IMPORTANT POINT
There cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given for oral examination of the candidates seeking employment or promotion as it must vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-On his failure to succeed in the Central Administrative Tribunal ( Tribunal for short), (Allahabad Bench) in OA No. 244 of 1986 decided on June 29, 1987 the appellant has come to this Court in appeal. The appellant had prayed in his petition before the Tribunal for quashing the panel dated April 28, 1986 for promotion to the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in the Northern Railway. While D.K. Srivastava and P.N. Tripathi respectively respondents 4 and 5 were empanelled, the appellant could not make it. He also sought direction that he was entitled to appointment to this post of Chief Personnel Inspector.

2. Divisional Manager, Northern Railway, issued a letter on March 17 1986 for holding interviews for two posts of Chief Personnel Inspector from Divisional Personnel Inspectors. At the relevant time only four persons were eligible for filling up the post of Chief Personnel Inspector. They were :

(1) Rajkumar (S.C.)

(2) P.N. Tripathi (respondent No. 5)

(3) Siya Ram (the appellant)

(4) D.K. Srivastava (respondent 4).

At that time Rajkumar and P.N. Tripathi were working as Chief Personnel Inspector on ad hoc basis.

3. Post of Chief Personnel Inspector is a selection post. Selection Board was comprising of three officials namely : Aslam Mehmood, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Lucknow; Raghuram, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Allahabad; and R.B. Srivastava, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Lucknow. The Selection Board interviewed all the eligible candidates and respondents 4 and 5 were selected to the posts of Chief Personnel Inspector. The criteria which the Selection Board adopted for selection was as follows :

"(a) Professional ability - 50 marks

(b) Personality, Leader- ship, technical and    educational qualifi- cations - 20 marks

(c) Record of service - 15 marks

(d) Seniority   - 15 marks"

4. Though D.K. Srivastava was lower in the seniority list to the appellant but it is admitted that both of them were promoted to the post of Divisional Personnel Inspector on the same day. Interviews were held on April 12, 1986 and selection list was prepared on April 28, 1986. The appellant challenged his non selection in the Tribunal by filing petition on May 14, 1986 which, as noted above, was dismissed by the Tribunal by judgment dated June 29, 1987.

5. Two principal contentions were raised by the appellant : (1) one of the members of the Selection Board namely, Raghuram was favourable inclined towards D.K. Srivastava and (2) the Rules regarding selection permitted only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held and result merely on the basis of viva voce could not be reasonably fair and was liable to lead to arbitrariness and that out of 100 marks 50 were allotted for professional ability without prescribing any norms.

6. As far as the first contention is concerned, the appellant could not substantiate the same. Apart from his bald assertion that Raghuram was patronising D.K. Srivastava, there is nothing on the record to corroborate the same. As a matter of fact the Tribunal examined the marks sheets given by the three members and found that in fact Raghuram gave more marks to the appellant than given by him to 4th respondent. We do not appreciate such types of allegations against the members of the Selection Board. It is not proper to do so in the absence of any material. We, therefore, reject the allegation of patronage or favouritism alleged against Raghuram.

7. Railway administration has laid down procedure which would apply to selection to the posts in the services. Selection to the post is to be made on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Board. Before the Board assembles to make the selection all p