Case: Ajay Hasia Etc Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi &amp; Ors. Etc

awarded at the interview are by and large in inverse proposition to the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination and are also, in a large number of cases, not commensurate with the marks obtained in the written test. The chart does create a strong suspicion in our mind that the marks awarded at the viva voce examination might have been manipulated with a view to favouring the candidates who ultimately came to be selected, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof and we cannot hold the plea of mala fides to be established. We need much more cogent material before we can hold that the Committee deliberately manipulated the marks at the viva voce examination with a view to favouring certain candidates as against the petitioners. We cannot, however, fail to mention that this is a matter which requires to be looked into very carefully and not only the State Government, but also the Central Government which is equally responsible for the proper running of the College, must take care to see that proper persons are appointed on the interviewing committee and there is no executive interference with their decision-making process. We may also caution the authorities that though, in the present case, for reasons which we have already given we are not interfering with the selection for the academic year 1979-80, the selections made for the subsequent academic years would run the risk of invalidation if such a high percentage of marks is allocated for the oral interview. We are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15 per cent. of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid."27. The petitioners, arguing under the last ground of challenge, urged that the oral interview as conducted in the present case was a mere pretence or farce, as it did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes per candidate on an average and the questions which were asked were formal questions relating to parentage and residence of the candidate and hardly any question was asked which had relevance to assessment of the suitability of the candidate with reference to any of the four factors required to be considered by the Committee. When the time spent on each candidate was not more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average, contended the petitioners, how could the suitability of the candidate be assessed on a consideration of the relevant factors by holding such an interview and how could the Committee possibly judge the merit of the candidate with reference to these factors when no questions bearing on these factors were asked to the candidate. Now there can be no doubt that if the interview did not take more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average and the questions asked had no bearing on the factors required to be taken into account, the oral interview test would be vitiated, because it would be impossible in such an interview to assess the merit of a candidate with reference to these factors. This allegation of the petitioners has been denied in the affidavit in reply filed by H. L. Chowdhury on behalf of the College and it has been stated that each candidate was interviewed for 6 to 8 minutes and "only the relevant questions on the aforesaid subjects were asked." If this statement of H. L. Chowdhury is correct, we cannot find much fault with the oral interview test held by the Committee. But we do not think we can act on this statement made by H. L. Chowdhury, because there is nothing to show that he was present at the interviews and none of the three Committee members has come forward to make an affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioners and stating that each candidate was interviewed for 6 to 8 minutes and only the relevant questions were asked. We must therefore, proceed on the basis that the interview of each candidate did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average and hardly any questions were asked having bearing on the relevant factors. If that be so, the oral interview test must be held to be vitiated and the selection made on the basis of such test must be held to be arbitrary. We are, however, not inclined for reasons already given, to set aside the selection made for the academic year 1979-80, though we may caution the State Government and the Society that for the future academic years, selections may be made on the basis of observations made by us in this judgment lest they might run the risk of being struck down. We may point out that, in our opinion, if the marks allocated for the oral interview do not exceed 15 per cent. of the total marks and the candidates are property interviewed and relevant questions are asked with a view to assessing their suitability with reference to the factors required to be taken into consideration, the oral interview test would satisfy the criterion of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. We think that it would also be desirable if the interview of the candidates is tape-recorded, for in that event there will be contemporaneous evidence to show what were the questions asked to the candidates by the interviewing committee and what were the answers given and that will eliminate a lot of unnecessary controversy besides acting as a check on the possible arbitrariness of the interviewing committee.28. We may point out that the State Government, the Society and the College have agreed before us that the best fifty students, out of those who applied for admission for the academic year 1979-80 and who have failed to secure admission so far, will be granted admission for the academic year 1981-82 and the seats allocated to them will be in addition to the normal intake of students in the College. We order accordingly.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Not it is obvious that the only ground on which the validity of the admissions to the College can be assailed is that the Society adopted an arbitrary procedure for selecting candidates for admission to the College and this resulted in denial of equality to the petitioners in the matter of admission violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It would appear that prima facie protection against infraction of Article 14 is available only against the State and complaint of arbitrariness and denial of equality can therefore be sustained against the Society only if the Society can be shown to be State for purpose of Article 14. Now State is defined in Article 12 to include inter alia the Government of India and the Government of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and the question therefore is whether the Society can be said to be State within the meaning of this definition. Obviously the Society cannot be equated with the Government of India or the Government of any State nor can it be said to be a local authority and therefore, it must come within the expression "other authorities" if it is to fall within the definition of State. That immediately leads us to a consideration of the question as to what are the "other authorities" contemplated in the definition of State in Sectionmust therefore give such an interpretation to the expression "other authorities" as will not stultify the operation and reach of the fundamental rights by enabling the government to its obligation in relation to the fundamental rights by setting up an authority to act as its instrumentality or agency for carrying out its functions. Where constitutional fundamentals vital to the maintenance of human rights are at stake, functional realism and not facial cosmetics must be the diagnostic tool, for constitutional law must seek the substance and not the form. Now it is obvious that the government may act through the instrumentality or agency of natural persons or it may employ the instrumentality or agency of juridical persons to carry out its functions. In the early days when the government had limited functions, it could operate effectively through natural persons constituting its civil service and they were found adequate to discharge governmental functions which were of traditional vintage. But as the tasks of the government multiplied with the advent of the welfare State, it began to be increasingly felt that the framework of civil service was not sufficient to handle the new tasks which were often specialised and highly technical in character and which called for flexibility of approach and quick decision making. The inadequacy of the civil service to deal with these new problems came to be realised and it became necessary to forge a new instrumentality or administrative device for handling these new problems. It was in these circumstances and with a view to supplying this administrative need that the corporation came into being as the third arm of the government and over the years it has been increasingly utilised by the government for setting up and running public enterprises and carrying out other public functions. Today with increasing assumption by the government of commercial ventures and economic projects, the corporation has become an effective legal contrivance in the hands of the government for carrying out its activities, for it is found that this legal facility of corporate instrument provides considerable flexibility and elasticity and facilities proper and efficient management with professional skills and on business principles and it is blissfully free from "departmental rigidity, slow motion procedure and hierarchy of officers". The government in many of its commercial ventures and public enterprises is resorting to more and more frequently to this resourceful legal contrivance of a corporation because it has many practical advantages and at the same time does not involve the slightest diminution in its ownership and control of the undertaking. In such cases "the true owner is the State, the real operator is the State and the effective controllorate is the State and accountability for its actions to the community and to Parliament is of the State." It is undoubtedly true that the corporation is a distinct juristic entity with a corporate structure of its own and it carries on its functions on business principles with a certain amount of autonomy which is necessary as well as useful from the point of view of effective business management, but behind the formal ownership which is cast in the corporate mould, the reality is very much the deeply pervasive presence of the government. It is really the government which acts through the instrumentality or agency of the corporation and the juristic veil of corporate personality worn for the purpose of convenience of management and administration cannot be allowed to obliterate the true nature of the reality behind which is the government. Now it is obvious that if a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the government, it must be subject to the same limitations in the field of constitutional law as the government itself, though in the eye of the law it would be a distinct and independent legal entity. If the government acting through its officers is subject to certain constitutional limitations, it must follow a fortiorari that the government acting through the instrumentality or agency of a corporation should equally be subject to the same limitations. If such a corporation were to be free from the basic obligations to obey the Fundamental Rights, it would lead to considerable erosion of the efficiency of the Fundamental Rights, for in that event the government would be enabled to override the fundamental rights by adopting the stratagem of carrying out its functions through the instrumentality or agency of a corporation, while retaining control over it. The Fundamental Rights would then be reduced to little more than an idle dream or a promise of unreality. It must be remembered that the Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees given to the people of India and are not merely paper hopes or fleeting promises and so long as they find a place in the Constitution, they should not be allowed to be emasculated in their application by a narrow and constricted judicial interpretation. The courts should be anxious to enlarge the scope and width of the Fundamental Rights by bringing within their sweep every authority which is an instrumentality or agency of the government or through the corporate personality of which the government is acting, so as to subject the government in all its myriad activities, whether through natural persons or through corporate entities, to the basic obligation of the Fundamental Rights. The constitutional philosophy of a democratic socialist republic requires the government to undertake a multitude of socio-economic operations and the government, having regard to the practical advantages of functioning through the legal device of a corporation, embarks on myriad commercial and economic activities by resorting to the instrumentality or agency of a corporation, but this contrivance of carrying on such activities through a corporation cannot exonerate the government from implicit obedience to the Fundamental Rights. To use the corporate methodology is not to liberate the government from its basic obligation to respect the Fundamental Rights and not to override them. The mantle of a corporation may be adopted in order to free the government from the inevitable constraints of red tapism and slow motion but by doing so, the government cannot be allowed to play truant with the basic human rights. Otherwise it would be the easiest thing for the government to assign to a plurality of corporations almost every State business such as Post and Telegraph, TV and Radio, Rail Road and Telephones - in short every economic activity - and thereby cheat the people of India out of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to them. That would be a mockery of the Constitution and nothing short of treachery and breach of faith with the people of India, because, though apparently the corporation will be carrying out these functions, it will in truth and reality be the government which will be controlling the corporation and carrying out these functions through the instrumentality or agency of the corporation. We cannot by a process of judicial construction allow the Fundamental Rights to be rendered futile and meaningless and thereby wipe out Chapter III from the Constitution. That would be contrary to the constitutional faith of the post-Maneka Gandhi (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248   : (1978) 2 SCR 621  ) era. It is the Fundamental Rights which along with the Directive Principles constitute the life force of the Constitution and they must be quickened into effective action by meaningful and purposive interpretation. If a corporation is found to be a mere agency or surrogate of the government, "in fact owned by the government, in truth controlled by the government and in effect and incarnation of the government, " the court, must not allow the enforcement of Fundamental Rights to be frustrated by taking the view that it is not the government and therefore not subject to the constitutional limitations. We are clearly of the view that where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the government, it must be held to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and hence subject to the same basic obligation to obey the Fundamental Rights as the government.The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of government may not be culled out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority case ((1979) 3 SCC 489  ). These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression "other authorities", it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the government within the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority case ((1979) 3 SCC 489  ) asOne thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government) (SCC p. 507, para 14)(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character. (SCC p. 508, para 15)(3) It may also be a relevant factor ...... where the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. (SCC p. 508, para 15)(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (SCC p. 508, para 15)(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p. 509, para 16)(6) "Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong supportive of this inference" of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p. 510, paraon a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority case ((1979) 3 SCC 489  ), be an authority and, therefore, State within the meaning of the expression in Article 1210. We find that the same view has been taken by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in a subsequent decision of this Court in the U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan ((1980) 3 SCC 459   : 1980 SCC (L&S) 453) and the observations made by the learned Judge in that case strongly reinforced the view we are taking particularly in the matrix of our constitutional system.11. We may point out that it is immaterial for this purpose whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the government and not as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. The corporation may be a statutory corporation created by a statute or it may be a Government company or a company formed under the Companies Act, 1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other similar statute. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality of agency of the government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the government is not limited to a corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to a company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the government so as to come within the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12.12. It is also necessary to add that merely because a juristic entity may be an "authority" and therefore "State" within the meaning of Article 12, it may not be elevated to the position of "State" for the purpose of Article 309, 310 and 311 which find a place in Part XIV. The definition of "State" in Article 12 which includes an "authority" within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India is limited in its application only to Part III and by virtue of Article 36, to Part IV : it does not extend to the other provisions of the Constitution and hence a juristic entity which may be "State" for the purpose of Parts III and IV would not be so for the purpose of Part XIV or any other provision of the Constitution. That is why the decisions of this Court in S. L. Aggarwal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. ((1970) 3 SCR 363   : (1970) 1 SCC 177  ) and other cases involving the applicability of Article 311 have no relevance to the issue beforebeing a decision given by a Bench of five Judges of this Court is undoubtedly binding upon us but we do not think it lays down any such proposition as is contended on behalf of the respondents. The question which arose in this case was as to whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research which was juridically a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12. The test which the court applied for determining this question was the same as the one laid down in the International Airport Authority case ((1979) 3 SCC 489  ) and approved by us, namely, whether the council was an instrumentality or agency of the government. The court implicitly assented to the proposition that if the council were an agency of the government, it would undoubtedly be an "authority". But, having regard to the various features enumerated in the judgment, the court held that the council was not an agency of the government and hence could not be regarded as an "authority". The court did not rest its conclusion on the ground that the council was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but proceeded to consider various other features of the council for arriving at the conclusion that it was not an agency of the government and therefore not an "authority". This would have been totally unnecessary if the view of the court were that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act can never be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12.14. The decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram ((1975) 3 SCR 619  , 658 : (1975) 1 SCC 421  , 454 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 101, 134) was also strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8 but we fail to see how this decision can assist the respondents in repelling the reasoning in the International Airport Authority case ((1979) 3 SCC 489  ) or contending that a company or society formed under a statute can never come within the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12. That was a case relating to three juristic bodies, namely the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Industrial Finance Corporation and the Life Insurance Corporation and the question was whether they were "State" under Article 12. Each of these three juristic bodies was a corporation created by a statute and the court by majority held that they were "authorities" and therefore "State" within the meaning of Article 12. The court in this case was not concerned with the question whether a company of society formed under a statute can be an "authority" or not and this decision does not therefore contain anything which might have been (sic) remotely suggest that such a company or society can never be an "authority". On the contrary, the thrust of the logic in the decision, far from being restrictive, applies to all juristic persons alike, irrespective whether they are created by a statute or formed under a statute.answer must obviously be in the affirmative if we have regard to the Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Society. The composition of the Society is dominated by the representatives appointed by the Central Government and the Governments of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh with the approval of the Central Government. The monies required for running the College are provided entirely by the Central Government and the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and even if any other monies are to be received by the Society, it can be done only with the approval of the State and the Central Governments. The rules to be made by the Society are also required to have the prior approval of the State and the Central Governments and the accounts of the Society have also to be submitted to both the governments for their scrutiny and satisfaction. The Society is also to comply with all such directions as may be issued by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government in respect of any matters dealt with in the report of the Reviewing Committee. The control of the State and the Central Governments is indeed so deep and pervasive that no immovable property of the Society can be disposed of in any manner without the approval of both the governments. The State and the Central Governments have even the power to appoint any other person or persons to be members of the Society and any member of the Society other than a member representing the State or the Central Government can be removed from the membership of the Society by the State Government with the approval of the Central Government. The Board of Governors, which is in charge of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of Society and of its income and property is also largely controlled by nominees of the State and the Central Governments. It will thus be seen that the State Government and by reason of the provision for approval, the Central Government also, have full control of the working of the Society and it would not be incorrect to say that the Society is merely a projection of the State and the Central Governments and to use the words of Ray, C.J. in Sukhdev Singh case ((1975) 3 SCR 619  , 658 : (1975) 1 SCC 421  , 454 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 101, 134), the voice is that of the State and the Central Governments and the hands are also of the State and the Central Governments. We must, therefore, hold that the Society is an instrumentality or the agency of the State and the Central Governments and it is an authority within the meaning of Articleis sufficient to state that the content and reach of Article 14 must not be confused with the doctrine of classification. Unfortunately, in the early stages of the evolution of our constitutional law, Article 14 came to be identified with the doctrine of classification because the view taken was that that article forbids discrimination and there would be no discrimination where the classification making the differentia fulfils two conditions, namely, (i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislative or executivemust therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the courts is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 would be breached. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an authority under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of theso far as the challenge on the first count is concerned, we do not think it is at all well founded. It is difficult to appreciate how a procedure for admission which does not take into account the marks obtained at the qualifying examination, but prefers to test the comparative merit of the candidates by insisting on an entrance examination can ever be said to be arbitrary. It has been pointed out in the counter-affidavit filed by H. L. Chowdhury on behalf of the College that there are two universities (sic) on two different dates and the examination by the Board of Secondary Education for Jammu is also held on a different date than the examination by the Board of Secondary Education for Kashmir and the results of these examinations are not always declared before the admissions to the College can be decided. The College being the only institution for education in engineering courses in the State of Jammu & Kashmir has to cater to the needs of both the regions and it has, therefore, found it necessary and expedient to regulate admissions by holding an entrance test, so that the admission process may not be held up on account of late declaration of results of the qualifying examination in either of the two regions. The entrance test also facilitates the assessment of the comparative talent of the candidates by application of a uniform standard and is always preferable to evaluation of comparative merit on the basis of marks obtained at the qualifying examination, when the qualifying examination is held by two or more different authorities, because lack of uniformity is bound to creep into the assessment of candidates by different authorities with different modes of examination. We would not, therefore, regard the procedure adopted by the society as arbitrary merely because it refused to take into account the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination, but chose to regulate the admissions by relying on the entrancethis criticism cannot be said to be wholly unfounded and it reflects a point of view which has certainly some validity. We may quote the following passage from the book on PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE by M. P. Sharma which voices a far and balanced criticism of the oral interview method.The oral examination has failed in the past in direct proportion to the extent of its misuse. It is a delicate instrument and, in inexpert hands, a dangerous one. The first condition of its successful use is the full recognition of its limitations. One of the most prolific sources of error in the oral test has been the failure on the part of examiners to understand the nature of evidence and to discriminate between that which was relevant, material and reliable and that which was not. It also must be remembered that the best oral interview provides opportunity for analysis of only a very small part of a persons total behaviour. Generalizations from a single interview regarding an individuals total personality pattern have been proved repeatedly to be wrong. 23. But, despite all this criticism, the oral interview method continues to be very much in vogue as a supplementary test for assessing the suitability of candidates wherever test of personal traits is considered essential. Its relevance as a test for determining suitability based on personal characteristics has been recognised in a number of decisions of this Court which are binding upon us. In the first case on the point which came before this Court, namely, R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore ((1964) 6 SCR 368   : AIR 1964 SC 1823  ) this Court pointedIn the field of education there are divergent views as regards the mode of testing the capacity and calibre of students in the matter of admissions to colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in the annual examination. The modern trend of opinion insists upon other additional tests, such as interview, performance in extracurricular activities, personality test, psychiatric tests etc. Obviously we are not in a position to judge which method is preferable or which test is the correct one .... The scheme of selection, however, perfect it may be a on paper, may be abused in practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing it. So long as the order lays down relevant objective criteria the business of selection to qualified persons, this Court cannot obviously have any say in the matter and on this view refused to hold the oral interview test as irrelevant or arbitrary. It was also pointed out by this Court in A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu ((1971) 2 SCR 430   : (1971) 1 SCC 38  ) (SCC p. 44, para 13)most cases, the first impression need not necessarily be the best impression. But under the existing conditions, we are unable to accede to the contentions of the petitioners that the system of interview as in vogue in this country is so defective as to make it useless.It is therefore not possible to accept the contentions of the petitioners that the oral interview test is so defective that selecting candidates for admission on the basis of oral interview in addition to written test must be regarded as arbitrary. The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test of measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influenced by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. We would, however, like to point out that in the matter of admission to college 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 qualification26. So far as the third ground of challenge is concerned, we do not think it can be dismissed asmarks allocated for the oral interview were 50 as against 100 allocated for the written test, so that the marks allocated for the oral interview came to 33 1/3 per cent. of the total number of marks taken into account for the purpose of making the selection. This, contended the petitioners, was beyond all reasonable proportion and rendered the selection of the candidates arbitrary and violative of the equality clause of the Constitution. Now there can be no doubt that, having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing in the country, particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase, allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the court as free from the vice of arbitrariness. It may be pointed out that even in Peeriakaruppan case ((1971) 2 SCR 430   : (1971) 1 SCC 38  ), where 75 marks out of a total of 275 marks were allocated for the oral interview, this Court observed that the marks allocated for interview were on the high side. This Court also observed in Nishi Maghu case ((1980) 4 SCC 95  )50 marks for interview out of a total of 150 .... does seen excessive, especially when the time spent was not more than 4 minutes on each candidate". There can be no doubt that allocating 33 1/3 per cent. of the total marks for oral interview is plainly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is significant to note that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the Indian Police Service, where the personality of the candidate and his personal characteristics and traits are extremely relevant for the purpose of selection, the marks allocated for oral interview are 250 as against 1800 marks for the written examination, constituting only 12.2 per cent. of the total marks taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. We must, therefore, regard the allocation of as high a percentage as 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview as infecting the admission procedure with the vice of arbitrariness and selection of candidates made on the basis of such admission procedure cannot be sustained. But we do not think we would be justified in the exercise of our discretion in setting aside the selection made for the academic year 1979-80 after the lapse of a period of about 18 months, since to do so would be to cause immense hardship to those students in whose case the validity of the selection cannot otherwise be questioned and who have nearly completed three semesters and, moreover, even if the petitioners are ultimately found to be deserving of selection on the application of the proper test, it would not be possible to restore them to the position as if they were admitted for the academic year 1979-80, which has run out long since. It is true there is an allegations of mala fides against the Committee which interviewed the candidates and we may concede that if this allegation were established, we might have been inclined to interfere with the selection even after the lapse of a period of 18 months, because the writ petitions were filed as early as October-November 1979 and merely because the court could not take up the hearing of the writ petitions for such a long time should be no ground for denying relief to the petitioners, if they are otherwise so entitled. But we do not think that on the material placed before us we can sustain the allegation of mala fides against the Committee. It is true, and this is a rather disturbing feature of the present cases, that a large number of successful candidates succeeded in obtaining admission to the college by virtue of very high marks obtained by them at the viva voce examination tilted the balance in their favour, though the marks secured by them at the qualifying examination were much less obtained by the petitioners and even in the written test, they had fared much worse than the petitioners. it is clear from the chart submitted to us on behalf of the petitioners that the marks awarded at the interview are by and large in inverse proposition to the marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination and are also, in a large number of cases, not commensurate with the marks obtained in the written test. The chart does create a strong suspicion in our mind that the marks awarded at the viva voce examination might have been manipulated with a view to favouring the candidates who ultimately came to be selected, but suspicion cannot take the place of proof and we cannot hold the plea of mala fides to be established. We need much more cogent material before we can hold that the Committee deliberately manipulated the marks at the viva voce examination with a view to favouring certain candidates as against the petitioners. We cannot, however, fail to mention that this is a matter which requires to be looked into very carefully and not only the State Government, but also the Central Government which is equally responsible for the proper running of the College, must take care to see that proper persons are appointed on the interviewing committee and there is no executive interference with their decision-making process. We may also caution the authorities that though, in the present case, for reasons which we have already given we are not interfering with the selection for the academic year 1979-80, the selections made for the subsequent academic years would run the risk of invalidation if such a high percentage of marks is allocated for the oral interview. We are of the view that, under the existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15 per cent. of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionallythe time spent on each candidate was not more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average, contended the petitioners, how could the suitability of the candidate be assessed on a consideration of the relevant factors by holding such an interview and how could the Committee possibly judge the merit of the candidate with reference to these factors when no questions bearing on these factors were asked to the candidate. Now there can be no doubt that if the interview did not take more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average and the questions asked had no bearing on the factors required to be taken into account, the oral interview test would be vitiated, because it would be impossible in such an interview to assess the merit of a candidate with reference to these factors. This allegation of the petitioners has been denied in the affidavit in reply filed by H. L. Chowdhury on behalf of the College and it has been stated that each candidate was interviewed for 6 to 8 minutes and "only the relevant questions on the aforesaid subjects were asked." If this statement of H. L. Chowdhury is correct, we cannot find much fault with the oral interview test held by the Committee. But we do not think we can act on this statement made by H. L. Chowdhury, because there is nothing to show that he was present at the interviews and none of the three Committee members has come forward to make an affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioners and stating that each candidate was interviewed for 6 to 8 minutes and only the relevant questions were asked. We must therefore, proceed on the basis that the interview of each candidate did not last for more than 2 or 3 minutes on an average and hardly any questions were asked having bearing on the relevant factors. If that be so, the oral interview test must be held to be vitiated and the selection made on the basis of such test must be held to be arbitrary. We are, however, not inclined for reasons already given, to set aside the selection made for the academic year 1979-80, though we may caution the State Government and the Society that for the future academic years, selections may be made on the basis of observations made by us in this judgment lest they might run the risk of being struck down. We may point out that, in our opinion, if the marks allocated for the oral interview do not exceed 15 per cent. of the total marks and the candidates are property interviewed and relevant questions are asked with a view to assessing their suitability with reference to the factors required to be taken into consideration, the oral interview test would satisfy the criterion of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. We think that it would also be desirable if the interview of the candidates is tape-recorded, for in that event there will be contemporaneous evidence to show what were the questions asked to the candidates by the interviewing committee and what were the answers given and that will eliminate a lot of unnecessary controversy besides acting as a check on the possible arbitrariness of the interviewing committee.28. We may point out that the State Government, the Society and the College have agreed before us that the best fifty students, out of those who applied for admission for the academic year 1979-80 and who have failed to secure admission so far, will be granted admission for the academic year 1981-82 and the seats allocated to them will be in addition to the normal intake of students in the College. We order accordingly.