( 1 ) IN this group of palliations the petitioners are challenging the validity of Rule 4 of the Gujarat Civil Services Recruitment (Examination) Rules 1980 and Schedule II thereto and also the selec- tion of candidates by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC for short ).

( 2 ) IN September 1983 the GPSC hold Part I written examination for selecting candidates for making appointments to 155 of Gujarat Administrative Service Class I and Gujarat Civil Serv- ice Class II. It was a combined examination for Class I and Class II posts Part I written examina- tion consisted of three compulsory subjects viz. Gujarati General English and General Studies and one optional subject each subject carrying 100 marks. In all 8147 candidates appeared at the examination. Only those candidates who got minimum qualifying aggregate marks were per- mitted to appear in Part 11 written examination which consisted of two papers carrying 100 marks each They were in all 1121. As candidates numbering about five times the number of posts required to be filled in were called for Part III examination consisting of Viva Voce and Per- sonality test when the previous examination was hold this time also the GPSC decided to call candidates numbering about five times and therefore fixed the qualifying standard as 301 marks in Parts I and Part II of the written examination. Standards fixed for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates were 300 marks and 250 marks respectively. Applying these stan- dards 372 candidates were called for Viva Voce and Personality test consisting of 200 marks. As some of them had become ineligible because of the age limit the GPSC held interviews of 841 eligible candidates The interviews were conducted between 10/12/1984 and 15/03/1985 and on 18/04/1985 and 10/06/1985. Total marks for the whole examina- tion was 300.

( 3 ) THE GPSC then published the result of the examination in two parts Part I showed the names and seal numbers of candidates arranged according to their merits showing total marks obtained by each candidate; and who wore recommended for appointment Part II showed the namos and seal numbers of candidates according to merit showing total marks obtained by each candidate and who were to be kept in the waiting list.

( 4 ) KIRAN Maharaja petitioner in Special Civil Application No 5111 of 1985 and M D. Shukla petitioner in Spl. Civil Appln. No 4480 of 1985 have been selected for appointment to Class II posts; but for Class I posts their names are shown in the waiting list As they have not been se- lected for appointment to Class I posts they have thought it fit to challenge the entire selec- tion made by the GPSC. It is their case that if there had been proper qualification of marks at the oral test they would have been selected for appointment to Class I posts. Other petitioners have not been selected for appointment nor their names appears in the waiting list; and therefore they have filed petitions challenging the selection made by the GPSC The selection is chal- lenged on the ground that it is vitiated because of excessive weightage given to the oral test and the improper manner in which the interviews were held They all want this court to quash the selec- tion and direct the GPSC to hold afresh the oral test of all the eligible candidates in accordance with the procedure which is not arbitrary and which would serve the object of holding an oral test.

( 5 ) THOUGH the petitioners are represented by different Advocates actually the arguments were advanced by Mr. Tanna and Mr. Patel and others have adopted their arguments The learned Coun- sel have mainly raised three contentions before us First contention is the excessive weightage has been given to the oral test by Rule 4 of the rules and therefore the said rule should be re- garded as arbitrary and bad particularly because it is likely to open hood gates of favouritism Second contention is that the method adopted for calling candidates for oral