B.D. Agrawal, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vinod Misra has put in appearance on behalf of the Commission.
(2.) Contention canvassed for the petitioner is that the Higher Education Services Commission has not publicised the standards, guidelines and criteria adopted by it and the selection could not take place on the basis merely of interview. It is urged also that the petitioner's merits are superior to those of the selected candidate (the respondent No. 6). We find no merit in the submissions made.
(3.) In the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of nature personality, interview test may be the only way subject to basis and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 ; Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417. Selection held on this same basis by the Commission we are concerned within the present was upheld in Dr. Keshav Ram Pal v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commissioner etc., (1986) 1 SCC 671 : 1986 UPLBEC (SC). The guidelines, moreover, were placed before us by Sri Misra which we have perused and find them elaborate and rational. Having taken the chance and upon being unsuccessful it ill lies in the mouth of the petitioner to assail the process uniformly adopted. The Court would not be justified to make its assessment of the comparative merits.;