Prem Chand Jain, Karan Pal Singh Sandhu, JJ. - (1.) This judgment and order of ours will dispose of this petition, as well as civil petition No. 520 555, 675, 685, 719, 759, 798, 823, 913, 943, 944 -1020, 1021, 1053, 1078, 1080, 1085, 1104, 1141, 1169, 1263, 1319, 1342, 1355, 1458, and 1471" of 1983 as common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions.
(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed thus.
(3.) A public notice appeared in the news -papers dated 26th April, 1982, inviting applications for admission to the one year certificate combined course for stock Assistant Vety, compounders in the prescribed proforma. A copy of the said advertisement has been attached with the petition as Annexure P/1. The petitioners being eligible applied for the course referred to in the advertisement. The Govt. appointed the joint Director, respondent No. 3, as chairman of the selection committee, besides two other members of the committee for selecting the candidates for the course. As is evident from Annexure R/1 attached with the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 4 the following criteria was fixed for selection. 4. The petitioners, though called for interview were not selected. In the petition, the allegations of malafide have been made against Sardar Santokh Singh Randhawa, the Minister , Development and Panchayat, Punjab Civil Secretariat, respondent No. 4. We are not referring to the allegation of malafide made against respondent No. 4, as the same have been controverted and there is no positive proof on the basis of which, it could be held that those allegations of malafide stand proved. The only other ground on which the selection made by the Selection Committee of the candidates to the course; has been challenged, is that the selection Committee illegally and arbitrarily provided 40 marks for viva voce, as a result of which the selection of the candidates suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia etc. v/s. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487 the relevant observations to which specific reference was made, appear at page 501 of the/report in para 19, and read as under : - - So far as the third ground of challenge is concerned, we do not think it can be dismissed as unsubstantial. The argument of the petitioners under this head of challenge was that even if oral interview may be regarded in principle as a valid test for selection of candidates for admission to college, it was in present case arbitrary and unreasonable since the marks allocated for the oral interview were very much on the higher side as compared with the marks allocated for the written test. The marks allocated for the oral interview were 50 as against 100 allocated for the written test, so that the total number of marks taken into account for the purpose of making the selection. This, contended the petitioner, was beyond all reasonable proportion and rendered the selection of the candidates arbitrary and violative of the equality clause of the Constitution. Now there can be no doubt that having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and conditions prevailing in the country, particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the court as free from the vice of arbitrariness. It may be pointed out that even in Peeriakaruppan's case ( : AIR 1971 S.C. 2303) (supra), where 75 marks out of a total of 275 marks were allocated for the oral interview were on the high side. This court also observed in Miss Nishi Meghu's case (AIR 1980 SC 1965) (supra) Reserving 50 marks for interview out of total of a 150......... does seem excessive, especially when the time spent was not more than 4 minutes on each candidate. There can be no doubt that allocating 33 -1/3% of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is significant to note that even for selection of candidates for Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service, and the Indian Police Service where the personality of the candidate and his personal characteristics and traits are extremely relevant for the purpose of selection the marks allocated for oral interview are 250, as against 1800 marks for the written examination, constituting only 12.2% of the total marks taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. We must, therefore, regard the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 -1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. A. S. Sandhu learned State Counsel that the judgment referred to above, has no applicability to the facts of the case in hand, in as much as the selection is being made not to a course but to the post. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on a later judgment of the Supreme Court in Lila Dhar v/s. State of Rajasthan : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1777;