The consideration of academic performance of candidates in addition to the oral interview in the selection process for the post of Fisheries Extension Officer was not arbitrary and did not vitiate the selection process, as it reduced the possibility of arbitrariness and was in accordance with past practice.

S. N. Jha, J.

1. These three writ petitions involving the same dispute with respect to selection of the private respondents for appointment to the post of Fisheries Extension Officer have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Governor of Bihar has framed rules entitled The Animal Husbandry and (Fisheries) Service Recruitment Rules, 1993 (in short the Recruitment Rules) for appointment of, amongst others, Fisheries extension Officers in the State of Bihar. The said rules were notified on january 14, 1993. On March 2, 1993 the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and fisheries Department sent requisition to the Bihar Public Service Commission to make advertisement and selection with respect to 33 posts of the Fisheries extension Officer to be filled by direct recruitment. The advertisement was published on April 4, 1993. Candidates were called for interview which was held from March 21 to 23, 1994. The selection list in respect of 20 candidates was sent to the Government on March 24, 1994. No recommendation was made with respect to the remaining 13 posts as suitable candidates of the concerned categories were not available. The petitioner participated in the interview/selection process but failed to find berth in the selection list. They have come up to this Court challenging the process of recruitment.

3. The selection process has been assailed mainly on two grounds- (a) Consideration of the academic performance of the candidates at various examinations and (b) Illegality in constitution of the Interview Board. The selection of respondents Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Manoranjan Kumar has been additionally questioned on the ground of lack of prescribed qualification.

4. As regards the first ground it is said that in terms of Recruitment rules, selection is to be made on the basis of oral interview alone. The merit list, however, has been prepared taking into account also the academic performance of the candidates, allocating it as high 30% marks, besides the oral interview. The inter se allocation of marks/points between the different examinations has also been challenged as being arbitrary.

5. Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules provides that the recruitment procedure, age limit, qualification and other concerned matters of service shall be as in columns 5 to 11 of the schedule. The provisions as contained in the schedules appended to the Rules, therefore, have to be read as substantive provisions. Column 10 of Schedule 5 dealing with the method of recruitment for the post of the Bihar Fisheries Service including the Fisheries extension Officer runs as follows:-

"50% direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Direct recruitment-will be made on the basis of oral interview by the Bihar Public service Commission. After interview, the Commission will prepare merit list of the selected candidates and send their recommendation to the State Government. Recruitment will be made from the recommended candidates. Reservation Rules issued by the State Government from time to time will be observed. Note-Director of Fisheries or his nominee not below the rank of joint Director, Fisheries will be member as expert in the interview. "

It is not in dispute that in terms of the Recruitment Rules selection is to be made on the basis of oral interview alone. The Commission, however, has taken the stand that "almost in all the cases where selection for appointment is to be done on the basis of oral interview (personality test) only, the procedure of awarding marks on the academic achievement of the candidates performance in the interview is being followed for past many years. It is needless to emphasise here that in the present case there is no deviation from the prevailing practice. The above-named procedure of selection through direct recruitment has also been examined and approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5520 and 5521 of 1993 (Paragraph 8 of the affidavit of the BPSC in CWJC 7198 of 1994) The point f