High Court under writ jurisdiction can not reappraise qualifications and merits of the candidates.

A.R. LAKSHMANAN, J.: - The Petitioner in W.P. No.5389 of 1994 is the appellant in this appeal. He filed the writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 16-3-1994 in Lr. No. Ref. OSB/TN and P/IOC/1538 and quash the same and consequently to issue a writ of mandamus for bearing respondents 1 to 3 from appointing any distributor for Indane at Mahe, Union Territory of Pondicherry, pursuant to the interview held on 16-3-1994 or from giving effect to any decision taken by the I st respondent for awarding the dealership to the 4th respondent.

2. The Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The 2nd respondent issued a notice in the Indian Express dated 11-7-1993 calling for applications for appointment of Indane Distributorship at Mahe. The appellant submitted his application in the prescribed form to respondents 1 and 2 on 17-8-1993. He was directed to appear for a personal interview at 9.00 a.m., on 16-3-1994 at Hotel Malabar Palace, Calicut, before the 1st respondent. There were six applicants. However, only four of them had turned out for personal interview on 16-3-1994 including the appellant. According to Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned counsel for the appellant, respondents 1 to 3 have already decided to grant the distributorship to the 4th respondent even prior to the interview and the 4th respondent was seen accompanying the, members of the 1st respondent Board from the date of their arrival at Calicut. All the four persons were interviewed within 15 minutes. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the interview has held at Calicut on 16-3-1994, on the same day, an order was posted by the 1st respondent from Madras with the Madras Post Office Seal dated: 17-3-1994 rejecting the appellant's application. The order of rejection was the carbon copy of the original letter sent for interview and it patently suffers from total non-application of mind. The members of the 1st respondent were staying at Calicut from 15-3-1994 to 17-3-1994 at Hotel Malabar Palace and they left from Calicut only on 17-3-1994. Therefore, it is not known as to how the rejection order was sent on 16-3-1994 and posted from Madras on 17-3-1994 as evident from the postal seal. It is further argued by Mr. Mohan Parasaran, that the 4th respondent is not even qualified to be appointed as a dealer inasmuch as he does not fulfil any of the requirements and the qualification as to five years residence in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and that his depature from Army was unceremonies. The entire selection by the 1st respondent is only a make believe affair and is a pre-determined one. The rejection order is clearly illegal and unsustainable and is vitiated by total non-application of mind.

3. The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit through its Chairman Mr. Justice M. Maruthamuthu explaining the procedure followed by the 1st respondent in matters like this, which has its wide jurisdiction over Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The 1st respondent denied the allegations of the appellant as baseless. According to the I st respondent, the appellant secured 40 marks as against the 4th respondent who secured 55 marks and one V. N. Haridasan, who secured 50 marks. Two candidates were absent and one was declared ineligible as he failed to produce the Certificate issued by the Director General of Resettlement, New Delhi. It is also explained in the counter that the appellant was not selected since he has secured only 40 marks, lowest among the three candidates, and therefore, it is not open to him to challenge the assessment of the candidates by the 1st respondent and claim that he is entitled to the award of distributorship. The procedure adopted by the 1st respondent in regard to the intimations regarding interview, call letter and letter of regret has also been exp