1Petitioner challenges the appointment of the fourth respondent as Warehouse in Charge in the first respondent -- Company He also seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to appoint him in that post pursuant to Ext. P1 notification.

2 The facts are only a few, but the point involved is of great and far reaching consequence for candidates who seek employment in Corporations owned and controlled by the State and, are, in effect and substance, instrumentalities of the State. The question which is posed is whether such Corporations can act without any guideline in selecting candidates for appointment from among the eligibles? Another question which incidentally arises is whether such selections can be entirely subjective and cannot be challenged even if there are no objective materials to support the selection? Yet another aspect is can such selection be sustained if it is shown that relevant factors were overlooked and extraneous factors were taken into account ?

3 The facts are the following: The first respondent -- Company which is a fully owned subsidiary of the State owned third respondent -- Company invited applications in Ext. .P1 notification dated 18-5-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document