http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: LILA DHAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/08/1981

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SEN, A.P. (J) ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1777            1982 SCR  (1) 320  1981 SCC  (4) 159        1981 SCALE  (3)1235  CITATOR INFO :  F          1984 SC 873  (9,10)  R          1986 SC 597  (2)  E&R        1987 SC 554  (23,25)  RF         1988 SC 162  (11)  R          1988 SC1451  (8)  F          1991 SC 295  (13)  D          1991 SC1011  (9)  R          1992 SC   1  (20)

ACT:      Selection to  a Public  Service-Ideal  mode-By  written examination or  by oral test (viva voce) or by a combination of both  explained-Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules Schedule 111 prescribing  the  criteria  to  be  considered  and  the matters to be tested in the viva voce examination-Allocation of 25%  of the  total marks  for the  viva voce  examination whether arbitrary  so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

HEADNOTE:      Pursuant to  the Rajasthan  Judicial Service Rules made by the  Governor  of  Rajasthan  in  consultation  with  the Rajasthan Public  Service Commission  and the  High Court of Rajasthan, the  Rajasthan Public  Service Commission  held a competitive examination  for  recruitment  of  Munsifs.  The competitive examination  consisted of  a written examination with two  papers in  law carrying  100 marks  each  and  two papers, one in Hindi and the other in English, each carrying SO marks and a viva voce examination carrying 100 marks. The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board consisting of Hon’ble Mr Justice P. D. Kudal, Judge, Rajasthan High Court, Shri Hari  Dutt Gupta,  Chairman, Rajasthan  Public  Service Commission,  Adaviappa,  Member,  Rajasthan  Public  Service Commission and  an expert.  The expert Member was either Dr. I.C. Saxena,  or Shri  Kagzi  or  Shri  Jallan  who  sat  by rotation. Out of the 39 candidates (respondents 3 to 41) who were selected for appointment, one belonged to the scheduled caste and  the rest  belonged to  the general  category. The last of the candidates belonging to the general category who was selected  for appointment  obtained a total of 190 marks in the examination, 135 in the written examination and 55 in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

the viva  voce. The  petitioner who  obtained a total of 189 marks, 159  in the  written test and 30 in the viva voce was not selected  for appointment.  Hence the  writ petition, by the petitioner  contending: (a)  the allocation  of so  high percentage of  marks for  the interview  test introduced  an irredeemable  element  of  arbitrariness  so  as  to  offend Articles 14  and 16  of the  Constitution; (b)  awarding  of marks in  the interview test in a single lot instead of sub- dividing and  awarding marks  separately under various heads for the  various matters  tested in the interview was bad in law.      Dismissing the writ petition, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  The object  of any  process of  selection for entry into  a public  service is  to secure the best and tho most suitable  person for  the job,  avoiding patronage  and favouritism. Selection  based on  merit, tested  impartially and objectively,  is the  essential foundation of any useful and efficient public service. [324 C-D] 321      1:2. While a written examination assesses a candidate’s knowledge and  intellectual ability,  an interview  test  is valuable to  assess a  candidate’s overall  intellectual and personal qualities.  While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the interview test there are yet no written test:  which can  evaluate a candidate’s initiative, alertness resourcefulness, dependableness, co-operativeness, capacity for  clear and  logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion,  effectiveness in  meeting and  dealing  with others, adaptability,  judgement, ability  to make decision, ability to  lead, intellectual  and moral integrity. Some of these qualities  may be  evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error,  by an  interview  test,  much  depending  on  the constitution  of  the  interview  Board.  Thus  the  written examination assesses  the man’s  intellect and the interview test the man himself and "the twain shall meet" for a proper selection. [325 C-E, 326 F]      2. As regards the weight to be attached respectively to the written test and the oral test, there cannot be any rule of thumb  regarding the  precise weight to be given. It must vary from  service to  service according to the requirements of the  service, the minimum qualifications, prescribed, the age group  from which  the selection is to be made, the body to which  the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be  entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts and for research. It is not for courts to  pronounce upon  it unless  exaggerated weight has been given  with proven  or obvious oblique motives. [326 F. 327 C-D]      Periakaruppan v.  State Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R. and Ajay Hasia  etc. v.  Khalid Mujlb  Sehravardi & Ors., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487, explained.      3.  Ordinarily   recruitment  to   public  services  is regulated by  rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution  and courts  would be  usurping a  function which  is  not  theirs,  if  they  try  to  redetermine  the appropriate method  of selection  and the relative weight to be attached  to the  various tests.  If the  courts do that, they will  be rewriting the rules but, however, courts would interfere certainly  in cases  of proven  or obvious oblique motives. [330 C-D]      In the  instant case,  the selection  cannot ba  struck down on the ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview test: (a) The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules have been  made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

with the  High Court  of Rajasthan  and the Rajasthan Public Service  Commission.   Both  are  well-acquainted  with  the particular needs  of their  State and  the  people.  If  the Governor, in consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission  of the  State  makes  rules  stipulating seventy  five   per  cent  of  the  marks  for  the  written examination and twenty five per cent for the interview test, Courts have  no basis  on which  to say that twenty five per cent for  the interview  test is  on the  high side; (b) the interview test  is  generally  conducted  and  was,  in  the present case,  conducted by  a body consisting of a Judge of the High  Court, the  Chairman and  a member  of the  Public Service Commission and a special invitee-expert, and as such no legitimate  grievance or  hint of  arbitrariness could be made against this body; (c) the candidates expected to offer themselves for  selection are  not raw graduates freshly out of college  but are  persons who  have  already  received  a certain amount of professional training. The source material is such  that some  weightage must be given to the interview test 322 and (d)  the marks obtained by the candidates at the written examination were  not made  available to  the members of the interviewing Board  either before  or at  the  time  of  the interview. [327 E-H, 328 A-C]      4. Courts  cannot sit  in judgment  over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless, it is proven or obvious  that the  method  of  marking  was  chosen  with oblique motive. In the instant case, the Rajasthan Judicial Rules generally  indicate the  criteria to  be considered in the interview  test without dividing the interview test into distinct sub-tests.  It is for the interviewing body to take a general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or  to award marks in a single lot. The award of marks under different heads may lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on  occasions. On  the other hand, the totality of the impression  created by the candidate on the interviewing body may  give a  more accurate  picture of  the candidate’s personality. [328 D-G]      Periakaruppan v.  State of  Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 430 and Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sheravardi and Ors., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487, discussed and distinguished.

JUDGMENT:      ORlGlNAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 2701 of 1981.           (Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.)      S. K Mehta, P. N. Puri, E. M. Sardul Anam, M. K Dua and K M. Jain for the Petitioner.      V. M. Tarkunde and S. K Jain for Respondents Nos. 7, 8, 15, 25-28, 29, 31, 33, 38, 41.      K  Parasaran   Sol.  Gen.  and  Badri  Das  Sharma  for Respondent No. 1.      N.L. Jain and Badri Das Sharma for Respondent No. 2.      Badri Das Sharma for Respondent No. 3.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. What is the ideal mode of selection to a  Public Service,  by written  examination, by oral test (viva voce), or by a combination of both ? If the last, what is the  proper, relative  weight that  should be attached to the written examination and the oral test ? Is the oral test so pernicious  in practice,  as suggested  by some,  that it should be  abandoned without  regrets or  the weight  to  be attached to  it be  made minimal  ? Has  any such  consensus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

emerged among  the  informed-  and  the  cognoscenti  as  to require the  Court to  scrap a selection as arbitrary on the sole ground  that the  weight  accorded  to  the  oral  test appeared to be high ? 323      Pursuant to  the Rajasthan  Judicial Service rules made by the  Governor  of  Rajasthan  in  consultation  with  the Rajasthan Public  Service Commission  and the  High Court of Rajasthan, the  Rajasthan Public  Service Commission  held a competitive examination  for  recruitment  of  Munsifs.  The competitive examination  consisted of  a written examination with two  papers in  law carrying  100 marks  each  and  two papers, one in Hindi and the other in English, each carrying SO marks and a viva voce examination carrying 100 marks. The viva voce examination was conducted by a Board consisting of Hon’ble Mr.  Justice P.  D.  Kudal,  Judge,  Rajasthan  High Court, Shri  Hari Datt  Gupta,  Chairman,  Rajasthan  Public Service  Commission,  Adaviappa,  Member,  Rajasthan  Public Service Commission  and an  expert. The  expert  Member  was either Dr.  I. C.  Saxena, or  Shri Kagzi or Shri Jallan who sat by  rotation. Schedule  III of  the  Rajasthan  Judicial Service rules  prescribes the  criteria to be considered and the matters  to be  tested in the viva voce examination. The relevant paragraph is as follows:           "In interviewing  the candidates,  the suitability      for employment to the judicial service shall be decided      with reference to his record at the school, College and      University and  his character, personality, address and      physique. The  questions which may be put up to him may      be of  a general  nature and  will not  necessarily  be      academic or  legal. The  candidates will  also  be  put      questions  to  test  the  general  knowledge  including      knowledge of  current affairs and present day problems.      The marks  so awarded  shall  be  added  to  the  marks      obtained in the written test by each candidate.’. The result  of the  competitive examination was announced by the Rajasthan  Public Service  Commission on  March 12, 1981 and respondent  Nos. 3  to 41  were  declared  selected  for appointment. Out  of the 39 candidates who were selected for appointment, one  belonged to  the scheduled  castes and the rest belonged  to the  general category.  The  last  of  the candidates  belonging   to  the  general  category  who  was selected for  appointment obtained  a total  of 190 marks in the examination,  135 in  written examination  and 55 in the viva voce. The petitioner who obtained a total of 189 marks, 159 in  the written  test and  30 in  the viva  voce was not selected for  appointment. He  has filed  the  present  writ petition under  Art. 32  of the Constitution questioning the selection. 324      Shri Mehta  learned counsel  for the  petitioner raised two principal  contentions before us. The first was that the entire selection  was  vitiated  by  the  allocation  of  25 percent of  the total  marks for  the viva voce examination. The  submission  was  that  the  allocation  of  so  high  a percentage of  marks for  the interview-test  introduced  an irredeemable  element  of  arbitrariness  so  as  to  offend Articles 14  and 16  of the Constitution. In support of this submission reliance  was placed  on the  decisions  of  this Court in  Ajay Hasia  etc. Khalid  Mujib Sehravardi  &  ors. etc.(l) Shri  Mehta’s second  contention was that marks were awarded in the interview-test in a single lot instead of sub dividing and  awarding marks  separately under various heads for the  various matters  tested in  the interview. Reliance was placed on Periakaruppan v. Stare of’ Tamil Nadu (2).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    The object of any process of selection for entry into a public service  is to  secure the best and the most suitable person for  the job,  avoiding  patronage  and  favouritism. Selection   based   on   merit,   tested   impartially   and objectively, is  the essential  foundation of any useful and efficient public  service. So,  open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services".  "The ideal  in recruitment  is to do away with  unfairness(3)".  "Competitive  examinations  were  the answer to the twin problems represented by democracy and the requirements of  good administration. They were the means by which  equality   of  opportunity  was  to  be  united  with efficiency.. By  this means  favouritism was  to be excluded and the  goal of  securing the best man for every job was to be  achieved(4)".   "open  competitive  examinations  are  a peculiarly democratic  institution. Any qualified person may come forward.  His relative  competence for  appointment  is determined by  a neutral, disinterested body on the basis of objective evidence supplied by the candidate himself. No one has "pull";  everyone stands  on his own feet. The system is not only highly democratic it is fair and equitable to every competitor. The  same  rules  govern,  the  same  procedures apply, the same yardstick is used to test competence(S).      How should the competitive examination be devised ? The 325 Kothari  Committee   on  Recruitment  Policy  and  Selection methods in their report said:           "A system  of recruitment almost totally dependent      on assessment  of a  person’s  academic  knowledge  and      skills, as  distinct from ability to deal with pressing      problems  of  economic  and  social  development,  with      people, and  with novel  situations  cannot  serve  the      needs of  today, much  less of tomorrow.. We venture to      suggest that  our recruitment procedures should be such      that  we   can  select  candidates  who  can  not  only      assimilate knowledge  and sift  material to  understand      the ramifications  of a situation or a problem but have      the potential  to develop  an  original  or  innovative      approach to the solution of problems". It is  now well  recognised that while a written examination assesses a  candidate’s knowledge  and intellectual ability, an interview  test  is  valuable  to  assess  a  candidate’s overall intellectual and personal qualities. While a written examination  has   certain  distinct   advantage  over   the interview test  there are  yet no  written tests  which  can evaluate    a     candidate’s     initiative,     alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness,  cooperativeness,  capacity for  clear   and  logical  presentation,  effectiveness,  in discussion,  effectiveness   in  meeting  and  dealing  with others, adaptability,  judgment, ability  to make  decision, ability to  lead, intellectual  and moral integrity. Some of these qualities  may be  evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error,  by an  interview  test,  much  depending  on  the constitution of  the interview  Board. O. Glenn Stahl in his Public Personnel Administration points out:           "Any  form   of  written  test  possesses  certain      administrative advantages over the oral and performance      types. The  written form  is much easier and cheaper to      administer. It  can be  given  to  a  large  number  of      individuals at  the same time, thus conserving the time      of the  examiners. As  a general  rule it  is easier to      evaluate objectively,  and  the  technical  proficiency      demanded in  rating is  usually, although  not  always,      less.-The  oral   test  has  long  served  as  a  basic      selection tool  in private employment but has been more

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    slowly accepted  in the public field. This conservatism      arises out  of three considerations: (I) the difficulty      of developing  valid and  reliable oral  tests; (2) the      difficulty of  securing a  reviewable record of an oral      test; and (3) public suspicion of the oral as a channel      for the exertion of politi- 326      cal influence  through the  destruction  of  anonymity.      Despite  these   acknowledged  disadvantages,  however,      orals have  been used  increasingly in public personnel      testing and  have become important instruments wherever      tests of  personal attributes are considered essential.      As we have noted no satisfactory written tests have yet      been    devised    for    measuring    such    personal      characteristics as initiative, ingenuity and ability to      elicit  cooperation,   many  of   which  are  of  prime      importance. When properly employed, the oral test today      deserves a  place in  the battery used by the technical      examiner.. The  general principle is that resort should      never be  had to  an oral  if the relevant factor to be      tested can  be measured  at some  other  point  in  the      examining process.  The reason  is that the reliability      of the  oral, even  under the best of conditions, tends      to be  lower than  that of  the well  designed  written      test. The  oral test  should be  confined, then, to the      evaluation of  relevant traits which cannot be measured      in any other way" (p. 92) In the  United Nations  Hand Book  on Civil Service Laws and Practice it is said:           ".. the  written papers  permit an  assessment  of      culture  and  intellectual  competence.  The  interview      permits an  assessment of  qualities of character which      written papers  ignore; it  attempts to  assess the man      himself and not his intellectual abilities".      Thus,  the   written  examination  assesses  the  man’s intellect and  the interview  test the  man himself and "the twain shall  meet" for  a proper  selection. If both written examination and  interview test are to be essential features of proper selection, the question may arise as to the weight to  be  attached  respectively  to  them.  In  the  case  of admission to  a college, for instance, where the candidate’s personality is  yet to  develop  and  it  is  too  early  to identify the personal qualities for which greater importance may have  to be  attached in  later life, greater weight has per  force  to  be  given  to  performance  in  the  written examination. The  importance to be attached to the interview test must  be minimal.  That was  what was  decided by  this Court in  Periakaruppan v.  State of  Tamil Nadu, Ajay Hasia etc. v.  Khalid Mujib  Sehravardi &  ors. etc.,  (supra) and other cases.  On the  other hand, in the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature 327 personality, interview  test may be the only way, subject to basic and  essential academic  and professional requirements being satisfied.  To  subject  such  persons  to  a  written examination may yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from its  being an  act or  cruelty to  those persons. There are, of  course, many  services to which recruitment is made from younger  candidates  whose  personalities  are  on  the threshold  of  development  and  who  show  signs  of  great promise, and  the discerning may in an interview test, catch a glimpse  of the  future personality.  In the  case of such services,  where   sound  selection  must  combine  academic ability with  personality promise,  some weight  has  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

given, though  not much  too great  weight, to the interview test. There  cannot be  any  rule  of  thumb  regarding  the precise weight  to be  given. It  must vary  from service to service according  to the  requirements of  the service. the minimum qualifications  prescribed, the age group from which the selection  is to  be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of  other factors.  It is a matter for determination by experts. It  is a  matter for research. It is not for Courts to pronounce  upon it  unless exaggerated  weight  has  been given with  proven or  obvious oblique  motives. The Kothari Committee  also  suggested  that  in  view  of  the  obvious importance of  the subject,  it may be examined in detail by the Research Unit of the Union of Public Service Commission.      In this  background, let  us now  examine the situation presented by  the Rajasthan  rules. The  Rajasthan  Judicial Service rules  leave been  made by the Governor of Rajasthan in consultation  with the  High Court  of Rajasthan  and the Rajasthan Public  Service Commission.  The High Court may be expected to  know the  precise requirements  of the judicial service of  the State  and  the  calibre  of  the  available source-material, while  the Public  Service Commission is an expert body  thoroughly conversant with recruitment policies and selection  methods. Both  the High  Court and the Public Service Commission are independent bodies, outside executive control, occupying  special positions  and enjoying  special status under the constitution. Neither is an outside agency. Both are  well-acquainted with the particular needs of their State and  the people. If the Governor, in consultation with the High  Court and  the Public  Service Commission  of  the State makes  rules stipulating  seventy five  percent of the marks for  the written  examination and  twenty five percent for the  interview test,  on what basis can a Court say that twenty five  percent for  the interview  test is on the high side ? It must not also be forgotten that the interview test is generally conducted 328 and was, in the present case, conducted by a body consisting of a  Judge of  the High Court, the Chairman and a member of the Public Service Commission an d a special invitee-expert. There can  surely  be  no  legitime  grievance  or  hint  of arbitrariness against  this body.  Yet another factor worthy of consideration  is that  the candidates  expected to offer themselves for  selection are  not raw Graduates freshly out of college  but are  persons who  have  already  received  a certain amount of professional training. The source material is such  that some  weightage must be given to the interview test and  can it  possibly be said that twenty five per cent of the  total marks  is an exaggerated weightage. We may add here that  it has been made clear by the Chairman, Rajasthan Public  Service   Commission  on   whose  behalf  a  counter affidavit has  been filed  before us that the marks obtained by the  candidates at  the written examination were not made available to  the members  of  the  interview  Board  either before  or   at  the   time  of   the  interview.   We   are unhesitatingly of  the view  that the  selection  cannot  be struck down  on the  ground that more than due weightage was given to the interview test.      The second  ground of  attack must  fail for  the  same reason as  the first  ground of attack. The rules themselves do not  provide for  the allocation of marks under different heads at  the interview test. The criteria for the interview test bas  been laid  down  by  the  rules.  lt  is  for  the interviewing body  to take  a general  decision  whether  to allocate marks  under different heads or to award marks in a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

single lot.  The award  of marks  under different  heads may lead to  a distorted  picture of the candidate on occasions. On the  other hand the totality of the impression created by the candidate  on the  interviewing body  may  give  a  more accurate picture  of the  candidate’s personality. It is for the interviewing  body to  choose the  appropriate method of marking at  the selection  to each  service. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts cannot sit it judgment  over   the  methods   of   marking   employed   by interviewing bodies  unless, as  we said,  it is  proven  or obvious that  the method  of marking was chosen with oblique motive.      Both the cases cited before us Periakaruppan’s case and Ajay Hasia’s  case were  cases of  admission to colleges. We have already  pointed out  that the  provision for marks for interview test need not and cannot be the same for admission to colleges  and entry  into public  services.  In  fact  in Periakaruppan’s case, even in the case of college admissions the Court observed: 329           "While we  do feel  that the  marks  allotted  for      interview  are   on  the   high  side  and  it  may  be      appropriate  for   the  Government  to  re-examine  the      question, we  are unable  to uphold the contention that      it was  not within  the  power  of  the  Government  to      provide such high marks for interview or that there was      any arbitrary exercise of power". It is  true that in Periakaruppan’s case the Court held that the non  allocation of  marks under  various  heads  in  the interview  test   was  illegal  but  that  was  because  the instructions to  the Selection Committee provided that marks were to  be awarded  at the  interview on  the basis of five distinct tests.  It was thought that the failure to allocate marks under  each head  or distinct  test was an illegality. But, in  the case  before us,  the rule merely and generally indicates the  criteria to  be considered  in the  interview test without  dividing the  interview test into distinct, if we may  so call  them,  sub-tests.  We  do  not  think  that Periakaruppan’s  case,   which,  as   we  said,  deals  with admission to  a college,  affords any  true guidance  to us. Ajay Hasia’s case was also a case of admission to a college. The  Court   while  upholding  the  interview  test  as  not irrational or  irrelevant though  unsatisfactory and capable of abuse, made the following observation:           "We would,  however, like to point out that in the      matter of  admission of  colleges or even in the matter      of  public  employment,  the  oral  interview  test  as      presently  held   should  not  be  relied  upon  as  an      exclusive test,  but it  may be  resorted to only as an      additional or  supplementary test  and, moreover, great      care  must  be  taken  to  see  that  persons  who  are      appointed to conduct the oral interview test are men of      high integrity, calibre and qualification". The Court  then proceeded  to  consider  the  next  question raised before them, whether the allocation of 33 113 percent of the  total marks  for the  interview  test  vitiated  the selection procedure  as arbitrary  and unreasonable.  It was held that  it did  and reference  was made  to the fact that even  for   selection   of   candidates   for   the   Indian Administrative Service the marks allocated for the interview test were  only 12.2  percent of  the  total.  It  was  then observed, "under  the existing  circumstances, allocation of more than  15% of  the total  marks for  the oral  interview would be  arbitrary and  unreasonable and would be liable to be   struck   down   as   constitutionally   invalid".   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

observations of the Court were made, primarily 330 in connection  with the  problem of  admission to  colleges, where naturally,  academic performance  must be  given prime importance. The  words "or  even in  The  matter  of  public employment" occurring in the first extracted passage and the reference to  the marks  allocated for the interview test in the  Indian  Administrative  Service  examination  were  not intended to  lay down  any wide,  general rule that the same principle  that  applied  in  the  matter  of  admission  to colleges also applied in the matter of recruitment to public services. The  observation relating to public employment was per  incuriam   since  the  matter  did  not  fall  for  the consideration of  the Court  in that  case. Nor  do we think that the  Court intended  any  wide  construction  of  their observation. As  already observed  by us  the weight  to  be given to the interview test should depend on the requirement of the  service to  which recruitment  is made,  the  source material available  for recruitment,  the composition of the interview  Board   and  several   like  factors.  Ordinarily recruitment to  public services  is regulated  by rules made under the  proviso to  Art. 309  of the  Constitution and we would be usurping a function which is not ours, if we try to redetermine the  appropriate method  of  selection  and  the relative weight  to be  attached to the various tests. If we do that  we would  be  rewriting  the  rules  but  we  guard ourselves against  being understood  as saying that we would not interfere  even in  cases of  proven or  obvious oblique motive. There is none in the present case. The Writ Petition is therefore  dismissed but  in the circumstances there will be no order regarding costs. V.D.K.                                   Petition dismissed. 331