1. WE are in complete agreement, with respect, with our learned brother Justice Paritosh Mukherjee who disposed of the writ. The appeal must fail.

2. THE appellant writ petitioner is an, Association of Engineer Employees of the West Bengal State Electricity Board. They complain that forty-nine members of theirs have been wrongly superseded during grant of promotion. The promoted engineers (employees) are also members of the Association, and, before us, they are the ninth to the eighteenth respondents.

The regulation framed under section 79 of the Indian Electricity (Supply)Act, 1948, governing promotion, is as follows : -

"14 (4). In the case of promotion the appropriate Selection committee shall consider the claims of all candidates eligible for promotion and examine their service records. It may also hold an examination and/or interview of the candidates. Thereafter it will advise the appointing authority as to the candidates deserving promotion".

3. THIS was introduced in 1965, the earlier provision being as follows : -

"4. In the case of promotion, the Committee concerned will consider the claim of all candidates eligible for promotion, examine their service records and hold an examination and/or interview them if necessary, and thereafter advise the appointing authority as to the candidates deserving promotion".

4. MR. Bhaskar Gupta for the appellants said that the present regulation 14 (4) is bad, in that it grants unguided powers to hold interviews or not, at the will of the Board, to the possible prejudice of seniors. How an interview will prejudice a suitable candidate I have not been able to understand.

Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Gupta on the case of A, Periakarup-pan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1971 SC 2303. In the way I venture to read the case, it is definitely an authority for the proposition that interviews by public bodies are open to judicial scrutiny for their fairness and reasonableness but I am unable to find in the decision any indication that in every case of interview by a public body, separate objective criteria must be pre-formulated and the persons ceiled for interview must be assessed separately under each criterion. If no specific rules are there laying down different assessment columns, surely an interview cannot be unfair or unreasonable if it assesses the overall suitability only. I cannot see that the regulation 14 (4)suffers from any defect.

5. THERE has been no allegation of male fides. The case of pick and choose under the guise of an interview has not even been attempted to be established on facts before us.

6. MR. Gupta next said that since the interview preceded in point of time the examination of service records (Paper Book p. 325), the regulation has been broken. Though the examination of service records is compulsory and interviews are optional. I cannot find anything in the regulation to indicate any particular sequence of time in this regard. It was admitted that all possible promotres were interviewed. Whether their service records were examined before or after the interview, the regulation 14 (4) would be complied with in either case.

It was thirdly said that an administrative order being the Office Order No. 3660, dated 19-7-1984, which was claimed on behalf of the Board to be a guideline for, inter alia, promotions, was in conflict with regulation 14 (4), in that, it sought to make, contrary the regulation, examination of service records optional. That of course cannot be. The regulation shall prevail over the office order. But in the instant case, guideline or no, no breach of regulation 14 (4)could be established as all possible promotees were interviewed. The question of conflict is thus merely academic.

7. FOR that matter, I think, the whole writ is academic. None of the aggrieved superseded engineers has joined in the writ. The writ is not a representative writ. Mr. P. K. Roy for the Board stated that 26 out of the 49 superseded engineers have since b