The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with communal reservation as recognized by S.43 of the Kerala Agricultural University Act and ensuring a meaningful assessment process during the selection interview.

1. These nine appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in three writ petitions, O.P. Nos. 8181, 8340 and 10155 of 1988. All the appellants are respondents in one or other of the above writ petitions. They are aggrieved by the directions issued in the common judgment quashing the select list dated 19th September 1988 (evidenced by Ext.P-8 in O.P. No. 8340 of 1988) and directing fresh interview to all the candidates (other than those who did not turn up) on 7th May 1988 afresh and for making a proper selection.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: There was a selection to the post of Overseer Gr. II in the Kerala Agricultural University, pursuant to the notification dated 7th November 1987 inviting applications. The respondents writ petitioners as well as the appellants who had the requisite qualification applied for the said post. The interview took place on 7th May 1988, and thereafter a select list dated 19th September 1988 was published selecting 15 persons. Inasmuch as the petitioners were not selected, they filed the three writ petitions. Two points were raised I in the writ petitions: one was that the communal reservation recognised by S.43 of the Kerala Agricultural University Act, was not followed, and the other was that selection which was made solely on the basis of interview could not be sustained inasmuch as 62 candidates were interviewed in three hours, and such interview could not have been meaningful. According to them, time was not sufficient even to assess the merit of the candidates. The University however contended before the learned Single Judge that communal rotation was followed, that the interview was effective, and that ranking was given to the various candidates, and a select list was prepared.

3. The learned Single Judge called for the files relating to interview and examined them. He found that there was no assessment sheet or mark-sheet throwing light on the manner in which candidates were assessed and selected. There was no means of knowing even the marks awarded at the interview to different candidates. In the absence of any material indicating the application of the mind by the committee which selected the candidates, the learned Single Judge thought that there was no meaningful selection. Further the learned Single Judge agreed that each candidate was interviewed on an average for three minutes, and taking into account the time taken for the candidate to come in and go out, and the time that would have been taken by the eight member committee which had discussed among themselves regarding the marks to be awarded, the learned single Judge thought that a few seconds alone were available to judge the merit of the candidate. Having come to. the above said conclusion, the learned Single Judge quashed the select list dated 19th September 1988 and directed the University to interview all the candidates (other than those who did not turn up on 7th May 1988) afresh and make a proper selection. Various other directions were given as to how to conduct the interview and as to the communal reservation to be followed. The writ petitions were thus allowed by judgment dated 28th January 1992.

4. In these appeals, preferred by the appellants, it has been argued that the learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that there was no proper assessment of the merit of various candidates. It is also contended that on any event the selection having been taken place as long back as on 19th September 1988, and the appellants having already been appointed as Overseer Gr.II and inasmuch as probation in several cases was completed arid declared as such, the court should not have exercised discretion at this distance of time nearly 4 years to quash the select list and direct fresh interview.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents writ petitioners also.

6. So far as the main point is concerned, we also called for the relevant file of the selection Committee. We found