Fixation of higher marks in the oral interview, in the absence of mala fide or biased attitude of the selection committee members, does not make such fixation of marks illegal.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

( 2 ) LEAVE is granted to the learned advocate for the private respondent to file an application for vacating the interim order. This application is taken up for hearing as on day's list.

( 3 ) TODAY this matter has been taken up for extension of the interim order. The respondent No. 1 has filed an application praying for vacating the interim order. As a very short question of law involved, this Court is of the view that without granting any opportunity further to the parties to exchange their respective affidavits viz. the affidavit-in-reply to the application with reference to the application for vacating, the matter can be decided on the basis of the documents in the writ application as well as in the application for vacating. We are also dispensing with the filing of paper books and compliance of procedural formalities.

( 4 ) THE challenge in the writ application is the order dated 24th november, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, calcutta Bench (Circuit at Port Blair) in O. A. No. 99/aandn/2001, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed and thereby the final selection list with reference to the selection of a candidate for the post of driver in the organization of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, was set aside and quashed with a rider that de-novo selection process could be initiated by allotting only 15% of total marks for oral interview. The factual matrix of the case is to this effect. The respondent No. 1 was an unsuccessful candidate for the post of driver who challenged the selection process and more particularly fixation of the 70% marks in the oral interview in comparison to the 30% marks for trade test. Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 appeared in the selection process, took part in the trade test and the oral interview and thereafter challenged the selection process when he could not succeed to reach the No. 1 position in the panel as prepared by the selection committee. It is also an admitted position that in the application filed by the respondent No. l before the learned Tribunal there was no allegation of mala fide action and/or arbitrary action on the part of the members of the selection committee so far as favouring a particular candidate and also there was no allegation of biased attitude against any member of the selection committee. The members of the selection committee were not made parties in the proceeding at all. Hence, the only point as taken before the learned tribunal in the application by the respondent No. l about justifiability of fixation of higher marks in the interview with reference to selection to the post of driver. The affected parties viz. the persons who are above the respondent No. 1 in the selection list were admittedly not made parties in the proceeding. But, subsequently as per the direction of the learned Tribunal a copy of the application was served to the writ petitioner through the Director of Industries i. e the concerned employer, wherein the writ petitioner was appointed in terms of the selection list. This application, filed before the learned Tribunal below, was opposed by the employer concerned by filing affidavit.

( 5 ) AFTER the Judgment was delivered by the learned Tribunal below allowing the application of the respondent No. 1 and quashing the entire selection, the present writ petitioner on taking leave of the court filed the writ application and got an ex parte interim order by moving the same before the Division Bench (Bhaskar Bhattacharya and K. K. Prasad, JJ.) on 6th December, 2006. This writ petition has been filed by the first empanelled candidate and appointee in the post concerned in terms of the selection as made.

( 6 ) ON a bare scanning of the Judgment under challenge in the writ, it appears that the learned Tribunal below on relying upon the case of ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Shervardi and Ors. , reported in 1981 (1