JUDGMENT

GUPTA, J. :—These are four appeals brought on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Karnataka. The question which according to the High Court needs to be decided by this Court was framed as follows :

"Whether in the personality test of candidates for selection to public appointments, the selecting authority should allot separate marks for each of the seven qualities required to be judged in a candidate or whether it is permissible for the selecting authority to allot marks in a lump in each personality test."

Considering the facts of these cases which we will presently state, the question seems to have been framed little too broadly, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (called the Commission hereinafter) by its notification dated September 7, 1972 called for applications for the combined competitive examinations under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Class I and II Posts Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1966. In response to this notification, the respondents in these appeals along with others applied for selection. The Commission held a written examination followed by a personality test as provided by Rule 9 of the Rules and sent a list of 30 candidates whom they selected for appointment as class I gazetted probationers, and another list of 88 candidates for appointment as class II gazetted probationers. The manner in which the personality test is to be held is laid down in Part IV of Schedule II to Rules, the relevant portion of which is as follows:

"Personality Test carrying a maximum marks of 200 for all services. The candidates will be interviewed by the Commission who will have before them their particulars such as qualifications, experience, age, etc. They will be asked questions of general interest, the object of the viva voce is to assess the personal suitability of the candidates for the service or services for which they have applied. The qualities to be judged at the time to viva voce are the mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership and intellectual depth of the candidates."

2. Five of the respondents in the four different appeals who were, not selected, M. Farida, P. V. Mohan, B. R. Kulkarni, L. V. Dharmayat and M. R. Devappa had applied for the posts of gazetted probationers class II, two of them, Farida and Mohan, were also applicants for the class I post. They filed writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court, Farida and Mohan jointly, and each of the three others separately, challenging the selections made. Their common grievance was that the personality test held by the Commission was invalid as the selection committee did not award separate marks for each of the seven qualities which were required to be judged in the candidates at the test. Admittedly, the selection committee did not allot separate marks for each of the specified qualities, but awarded a block mark to each candidate in assessing his personality with reference to these qualities. The argument for the writ petitioners in the High Court was that the personality test as required under the Rules was an objective test based upon seven factors or criteria, and, therefore, it was essential that separate marks were allotted in respect of each such factor or criterion. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of the Mysore High Court, D. G. Viswanath v. Chief Secretary, Government of Mysore, (1963) 2 Mys L.J. 302, and the decision of this Court in A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1971) 2 SCR 430, which appears to affirm the view expressed in Viswanaths case. On behalf of the State of Karnataka it was contended that the seven qualities referred to in Part IV of Schedule II were merely different facets of the integrated personality of a candidate which could not easily be demarcated from one another, and therefore, awarding a block