JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—Special leave granted.

2. We are confronted in these appeals with the question as to what percentage of marks awarded for group discussion and interview for selection of Assistant Engineers by the U.P. State Electricity Board is reasonable.

3. The U. P. State Electricity Board invited applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) by issuing an advertisement in April, 1989. 120 marks were allocated for the written test, 40 marks for interview and 40 marks for group discussion. Written test was conducted by the Board on 9th July, 1989 and then interviews and group discussion were held in October and November, 1989. The result of the successful candidates in order of merit was published in daily newspaper on 27th November, 1989. The very next day the Board also issued individual letters to the successful candidates calling upon them to join on 28th December, 1989 at Electricity Training Institute, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. The appellants before us joined the institute in December, 1989 and thereafter they were sent to various places for training and they started drawing salaries in the prescribed pay-scale and since then they are continuously working on the respective posts.

4. The three unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions in the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad interalia on the ground that the marks for interview and group discussion had been allocated on the higher side and against the decisions of this Court and as such the entire selection stood vitiated and was liable to be quashed. The High Court by judgment dated 28th March, 1990 allowed the writ petitions by a common judgment on the ground that the marks allocated for interview and group discussion were more than 20 per cent and hence the whole selection was liable to be quashed. Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, the appellants have come in appeal to this Court by grant of special leave.

5. As a result of the written examination held on 9th July, 1989 as many as 386 candidates were called for group discussion/ interview. Later on 49 more candidates were called for group discussion and interview. A list of 46 candidates who were declared successful was published by the Board. Out of these 46 candidates, 25 belong to the general category. The Board in its counter-affidavit filed before the High, Court admitted that group discussion was part of interview. If that position is accepted then it shows that 120 marks were allocated for written test and 80 marks for interview (40 for interview and 40 for group discussion) and thus it comes to 40 per cent of the total marks for interview. This Court had already dealt with the question of percentage of marks to be allotted for interview for selection to the public posts in the latest decision Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab (1990) 4 JT (SC) 704, where the maximum percentage has been laid down as 15 per cent of the total marks. All the earlier cases were noted in this case and the question is no longer res integra. In view of these circumstances the High Court was right in holding that the marks allocated for interview and group discussion were arbitrary. The High Court after holding the percentage of marks as arbitrary also quashed the entire selection. This Court while entertaining the special leave petition on 23rd April, 1990 stayed the operation of the Judgment of the High Court and allowed the appellants to continue in employment and as such the appellants are continuing in service. We had heard the arguments and at the time of reserving the judgment on 8th February, 1991 had given the following direction:

"We direct the learned counsel for the Board to furnish the service rules for the recruitment/ selection of the Assistant Engineers of all the Electricity Boards of the various States in India. The Board shall also furnish the Rules, if any, of any other public sector undertaking where recruitments are made of Assistant Engineers