The relevance of marks in the written test is only considered when a candidate is held to be qualified in the Skill – Proficiency / Physical Test (SPPT), and without substantial allegations of bias/mala fide, the court may not interfere with the selection and appointment process.

The selection and appointment of the respondent no. 4 to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant – IV (Fire and Safety) in the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bongaigaon Refinery and the rejection of the petitioner for the said post is the primary subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, the facts of the case, as projected in the petition, may be narrated briefly.

3. An advertisement was published on 17.02.2018 for filling up of various posts including the post of Junior Engineering Assistant – IV (Fire and Safety) in the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bongaigaon Refinery (hereinafter IOC-BR). In response to the same, the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 and other candidates had participated. In the written test, the petitioner with Roll No. 107008 and the respondent no. 4 with Roll No. 107018 were declared successful and on 03.05.2018, the physical / proficiency tests were held. It is contended that while the petitioner had passed in all the segments, the respondent no. 4 had failed in the driving test. However, in the select list dated 21.05.2018, the respondent no. 4 was held to be selected. The petitioner could gather that he had secured highest marks in the written test and though information was sought to be obtained under the RTI Act, the marks were not provided. Accordingly, the writ petition has been filed with the following relief:

“In the premises aforesaid, the Petitioner prays that your Lordships may be pleased to call for the records of the case including the selection process, issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or a Writ of like nature should not be issued to set aside and quash the impugned Select List dated 21.05.2018 issued by the Respondent Authorities selecting the Respondent No. 4 to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant – IV (Fire & Safety) (Annexure-V) and/or as to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or a Writ of like nature should not be issued to set aside and quash the impugned selection and appointment of the Respondent no. 4 to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant – IV (Fire & Safety), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bongaigaon Refinery and/or as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or a Writ of like nature should not be issued directing the Respondents, their servants to recall the impugned selection and appointment of the Respondent no. 4 to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant – IV (Fire & Safety), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bongaigaon Refinery and/or as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or a Writ of like nature should not be issued directing the Respondents Authorities to select and appoint the Petitioner to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant – IV (Fire & Safety), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bongaigaon Refinery and/or as to why any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order should not be issued to give full and complete relief to the petitioner and on hearing cause or causes shown and on perusal of the records may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such further or other order(s) as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper

-AND-

Pending disposal of the Rule, your Lordships may be pleased to recall and stay the impugned selection and appointment of the respondent no. 4 to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant – IV (Fire & Safety), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bongaigain Refinery.”

4. I have heard Shri M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. RR Kakati, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 - IOC-BR and Shri AK Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri DK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. Ms. Kakati, learned counsel for the IOC-BR has also produced the records pertaining to the selection in original.

5. Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is