Writ Court cannot decide disputed issues.

Venugopal, J.-

The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. He is a Class III Employee in the workshop branch of the Signals and Telecommunication department in the Southern Railway. There are 4 branches in the department and they are:- (1) Signals branch; (2) Telecommunication branch; (3) Workshop branch; and (4) Drawing branch.

The seniority of the employee in each branch is reckoned within that branch till they reach a pay scale of Rs. 700-900 and Rs. 840-1,040, and thereafter they are merged as a single entity within a common seniority roster, and they constitute Class III employees, in the Signals and Telecommunication department. The next avenue of promotion for them is Class II. Promotion to Class II posts are made on the result of a written examination followed by a viva voce test of candidates who qualify in the written examination. The written test consists of three papers. Part I of Paper I and Part I of Paper II are common and compulsory to all the four branches viz., Signals, Telecommunication, Workshop and Drawing. Contending that the compulsory questions under Part I in both Papers I and II are all signal-oriented and the workshop candidates without previous training in Signals and Telecommunication department, are unable to answer these compulsory questions which have a practical bias, the appellant filed a writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate relief to quash the order of the third respondent issued in No. P (G) 532 IX Vol. V, dated 21st November, 1980, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, and to initiate fresh selection of candidates from the Signals and Telecommunication department for promotion to Class II posts.

2. The respondents filed a counter stating that the written examination forming part of the selection is held strictly in conformity with the rules on the subject and the employees from the four streams have no difficulty in answering them, and there is no discrimination or irregularity of treatment, as alleged by the writ petitioner.

3. A learned single Judge of this Court held that holding of examination for persons who are held in a common roster would not constitute any discrimination and the Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in such internal matters which are purely within the realm of method of selection, and on these findings the writ petition was dismissed. Against the order of the learned single Judge, the writ appeal is filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that workshop candidates for their promotion from Class III to Class II in the Signals and Telecommunication department, have got to compulsorily answer the whole of Part I of Paper I and Part I of Paper II, and workshop candidates having no practical training in signals and telecommunication branches, cannot answer the compulsory questions in Paper I and Paper II which are designed to test the ability of the candidates to tackle the practical problems they are likely to face in Signals and Telecommuncation branches and as the scheme of examination is discriminatory and operates to the disadvantage of one category of employees viz., workshop candidates, it has to be struck down as offending both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

5. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Mysore and another v. P. Narasing Rao1, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 do not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question and so long as there is reasonable relation of the prescribed test to the suitability of the candidate for the post, and there is relevant connection between the test prescribed and the interest of public service, there is no violation of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution.

6. The respondents’ right to hold a test to ascertain the suitability of the candidat