Holding

Selection solely on viva‑voce marks, ignoring the written test, is arbitrary and unconstitutional; both written and viva‑voce scores must be considered for merit.

Summary

The Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) conducted a competitive examination for 44 Block Development and Panchayat Officer posts, comprising a written test (400 marks) and a viva‑voce test (50 marks). After the written test, 130 candidates were shortlisted for the viva‑voce, and the final merit list was prepared solely on viva‑voce scores, excluding the written marks. Praveen Singh, whose name was omitted, challenged the merit list on the ground that the selection ignored the written test marks, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Punjab Development and Panchayat Class‑II (Service) Rules, 1974. The High Court upheld the PPSC’s procedure, but the Supreme Court held that relying only on the viva‑voce was unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory scheme which required both components for merit determination. Consequently, the Court set aside the appointments and directed the PPSC to recompute merit using both written and viva‑voce scores, without a fresh advertisement. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Punjab Public Service Commission could lawfully select candidates for Block Development and Panchayat Officer posts solely on the basis of viva‑voce marks, disregarding the written test marks.
Whether such a selection method violates the principles of equality and non‑arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the written test was merely a qualifying test or an integral part of the merit assessment as per the Punjab Development and Panchayat Class‑II (Service) Rules, 1974.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 309

Subjects

service lawselectioncompetitive examwritten testviva vocearbitrarinessfair playequalityArticles 14 and 16Punjab Public Service Commissionappointmentadministrative law

Judgment

A PRAVEEN SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 10, 2000

B [G.B. PATTANAIK AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.]

Service Law:

Selection-Competitive exam- 44 posts of Block Development and
C Panchayat Officers-Examination consisting of a written test and viva voce
test--4500 candidates participating-Out of the total 450 marks, 400 marks
accounted for the written test while 50 marks were for the viva voce---To
qualify for the viva voce test, a candidate was required to secure 33% marks
in each paper and 45% marks in the aggregate-After written test 130
D candidates selected for the viva voce test--44 candidates finally selected
solely on the basis of marks obtained in the viva voce test-Appellant not
included in the final list-Challenged the said selection in a writ petition
before the High Court on the ground of non-consideration of marks obtained
in the written test for final selection-Both writ petition and writ appeal
dismissed· by the High Court-On appeal; Held-An administrative or a
E quasi-judicial body clothed with the power of appointment and selection
cannot be left unfettered at the cost of fair play, good conscience and
equity-Though interview is a significant factor in the appointments still it
should not be the sole criterion for selection as it allows creeping in of
lacuna-Had written test only been an elimination test, there would have not
F been any requirement of qualifying pass marks or any aggregate marks-
Rf!liance on mere 50 marks out of the total of 450 marks thereby avoiding
400 marks is totally unreasonable and arbitrary-The appointmttnts in
question set aside-Public Service Commission directed to complete selection
process after reconsidering both the written test and the viva voce test-
Appointmenis~already made, if any would be subject to the farther results to
G be declared by the Public Service Commission.
In June, 1993 Punjab Public Service Commi.ssion issued an
advertisement for filling up Of 26 vacancies of Block Development and
Panchayat Officers. However, before finalisation of the selection process, the
Government of Punjab filled up the said vacancies through ad-hoc
H 490
PRAVEEN SINGH v. STATE 491

appointments because of which the Service Commission stopped to proceed A
with the selection procedure. The said ad-hoc appointments, on being
challenged in a writ petition, were quashed by the High Court and an appeal
before a Division Bench was also dismissed. Further appeal to this Court was
also dismissed with a direction to the Public Service Commission to complete
the selection process by 09-07-1995. In compliance of the orders of this Court, B
the Public Service Commission issued a corrigendum to the earlier
advertisement after increasing the number of vacancies from 26 to 44. In
response to the said corrigendum, about 4500 people appeared in the written
test out of which 130 candidates were selected to appear in the viva voce.
After the viva voce, on 09-07-1995, a merit list of selected candidates was
published in which the appellant's name did not appear. The appellant C
challenged the said merit list in a writ petition before the High Court on the
ground of non-consideration of the marks secured by the candidates, in the
written examination while determining overall merit of the candidates, as
according to the information sheet circulated by the Public Service
Commission, out of total 450 marks, written examination accounted for 400
marks and the rest 50 marks for viva voce. The said writ petition and an D
appeal thereon were dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal.

The appellant contended that as there existed dual requirement i.e.
written test as well as viva voce test for selection, the marks obtained in
both ought to have formed part of the process of determining the merit and E
-\ . the Service Commission had no authority or jurisdiction to effect the selection
solely on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the viva voce
examination. The respondents contended that since it was not possible to
interview about 4500 candidates, the Service Commission resorted to a written
admission test in order to facilitate the interview process.
F
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD 1. While it is true that the administrative or the quasi-judicial
authority clothed with the power of selection and appointment ought to be left
unfettered in adaptation of procedural aspect but that does not however mean
and imply that the same would be made available to an employer at the cost of G
fair play, good conscience and equity. 1498-E-FI

J.P. Kulshreshtha & Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors.,
AIR, (1980) SC 2141, referred to.

2. Interview, undoubtedly, is a significant factor in the matter of H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A appointments. It plays a strat,gic role but is also allows creeping in of a lacuna
rendering the appointments illegitimate. Obviously it is an important factor
but ought not to be the sole guiding factor since reliance thereon may lead to
a "sabotage of the purity of the proceedings';. 1498-H; 499-A)

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) (3) SLR 200 and Lila
-
B Dhar v. State ofRajasthan, AIR(1981) SC 1777, referred to.

3.1. The q11alifications prescribed were that the candidates will be
required to qualify in the written test at the time of recruitment and the
qualification standard in the test has been fixed to be 33% marks in each
C paper with 45% iri the aggregate and paragraph 4 of the Information Sheet
in no uncertain terms records that no candidate shall be eligible to appear in
the viva voce test unless he obtains 33% marks in each paper and 45%
marks in the aggregate. 1499-GI

3.2. Reading the two requirements as above, question of having the
D written test written off in the matter of selection does not and cannot arise.
Had it be~." the intent of the Service Commission, then and in that event
question of.there
'\
being a totality of marks would not have been included
therein with specified marks for viva voce tests. Neither there would have
been any requirement of qualifying pass marks nor there would have been
any aggregate marks. 1499-H; 500-A, BJ
E
3.3. In the event of the interview being the sole criteria and the written
test being treated as qualifying test, the Public Service Commission ought to
have clearly stated that upon completion of the written elimination test,
selection would be made on the basis of the viva voce test only.1500-B, CJ

F Ashok & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 11992) 1 SCC 28, referred to.

4. There is always a room for suspicion for the common appointments
if the oral interview is taken up as the only criteria. Of course, there are
posts and posts, where interviews can be a safe method of appointment but to
G the post of a Block Development Officer or a Panchayat Officer wherein about
4500 people applied for 40 posts, interview cannot be said to be a satisfactory
method of ~election though however it may be a part thereof. In fact there
would be advantage of having Rules prescribing the mode and method of
appointments and specific marks earmarked for written examinations of
various subjects together with totality of marks for viva voce test. As a matter
H of fact out of 450 marks only 50 marks have been allotted for interview by
PRAVEEN SINGH v. STATE 493

the Service Commission itself - why these 400 marks allotted for a written A
examination in four different subjects, if interview was to be the guiding factor,
there bas been however, no answer to the same excepting that !he Court ought
not to interfere in the matter of selection process in the absence of malafides
.. true it is that in the event ~he selection i~ ~ainted with malafides, it would be
a plain exercise of judicial power to set right the wrong:..bu.t is it also realistic
to ass~me that when the Commission in clear and categorical language
B'
recorded. that 450 marks would be the total marks for the examination and
.,.. out of which only 50 marks are earmarked for viva voce test, the Commission
.
I ' , ' '

desired that these 50 marks 'would be relevant . and· crucial and the other 400 .
marks would be rendered totally super;fluous ~nd of no. effect at all. The
language used is rather plain and is not capable Qf the !nterpretation as has 'C
been held by the High Court. Reliance on 50·marks only and thereby avoiding
the other 400 mark~ cannot 'be said to' be reason::tble or devoid of any .
arbitrariness. (500-C-G)

5. T'1e action Qfthe respondent Commission thus is wholly unreason·able,
unfair and not in accordance. with the declared principles. Appointment
-. .
D
procedure is evident from the documentary evidence disclosed in the
proc~edings and the c'om mission ought to have taken. note of the writte~
examination results as well. '[500~H; 501-A) ,

6. The appointments in question are set aside and the Public Service
Commission is directed to complete the process of selection in terms of.the E
existing Rules so that both the written and the viva voce test be taken into
consideration for the purpose of appointments. No further advertisemerit or
examination shall take place but reconsideration of the entire process be
effected upon due reliance on the "'.ritten as well as viva voce test. The
appointments if any, alrtady made shall continue, but sh.all be subject to the F
.further results which may be declared by the Public Service Commission in
regard to filling up of the posts of Block Development and Panchayat Offi~ers.
·, , (501-E-G}

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App~al No. 15354 of 1996.
G
From .the Judgment
'
and Order dated 20.02.96
'
of.the
..
Punjab and Haryana.
High Court in C.W.P. No. 11538of1995.

A.V. f>alli~ Mul Sharma arid Rekha Palli for the Appellant.

P.P. Rao and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Respondent· Nos°' 3''to 45. H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Jayshree Anand Addi. Advocate General for Punjab, G. Sivabalamurugan
and R. Dutta for the State.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BANERJEE, J. Arbitrariness being opposed to reasonableness is an
B antethesis to law. There cannot, however, be any exact definition of arbitrariness
neither can there be any straight jacket formula evolved therefor, since the
same is dependent on the varying facts and ci_rcumstances of each case.

The basic facts pertaining to the appeal against the judgment of the
High Court depict that the Writ Petition of the appellant was dismissed by
C the High Court on the ground that there is no infraction of law neither the
Public Service Commission in the State of Punjab has deviated from the
criteria laid down for selection of candidates for the post of Block Development
and Panchay;;i.t Officer. Incidentally the grievance of the Writ Petitioner-
appellant pertains to violations of the equality clause under Articles 14 and
D 16 of the Constitution read with provisions of Punjab Development and
Panchayat Class-II (Service) Rules, 1974.

On the factual score it appears that the Punjab Public Service Commission
in June, 1993 issued an advertisement for 26 vacancies of Block Development
and Parichayat Officers but before the process of selection could be finalised,
E the Government of Punjab filled up the vacancies through ad hoc appointments
by reason wherefore, the Service Commission considered it fit not to proceed
with the selection any further. The records depict that these ad hoc
appointments, however by the order of the High Court in a Petition under
Article 226 stands quashed and the appeal therefrom was dismissed by this
Court. This Court, however, while rejecting the appeal was pleased to direct
F the Public Service Commission (Punjab) to complete the process of selection
by 9th July, 1995 and in terms therewith, the Service Commission issued a
corrigendum to the advertisement but the vacancies were enhanced from 28
to 44 for reasons of exigencies of the situation. It is against this corrigendum
to the advertisement about 4,500 people appeared in written test and
G subsequently roll numbers of 130 candidates only were published, being
eligible to appear in the viva voce test. On 9th July, 1995 the final result was
announced and the names and roll numbers of candidates who were found
suitable for appointments were published in order of merit. The petitioner's
name, however, did not figure in the merit list, which stands challenged in the
Writ Petition before the High Court but the same however stands negated by
H the High Court and hence the appeal before this Court.
I
PRAVEEN SINGH v. STATE [BAN ER.IEE, .I.] 495

The bone of contention raised in the appeal is the non- consideration A
of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination while
determining the overall merit of the candidates and the real merit has been
ignored at the time of preparation of select list by the Service Commission and
in this context, strong reliance was placed on the information sheet as
circulated by the Service Commission, relevant extracts of which are as below: B
EXAM.1/93
PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATIALA
Information Sheet and Instructions to Candidates
BLOCKDEVELOPMENTANDPANCHAYAT
c
OFFICERS EXAMINATION, 1993
IMPORTANT NOTE:-

xxx xxx xxx xxx
CLOSING DATE ......................................... . D
Vacancies and Reservations: .......................................... .
Qualifications: ........................................... Scheme of Examination:
3. There will be four papers for written test (a) General Knowledge
including everyday science; (b) General English/Essay, (c)
Community Development Panchayat Raj and Agricultural E
Development (d) Punjabi Language test of matriculation Standard,
followed by viva voce test. The qualifying standard and syllabus
etc. is given in the rules attached.
xx xx xxxx xx xx
12(l)The examination will consist of the following subjects and marks F
indicated against each:

S.No. Subject Standard of Maximum
.the papers Marks

I. English/English BA/BSc. Of the 100 G
Punjab University
2. Punjabi (in Matriculation of 50
Gurrnukhi Script) Punjab school Education
Board
H
496 SUPREME <;:OURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.K

A 3. qeneral Knowledge
I
BA/BSc. Of the 100
: Punjab University

4. Community As. per:- det~iled 100 .
•
Development Syllabu~ in 'para, 6
Panchayat Raj find . below.
B AgricJ.!ltural
' .

5. Viva Voce
._
50
xxx . xxx xxxx:

C 2 No capdidate shall be eligil;>le to appe~r-i,n th~ .viva voe? tesf unless he
obtains-33 per c~nt marks ih eacli paper ~c;I 45 pet ceritmar~~ in Jg~e~ate ..
'.'

xxx xxx·

Paragraph 12(1) of· th~ document thus expressly prov~des that the
D examination shall consist of.four different subjects with 100 in.arks each foi
three subjects an d fifty.marks (50):stand ear:marked for the 4th vemacul~r
1

(Punjabi'in Gurmukhi script) totaling 350 marks-and further 50 marks for viva
.voce test. The. es~entiality of.~iva' voce test' however. stands, established by
reason of express narration under the scheme of examination' viz. '.'followed
by viva voce. test". In the event of there. being a w~itten test for elimination,
E tile scheme of the examinatio~ ~ould not have be~n detailed in the manner
as it has been so stated. Paragraph 3. of the instructions· refers to the rules
for J~ying down the qu'alification~' and the .syllabus - for .the examination ..
Admittedly, these rules have been framed ~Y the Governor .of Punjab in
exercise of his power under the ,proviso to Article 309. Rule 5 of the Rules
to
referred the qualificatfon that a person can· be appointed to the ser'viCe who
F possesses the educationaLanct other qualifications specifie~ In Appendix B.
In Appendix B, the posts of Block Development and P~chayat Officers
appear at item No. 20, and the qualifications .mention:d therei'n are as below:

(i) ''Graduate- of a recognised ·university;
G Preference to Graduate in Agriculture;
(ii) Knowledge of Punjabi language upto Matriculation or equivalent
· standard; ·

(iii) Candidates will be required to qualify the following written tests
at the time of recruitment;
H
PRAVEEN SINGH v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 497

(0 General Knowledge 100 marks A
(ii) General English/Essay of JOO marks
BA Standard

(iii) Community Development JOO marks
Panchayati Raj and Agricultural
B

-
Development
.. (iv) Punjabi language test of 50 marks
matriculation standard
(v) Viva Voce JOO marks
c
The qualifying standard in the test will be 33% pass marks in each paper
and 45 per cent in the aggregate."

It is on the basis of the rules together with the information sheet as
noticed herein before, that the High Court came to the conclusion that there
is no arbitrariness in the matter of selection of candidates. The said finding D
stands chal\enged before us principally on the ground that there is existing
a dual requirement viz., written test as also the viva-voce test and the marks
obtained therein in both counts ought to have formed part of the process of
determining the merit and the Public Service Commission had no authority or
jurisdiction to effect the selection solely on the basis of the performance of E
the candidates at the viva voce examination. The respondents however
contended that since it was not possible to interview about 4,500 candidates,
the Public Service Commission resorted to a written elimination test in order
to facilitate the interview process or the viva voce test. It was contended that
as a matter of fact 130 candidates have been called for the viva voce test out
of 4,500 approximately as against 44 vacant posts: A short digration from the F
facts however may not be totally unjustified at this juncture by reason of
enormity of the issue of available employment opportunity. 4,500 persons
applied for 40 vacancies - a rather sordid state of affairs, - employment
opportunities are so meagre as compared to the need and the situation has
reacted its optimum without any indication even of a descending trend. G
Needless to record that this is not in Punjab only but this is reflected every
State in the country - in some States the ratio being still higher - we are
however not expressing any opinion but recording factum only so as to focus
the magnitude of the problem.

Turning on to the contentions as raised by the respondent herein that H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the written test on the wake of the documentary evidence available in the
records cannot but be termed to be a mere qualifying test .and since Service
Commission has proceeded to select the candidates on the basis of the
perfonnance of the candidates at the viva voce examination the actions cannot
be faulted in any way neither can the same be ascribed to be arbitrary or
B capricious.

Relying upon the aforesaid, however, the High Court observeq that
even though the rule is not properly articulated but on a rational interpretation,
there is no escape from the conclusion that passing of the written test with
33% marks in each paper and 45% marks in aggregate does not ipso facto
C entitle a candidate to be called for viva voce/interview. The High Court
however proceeded on the right of the employer for short-listing and screening
since the same has been recognised by the law c'purts keeping in view the
ground reality, as it is otherwise a well-neigh impossibility for the selecting
agency to interview all the candidates. The High Court also took into
consideration the number of candidates and the time that shall be otherwise
D consumed in the event of interview of a larger number of people and as such
the High Court came to the conclusion that the Punjab Public Service
Commission was justified in adopting a rational yardstick for short-listing the
number of candidates for viva voce test and rio arbitrariness or illegality can
be attributed therein and the factum of judging the merits of the candidates
E on the basis of viva voce test being prevalent in the Punjab Public Service
Commission since the year 1978 has also been taken into consideration by
the High Court. While it is true that the administrative or quasi-judicial
authority clothed with the power of selection and appointment ought to be
left unfettered in adaptation of procedural aspect but that does not however
mean and imply that the same would be made available to an employer at the
F cost of fair play, good conscience and equity. This Court in the case of J.P.
Kulshreshtha & Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors., AIR (1980)
SC 2141 did recognise the undetectable manipulation ofresults being achieved
by remote control tactics and masked as viva voce test resulting the sabotaging
of the purity of proceedings. This Court held "interviews as such are not bad
G but polluting it to attain illegitimate ends is bad".
What does Kulshreshtha's case (supra) depict? Does it say that interview
should be only method of assessment of the merits of the candidates? The
answer obviously cannot be in the affinnative. The vice of manipulation, we
are afraid cannot be ruled out. Though interview undoubtedly a significant
H factor in the matter of appointments, it plays a strategic role but it also allows
PRAVEEN SINGH v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 499
creeping in of a lacuna rendering the appointments illegitimate. Obviously it A
is an important factor but ought not to be the sole guiding factor since
reliance thereon only may lead to a "sabotage of the purity of the proceedings".
A long catena of decisions of this Court have been noted by the High Court
in the judgment but we need not: dilate thereon neither we even wish to sound
a contra note. In Ashok Kumar's case Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana,
(1985) 3 SLR 200 this Court.however in no uncertain terms observed: There B
can therefore be no doubt that the viva voce test performs a very u~eful
function in assessing the personal characteristics and traits and in fact tests
the man himself and is therefore regarded as an important tool along with the
written examination (emphasis supplied).

The situation envisaged by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Lila Dhar's case
c
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR ( 1981) SC 1777 on which strong reliance
was placed is totally different from the contextual facts and the reliance
thereon is also totally misplaced. Chinnappa Reddy, J. discussed about the
case of services to which recruitment has necessarily been made from persons
of mature personality and it is in that perspective it was held that "interview D
test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and
professional requirements being satisfied" The facts in the present context
deal with Block Development Officers at the Panchayat level. Neither the job
requires mature personality nor the recruitment should be on the basis of
interview only, having regard to the nature and requirement of the concerned
jobs. In any event, the Service Commission itself has recognised a written test E
as also viva voce test. The issue therefore pertains as to whether on a proper
interpretation of the rules read with the instructions note, the written examination
can be deemed to be a mere qualifying examination and the appointment can
only be given through viva voce test - a plain reading of the same however
would negate the question as posed. F
A close look at the qualification as prescribed and the information
sheet, however, in our view would depict otherwise. The qualifications
prescribes that the candidates will be required to qualifY for the following
written test at the time of recruitment and the qualification standard in the
test has been fixed to be at 33% pass marks in each paper with 45% G
however in the aggregate (emphasised) and paragraph 4 of the Information
sheet, as above, in no uncertain term records that no candidate shall be
"eligible to appear in the viva voce test unless he obtains 33% marks in each
paper and 45% marks in the aggregate.

Reading the two requirements as above, in our view question of having H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

- A the written test written off in the matter of selection does not and cannot
arise. Had it been the intent of the Service Commission, then and in that event
question of there being a totality of marks would not have been included
therein and together with specified marks for viva voce tests, would not have
been there neither there would have any requirement of qualifying pass marks
B nor there would have any aggregate marks as noticed above.

Further, in the event, the interview was the sole criteria and the written
test being treated as qualifying test, the Public Service Commission ought to
have clearly stated that upon completion of the written elimination test,
selection would be made on the basis of the viva voce test only as is available
C in the decision of Ashok & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (1992] I SCC 28. Be
it noted that there is always a room for suspicion for the common appointments
if the oral interview is taken up as the only criteria. Of course, there are posts
and posts, where interviews can be a safe method of appointment but to the
post of a Block Development Officer or a Panchayat Officer wherein about
4500 people applied for 40 posts, interview cannot be said to be a satisfactory
D method of selection though however it may be a part thereof - In the factual
score we have the advantage of having the Rules prescribing the mode and
method of appointments and specific marks are earmarked for written
examinations of various subjects together with totality of marks for viva voce
test. As a matter of fact out of 450 marks only 50 marks have been allotted
E for interview by the Service Commission itself -why these 400 marks allotted
for a written examination in four different subjects, if interview was to be the
guiding factor: there has been however, no answer to the same excepting that
the Court ought not to interfere in the matter of selection process in the
absence of ma/a fides -true it is that in the event the selection is tainted with
mala tides, it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to set right the wrong-
F but is it also realistic to assume that when the Commission in clear and
categorical language recorded that 450 marks would be the total marks for th 0

examination and out of which only 50 marks are earmarked for vivi;i voce test,
the Commission desired that these 50 marks would be relevant and crucial and
the other 400 marks would be rendered totally, superfluous and of no effect
G at all. The language used is rather plain and is not capable of the interpretation
as is being presented before us during the course of hearing and as has been
held by the High Court. Reliance on 50 marks only and thereby avoiding the
other 400 marks cannot in our view having due regard to the language used,
be said to be reasonable or devoid of any arbitrariness.

H The action of the respondent Commission thus is wholly unreasonable,
PRA VEEN SINGH v. ST ATE [BANERJEE, J.] 501

unfair and not in accordance with the declared principles. Appointment A
procedure is evident from.· the documentary· evidence disclosed in the
proceedings and the, Commission ·ought to have taken note· of the written
examinatibn results as well. As a matter Offa~t the High Court while recording
its acceptance to the metho.d ·of selection on .the basis of the viva voce test
only, was pleased tq observe as below:
B
"However, we consider it absolutely imperative to observe that
the Government should get the rules examined and make proper
amendment so th~t · i!.s intention of making distinction between
qualifying test and viva voce test t!oes not remain obscure. We als~
direct the PPSC to take extra precautions while issuing any future C
advertisement so that no inconsisten.cy remains between the rules and
the contents of the advertisement."

The High Court ~dmittedly. therefore found inconsistency and obscurity
in th~ entire process and as a matter of fact, the High Court has suggested
incorporation of proper. amendITients~ in th~ rules so as to avoid confusion and r:
obscurity. We are however, constrained to note that having come to a finding
about the inconsistency and obsctirity in the process, the High Court thimght
it fit to decry the claim of the writ petitioner being the appellant herein cm the
plea of the employers' right but the documents through which the right flows
indicates a contra situation and as such the action suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness and unreasonableness warranting intervention of this Court. On E
the wake of the above, the order of the High Court stands set aside and
quashed. Consequently the appointments are also set aside. The Public Service
Commission is directed to complete the process of selections in terms of the
existing rules so that both the written and the viva voce test be taken into
consideration for the purpose of effecting appointments. It is made clear that p
no further advertisement or examination shall take place but reconsideration
of the entire process be effected upon due reliance on the written as well as ·
viva voce test. The process be completed within a period of 3-months from
the date thereof. It is further made cl,ear that the appointments if any, already
made shaJI continue, but ~hall be subject .to the further results which may be
declared by the Public Service Commission in regard to filling up of the posts G
of Block Development' and Panchayat Officers. The appeal thus stands 'li1owed.
There will however be no order a~ ·10 costs.

R.C.K. Appeal allowed.