JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. KN Choudury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 1584/2017, WP(C) No. 2902/2017 and WP(C) No. 2831/2017, Mr. BD Konwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2916/2017 as well as Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 4770/2017 and WP(C) No. 1022/2017. Also heard SN Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Oil India Limited, Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents in WP(C) No. 4770/2017, Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondents in WP(C) No. 4770/2017, WP(C) No. 2831/2017 and WP(C) No. 2916/2017, Mr. DK Das, learned counsel for the respondents in WP(C) No. 2902/2017 as well as Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents in WP(C) No. 1022/2017, WP(C) No. 1584/2017 and WP(C) No. 2902/2017.

2. All the writ petitions are being decided by a common order as the issues raised in all the writ petitions are the same and as they all pertain to the same selection process, held in pursuance to the vacancy notification dated 08.08.2014. The candidates appeared for the written test consisting of 100 marks. All candidates who secured 30% in the written test/screening were thereafter called for interview. The final selection of candidates was made on the basis of the marks obtained in the interview only.

3. The petitioners' having taken part in the selection process for filling up of 175 posts in Oil India Limited, hereinafter referred to as "OIL", under different categories of posts and not having been selected, they have challenged the selection method and selection process.

4. The main ground of challenge of the petitioners is with regard to the fact that the selection and appointment of the successful candidates have been made only on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the interview/viva-voce test. The petitioners' contention is that the OIL could not have made the selection only on the basis of the interview marks for which 100 marks had been allotted. They submit that a perusal of the allotment of marks for the interview shows that only 20 marks are objective in nature, while the remaining 80 marks are subjective in nature. As such, there is a likelihood of favoritism and biasness in the selection process. They also submit that while the Apex Court has laid down the law that high percentage of marks cannot be given for the interview, the respondents have not only done away with consideration of the marks received by the candidates in the written test, but have also relied solely upon the marks received by the candidates in the interview, thereby infecting the selection process with the vice of arbitrariness.

5. The petitioners' counsel submits that there is large scale anomaly in the implementation of the selection method applied by the respondents and that a perusal of the marks given to some of the candidates by the Interview Board, as reflected in the affidavit submitted by the OIL does not tally with the final marks published by the selection committee.

6. With regard to WP(C) No. 1584/2017, the counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 secured 50.50, 56.50 and 65.25 respectively, in the written test/screening test. However, they secured 42., 61.80 and 44.20 marks respectively in the interview. He submits that, on the other hand, the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 had secured marks below 40 in the written test/screening test while they had obtained marks beyond 60% in the interview. He accordingly, submits that the allocation of less marks to the petitioners in the interview vis-à-vis the high marks received in the written test, points to the fact that there has been arbitrariness and biasness in the selection method adopted by the State respondents, as they have been given a handle to pick and choose candidates they favour, on the basis of marks secured in the interview.

7. The counsel for the petitioners also submits that the f