ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

1. This is the case of an arbitrary manner of selection in a public body, in and by which those candidates who got higher marks for qualification and experience were knocked out of the race by awarding very low marks in the viva voce test, by adopting a strange method of giving uniform marks by all the members of the Selection Committee, after conducting a meeting subsequent to the conclusion of viva voce test of the candidates.

2. These two writ appeals are directed against the order dated 15.09.2009 in W.P.No.13864/2008 whereby and whereunder, selection to the post of Diesel Loco Drivers in the Chennai Port Trust as per proceedings dated 11.06.2008 was set aside. The very same selection is challenged in W.P.No.22070/2009, at the instance of another candidate.

3. The facts, as found in W.A.No.1878/2009, are taken to narrate the background facts.

(a) Chennai Port Trust called for applications from eligible candidates working in the said Port Trust for appointment to the post of Diesel Loco Drivers. Notification was issued on 02.04.2008. In response to the said notification, 198 employees submitted their applications. It was found that only 103 were eligible and accordingly, they were called for interview. The first respondent who filed the writ petition in W.P.No.13864/2008 was one among such candidates. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.22070/2009 was also a candidate shortlisted for interview.

(b)The Selection Committee took a decision to award 50 marks for qualification, 25 marks for experience and another 25 marks for Viva voce test. Accordingly, Selection Committee interviewed 100 candidates. Ultimately, respondents 3 to 14 were selected under different categories. Selection was challenged on the ground that marks were not awarded as per merit. It was also the contention of the writ petitioner that the members did not choose to award marks assessing the performance and personality of the individual candidates. They have only given consolidated marks and as such, the very procedure was not as per the prescribed method. The first respondent also contended that some of the candidates were not having even the required qualification.

4. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant in W.A.No.1878/2009/Port Trust admitted that individual marks were not awarded by the members of the Selection Committee. According to them, it was the practice of the Selection Committee to have discussion among the members of the committee after the conclusion of interview and thereafter to award marks. In short, it was not their practice to award individual marks by individual members of the Selection Committee. It was also contended that even if the marks omitted to be awarded to the respondent is given, still he cannot be appointed, as there are others in the waiting list above him. Accordingly, the appellant justified the selection.

5. The learned Single Judge found that there were serious discrepancies in the matter of awarding marks. As per the norms prescribed by the Selection Committee, a candidate having experience ranging from 11 to 15 years is entitled for 9 marks. Though the first respondent was having 11 years of experience, he was given only 6 marks. Similar instances were pointed out in respect of other candidates also. The learned Judge also found that marks were not given individually by the Selection Committee consisting of six members. According to the learned Single Judge, the failure on the part of the members of the Selection Committee to award individual marks to the candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview tilted the entire selection process. The learned Judge was of the view that marks were awarded arbitrarily without any prescribed norm. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, by setting aside the selection and the appellant/Port Trust was directed to conduct interview afresh for all the hundred candidates and to award marks in the manner indicated in the ord