though, the respondents-writ petitioners have alleged in the writ petition that the Public Service Commission committed illegality in not preparing the list categorywise as there is reservation of posts specified in the advertisement, the returns of the appellantsrespondents in the writ petitions show that categorywise list has been prepared by the respondents. This specific stand taken by the appellant- RPSC in its return has not been disputed by the respondents-writ petitioners, narrowing the controversy involved in the present case. 19. Learned Single Judge in its order has not correctly appreciated the process of selection as stated in the advertisement. A finding has been recorded that the advertisement provides for addition of weightage marks of academics to the marks obtained in screening test/objective type test before shortlisting the candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview. 19. Learned Single Judge in its order has not correctly appreciated the process of selection as stated in the advertisement. A finding has been recorded that the advertisement provides for addition of weightage marks of academics to the marks obtained in screening test/objective type test before shortlisting the candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview. In our humble opinion, the advertisement, nowhere suggests any such procedure of selection that shortlisting of the candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview would require preparation of merit list based on aggregate of marks obtained in screening test/objective type test and the weightage marks of academics. The advertisement is silent on this issue. Moreover, the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 1963 as reproduced hereinabove also do not contain any such specific provision that before calling the candidates for interview, the marks awarded for academics will have to be first added to the marks obtained by each candidates in screening test/objective type test and only on that basis, shortlisting for the purpose of interview would be done. 20. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the action of the appellants in shortlisting the candidates on the basis of the marks obtained by them in screening test/objective type test for the purpose of interview is either in contravention of the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules of 1963 or against the specific terms of the selection process stated in the advertisement. 21. The next question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the action of the appellant-Public Service Commission in evolving its own process of shortlisting of candidates for the purpose of calling them for interview is otherwise arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, so as to call for judicial interference of this Court in the decision of the appellant- RPSC. 22. We have already held hereinabove that it is within the authority and jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to evolve its own procedure for conduct of examination. The Public Service Commission has adopted a procedure of shortlisting the candidates who appeared in the screening test/objective type test for the purpose of calling them for interview without adding weightage marks for academics. The Public Service Commission has adopted a procedure of shortlisting the candidates who appeared in the screening test/objective type test for the purpose of calling them for interview without adding weightage marks for academics. Adopting a procedure which involves shortlisting by itself, without anything more, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath & Others (supra) and by Single Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Purohit etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (supra) as noted above. 23. The next issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the procedure evolved by the Public Service Commission to call the candidates for interview without adding weightage marks of academics can be held to be otherwise, unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Certainly, the Public Service Commission had two options. One which has been adopted and the other was to first add weightage marks of academics in the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test and thereafter, shortlist the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 for the purpose of interview. The material on record, particularly the decision taken on 24.04.2019 clearly shows that the Public Service Commission decided that the weightage marks of academics shall be added only after interview. That means the decision was not to take into consideration the weightage marks of academics before calling the candidates for interview. The decision of the Public Service Commission to call the candidates for interview based only on their performance in the screening test/objective type test cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or oppose to fair procedure so as to say that it would not withstand the scrutiny on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said decision is based on the consideration that the candidates would be first subjected to stages of selection comprising of screening test/objective type test and interview on comparative merit basis and thereafter, weightage marks for academics would be granted. The said decision is based on the consideration that the candidates would be first subjected to stages of selection comprising of screening test/objective type test and interview on comparative merit basis and thereafter, weightage marks for academics would be granted. Such a preference to this mode of selection than the other mode of selection as suggested by the respondents-writ petitioners, is far more consistent with the principles of fair play and rationality because the mode of selection adopted by the Public Service Commission ensures selection based on comparative merit on the basis of screening test/objective type test and interview to which all the candidates are subjected to irrespective of their background and variable standards of examinations through which they have passed and obtained marks in their respective academic courses. 24. As early as in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others (1985) 3 SCC 22 , Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme upheld the common selection process for admission to medical colleges through the process of entrance examination. The need for a common entrance test was emphasised thus: “4. Since it was made clear as far back as July 26, 1984, that our Judgment dated June 22, 1984, shall be given effect from the academic year 1985-86, we should have thought that the Government of India and the Indian Medical Council would make the necessary arrangements for holding an all-India entrance examination well in time for admissions to the MBBS course for the academic year 1985-86 so far as the minimum 30% open seats not reserved on the basis of residence requirement or institutional preference (hereinafter referred to as the minimum 30% non-reserved seats) were concerned. But it seems that so far nothing has been done either by the Government of India or the Indian Medical Council and the fate of the students seeking admissions to the MBBS course for the academic year 1985-86 is in a state of total uncertainty. The State Governments have also been equally guilty of indifference and inaction in not taking any steps for the purpose of holding an entrance examination which would test the relative merits of the students seeking admission to the minimum 30% non-reserved seats in the MBBS course in the medical colleges. The State Governments have also been equally guilty of indifference and inaction in not taking any steps for the purpose of holding an entrance examination which would test the relative merits of the students seeking admission to the minimum 30% non-reserved seats in the MBBS course in the medical colleges. Some of the State Governments and universities, we are informed, are proposing to fill up the minimum 30% non-reserved seats for the MBBS course on the basis of the marks obtained by the students at the qualifying examinations held by different States and/or universities, totally ignoring the fact that the standard of judging at these different qualifying examinations cannot, by its very nature be uniform. Some universities may be very liberal in their marking while some other may be strict. There would be no comparable standards on the basis of which the relative merits of the students can be judged. It would be wholly unjust to grant admissions to the students by assessing their relative merits with reference to the marks obtained by them, not at the same qualifying examination where standard of judging would be reasonably uniform but at different qualifying examinations held by different State Governments or universities where the standard of judging would necessarily vary and not be the same. That would indeed be blatantly violative of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. We must, therefore, make it clear that no State Government or university or medical college shall grant admission to students to fill the minimum 30% non-reserved seats for the MBBS course, on the basis of comparison of the marks obtained by them at different qualifying examinations……...” 25. Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others (supra) underlined the importance of adjudging the candidates on comparative merit basis as below: “44. On the facts before us, the PGMEE is not just a screening test. Candidates who have qualified from different universities and in courses which are not necessarily identical, have to be assessed on the basis of their relative merit for the purpose of admission to a postgraduate course. It is for proper assessment of the relative merit of candidates who have taken different examinations from different universities in the State that a uniform entrance test is prescribed. It is for proper assessment of the relative merit of candidates who have taken different examinations from different universities in the State that a uniform entrance test is prescribed. Such a test necessarily partakes of the character of an eligibility test as also a screening test. In such a situation, minimum qualifying marks are necessary. The question of minimum qualifying marks is not addressed at all in State of A.P. vs. Lavu Narendranath, (1971) 1 SCC 607 since it did not arise in that case.” 26. The aforesaid decisions lay emphasis on adjudging merit and suitability of the candidates on comparative basis through common test rather than giving preference to a method of selection based only on academic performance which is of variable standards. If the appellant- Public Service Commission has chosen to adopt the procedure of testing the candidates on comparative basis firstly through screening test/objective type test followed by interview and then allow weightage marks of academics to be added for the preparation of final merit list, in our considered opinion, this choice of the Public Service Commission to adopt the procedure as against the procedure claimed by the respondents-writ petitioners, cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, tested on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to hereinabove, the procedure of selection adopted by the Public Service Commission is consistent with the fairness by subjecting the candidates on comparative merit through screening test/objective type test followed by interview. 27. In order to buttress the submission that it was incumbent on the part of the Public Service Commission to first add the weightage marks of academics to the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test before calling the candidates for interview, heavy reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam & Others (supra). The facts of present case and the aforesaid case bear many distinguishable features and, therefore, conclusion arrived at in that case may not be applicable in the present case. State of Assam & Others (supra). The facts of present case and the aforesaid case bear many distinguishable features and, therefore, conclusion arrived at in that case may not be applicable in the present case. That was a case where the process of selection was comprising of three comparative components namely written test, physical test and interview for selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. In that case, all the candidates were to be subjected to common test in three different stages whereas present is a case there are only two stages of selection based on comparative merit, i.e., screening test/objective type test and interview and not the marks of academics. Secondly, in that case, upon reading the advertisement, on facts, it was held that as per the advertisement, physical test was to be conducted before interview. Furthermore, on facts, it was held that all the candidates were not adjudged by a uniform process; those appointed and those left out were assessed by two different yardsticks and therefore, it was found to be a case of discrimination. The aforesaid three distinguishing features would be clear from perusal of the extracts of the aforesaid judgment. The legal position in the aforesaid case as discussed hereinabove was also noted as below: “27. In tune with the said requirements only, the candidates were asked to appear in the written test on 25-4-1998/26-4-1998 and in the physical test on 27-4-1998/28-4-1998. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that a Selection Committee in a given situation may lay down a procedure for the purpose of shortlisting the candidates but that does not mean that for the said purpose the order of holding a requisite test would be changed.” The procedure of selection based on plain reading of the advertisement was noted as below: “26. Indisputably in the advertisement, the candidates were required not only to qualify in the written test but also the physical ability test. A plain reading of the advertisement clearly goes to show that the interview was to be conducted only after holding of the said two tests.” It would, thus, be seen that in the aforesaid case, the reading of the advertisement itself indicated that interview was to be conducted only after holding of written test and physical ability test. A plain reading of the advertisement clearly goes to show that the interview was to be conducted only after holding of the said two tests.” It would, thus, be seen that in the aforesaid case, the reading of the advertisement itself indicated that interview was to be conducted only after holding of written test and physical ability test. Having noted the order in which various tests of comparative merit were to be held, it was held that decision of the Selection Committee therein to take interview prior to holding of physical ability test was not correct. It was held thus: “28. ………. Physical ability test keeping in view the nature of the job required to be performed by the candidates was an extremely important one. Passing in the physical ability test is a sine qua non for selection of the candidates in the post of Sub- Inspector of Police. It was indeed a competitive test. The merit list, thus, should have been prepared not only on the basis of the written test and interview but also the physical ability test. The Selection Committee, in our opinion, committed a serious error in changing the order of holding the tests. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was correct in arriving at a conclusion that physical ability test should have been held prior to holding of the interview.” It would thus be obvious that the aforesaid case turns on its facts. In that case, the order in which written test, physical ability test and interview were to be held was clearly spelt out in the advertisement itself. Moreover, all the three tests were based on comparative performance through a common test procedure and not being a case of grant of weightage marks for the academics. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that passing of physical ability test is sine quo non for selection of the candidates on the post of Sub Inspector of Police and that it was a test of competitive nature. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that passing of physical ability test is sine quo non for selection of the candidates on the post of Sub Inspector of Police and that it was a test of competitive nature. Not only that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further took into consideration that though the selection was for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, viva voce examination plays an important role in the matter of selection of candidates in responsible posts and the candidates must not only have educational qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement but also must have good presence of mind and other qualities to meet the exigencies of situation, it would not mean that the physical ability test should be relegated to a back seat. It was observed thus: “33. In Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 , a Constitution Bench of this Court has stated that a viva voce examination plays an important role in the matter of selection of candidates in responsible posts. So far as the post of a Sub-Inspector is concerned, he not only must have educational qualification as prescribed in the advertisement but also must have a good presence of mind and other qualities to meet the exigencies of situation. It, however, does not mean that the physical ability test should be relegated to a back seat.” It would, thus, be clear that decision in the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam & Others (supra) turns on its own peculiar facts. From the material facts of the present case which bear distinguishable features inasmuch as in the present case firstly, as has been held hereinabove, there is nothing in the advertisement either expressly or by implication that before interview, weightage marks of academics were to be first added to the marks obtained in the screening test/objective type test. Secondly, unlike the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam & Others (supra), one of the components of selection in the present case is not based on common comparative merit but based on marks obtained in the academics which will decide weightage marks to be awarded to each candidate. Therefore, the said decision does not come to the aid of the respondents-writ petitioners. 28. State of Assam & Others (supra), one of the components of selection in the present case is not based on common comparative merit but based on marks obtained in the academics which will decide weightage marks to be awarded to each candidate. Therefore, the said decision does not come to the aid of the respondents-writ petitioners. 28. We have arrived at conclusion on factual premise that the advertisement also does not lay down the order in which the selection would be held in different stages and, therefore, in such a case, the procedure as adopted by the Public Service Commission cannot be said to be arbitrary, unfair or discriminatory. 29. Once we have held that the procedure adopted by the Public Service Commission was neither in contravention of the applicable recruitment rules, nor in violation of the procedure laid down in the advertisement, it being not a case of changing rules of game after the process of selection had begun and further that the procedure adopted does not suffer from any irrationality, arbitrariness or unfairness, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. 30. In the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya & Others (supra), their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as below: “17. …….. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates.” 31. In another decision in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Others Vs. Abdul Halim & Others (supra), while dealing with challenge to recruitment by West Bengal Central School Service Commission, their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively pronounced the settled legal position with regard to scope and ambit of judicial review as below: “27. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision-making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision-making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 28. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the respondents of a legal duty. 29. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasijudicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. 30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ court by issuance of writ of certiorari. 31. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ court by issuance of writ of certiorari. 31. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. 32. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.” 32. One of the intra court appeal, i.e. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022 has been filed by the respondents-writ petitioners to seek indulgence of this Court on the issues which were though raised but not decided by the learned Single Judge. We are not inclined to deal with other issues raised in the aforesaid appeal because the learned Single Judge has not rendered its opinion on such issues. 33. In view of above consideration of facts and legal position as analysed by us, we are unable to uphold the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the procedure adopted by the Public Service Commission in calling the candidates for interview without adding the weightage marks of academics was contrary to the terms of the advertisement. Impugned orders are, therefore, unsustainable and set aside. Impugned orders are, therefore, unsustainable and set aside. The conclusion arrived at hereinabove will be applicable in the other appeals, except D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022, arising out of orders passed in writ petitions involving challenge to recruitment to the posts of Veterinary Officer, Assistant Agricultural Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry), Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (Agriculture Chemistry), Botany, Assistant Agricultural Officer and Assistant Fisheries Development Officer because all those cases are based on the common ground and pari materia provision contained in respective recruitment rules, identical terms, conditions and recitals in the advertisements though for different category of posts. 34. In the result, all the appeals, except D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022, are allowed. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 914/2022 is disposed off. 35. Consequently, writ petitions are restored and remanded for adjudication on issues which were left open, except one decided in these appeals. 36. A copy of this judgment be place on record of each connected appeal.