( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are inter-connected and they relate to the appointment of one Appala Raju as Asst. Foreman (General) in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, and they can be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) A Pydikonda, the petitioner in both the writ petitions was working as Asst. Foreman (General) on adhoc basis from 05-01-1994 and the Selection Committee constituted by the respondents for the purpose of filling up the vacancy on regular basis by promotion interviewed the petitioner and another on 14-06-1994. But, without publishing the results of the interview held on 14-06-1994, the respondents constituted another selection committee by its proceedings dated 24-11-1994 and called about five persons for interview including the petitioner, who appeared for the interview on 14-06-1994 at 2:30 p. m. on 28-01-1995. The petitioner having appeared for the interview and having suspected that the respondents are likely to appoint some other person filed the Writ Petition No. 1664/95 seeking a direction to the respondents to declare the results of the interview held on 14-06-1994 for appointment to the post of Asst. Foreman (General) on 01-02-1995 and the same was admitted by this Court on the same day. Subsequently, the 1st respondent promoted the 2nd respondent from Chargehand (machinist) and appointed him as Asst. Foreman (General) duly reverting the petitioner who was holding the post of Asst. Foreman (General) on adhoc basis to the post of chargehand (Welder) in its order No. CME/ec/ors/388, dated 14-03-1995. Questioning the said appointment Mr. . Pydikonda, filed the 2nd Writ Petition No. 5105/95.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of adjudicating the dispute the parties are referred in this judgment as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 5105/95.

( 4 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner in these two writ petitions is that though he is the senior most employee in the category of Chargehand and he stands at serial No. 1 among the Chargehands eligible for promotion to the post of Asst. Foreman. The 2nd respondent i. e. , Mr. Appala Raju, who was promoted to the post of Chargehand three years later and who is not qualified at the time of first selection was appointed to the post and the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also his contention that the respondents, with a view to promote Mr. Appala Raju, did not publish the results of the first selection (interview) dated 14-06-1994 and conducted fresh selections for the second time by constituting another selection committee. The action of the respondents in constituting 2nd selection committee and in considering the claims -of Mr. Appala Raju, who is not qualified to hold the post at the time when the vacancy has arisen is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power and it is intended to confer under favour of Mr. Appala Raju.

( 5 ) THE respondents in their counter stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Asst. Foreman (General) with effect from 05-01-1994 at 7th point of 40 point roster on adhoc basis pending dereservation orders to carry forward Scheduled Tribe vacancy at 4th point and after obtaining order by dereservation, the Staff Selection Commission constituted to fill up the vacancy on regular basis could not come to unanimity. While two members of the Committee found the other candidate Mr. Bennaiah suitable, the third member observed that the petitioner who is having four years experience should be promoted as Asst. Foreman. From their counter it is seen that while Mr. Bennaiah got 53 marks out of 100, the petitioner got 50 marks and it is also their case that the total length of service of both the candidates were taken into consideration and for every year of service 1/2 mark was awarded. Out of the two candidates while Mr. Bennaiah got total experience of about 28 years, the petitioner got only about 24 years of service as on the date of selection. They also admitted that the post of Asst. Forema