( 1 ) THE unsuccessful appellant preferred these appeals against a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 17-2-2005 in W. P. Nos. 14614, 14615 and 14616 of 2004 upholding the selection of R-3 in all writ petitions to the posts of Director (Planning and Projects)/chief General Manager of singareni Collieries Company Ltd (sccl for short) in preference to him.

( 2 ) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant was working as General manager, having been promoted in the year 2001. When vacancy for the posts of director (Planning and Projects)/chief general Manager fell vacant, interviews were held on 2-8-2004 in the Chambers of Chief secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, secretariat, Hyderabad. Singareni Collieries company Functional Directors Selection rules (rules for short) prescribe selection to the said post to be made basing on an interview. The grievance of the appellant is in spite of having excellent record of service and no adverse remarks through out his career, and he being the senior most and meritorious, R-3 was selected. In fact, he ought to have been selected in preference to the 3rd respondent. Therefore, he sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote/select him as Director and declare the proceedings appointing R-3, in all the writ petitions, as illegal and arbitrary and mala fide.

( 3 ) SCCL Management denied that the writ petitioner is meritorious than the others who were selected in the interview. Since the selection was by way of interview, the seniority of the employee has no relevance. As there was no violation of any rule or regulation, Article 226 of the Constitution of india cannot be invoked. The Selection committee consists of eminent persons from various fields and therefore, mala fides could not be attributed against them. The question of declaring the proceedings as illegal, arbitrary will not arise.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge opined that the Selection Committee considered the performance of the officers in the interview and selected R-3 in all the writ petitions. While considering merits, they have considered Performance Appraisal Reports (pars for short ). However, it was not the only consideration for selecting the candidates. Since there was no bias or mala fides attributed against the selection committee and the selection being made as per Rule 8 of the Rules, the same could not be assailed. Consequently, the learned Single judge dismissed the writ petitions.

( 5 ) ASSAILING the findings, these writ appeals are filed contending that since the selection to the post of Director is by way of interview, no other factor should be taken into consideration. The Rules do not permit such a course to be taken. PARs were maintained only for the purpose of human resources development. Since the committee did not disclose the criteria for their selection, it should be held arbitrary. In fact, R-3 was not having any experience in the planning department. The entire selection process was vitiated from incurable legal infirmity. Since there was no assessment of merit of each individual by the selection committee, the very selection itself was vitiated. The selection obviously was for some others consideration. At any rate not on merit. Therefore, prayed that the selection be set aside.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the selection of Director (Planning and Project)/chief general Manager is by way of interview. The selection is governed by Rules, which are in force with effect from 13-8-1994. For benefit, I reproduce Rule 8 of the said rules. "rule 8. Selection Process:-The Committee shall interview the eligible candidates (not more than 5 candidates per vacancy) and select the suitable person from the internal candidates. In case there are no eligible internal candidates, the post (s) will be advertised in the leading News Papers. The upto date C. R. Dossiers of the candidates called for interview will be obtained from their employer (s ).