THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25871 of 2007 Dated:17.01.2008 Between: P.Ravi Uday Kumar ..... PETITIONER And The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and four others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25871 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 11.06.2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), dismissing the O.A.No.850 of 2003. 3. The facts of the case that led to the filing of the present writ petition, in brief, are as follows: - The petitioner has been working as a Teacher in Mathematics in Railway Mixed High School at Kazipet for the past two decades prior to the filing of the O.A; that, while so, two posts of Junior Lecturers in Railway Junior College fell vacant; that to fill up those vacancies, recruitment process was set into motion; that, accordingly, the eligible individuals, who were working as Teachers in Railway Mixed High School, were also invited by way of issuing ‘Alert Notice’; that, consequently, the petitioner and two others have applied for the said posts of Junior Lecturers and that, in the interview conducted, in consequence of the said notice, the petitioner also was interviewed, but instead of selecting the petitioner, two other Teachers who are similarly placed were selected. Aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioner filed the said O.A., and the Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly with reference to the relevant Rules, upheld the selection made by the respondents and eventually, dismissed the O.A. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Committee, which conducted interview, was not properly constituted nor there was any proper interview. It is his specific contention that since the interview was conducted in a ipse dixit manner and no relevant questions on the subject were posed to the petitioner, the interview process, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, was totally superficial and the selection of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein is to be set aside. 5. From the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal, it could be seen that the petitioner was, admittedly, working as a Teacher in Mathematics in the School, run by the Railways, for the past more than two decades, as on the date of filing of the O.A., in the year 2003. Only by virtue of the ‘Alert Notice’ informing the petitioner and similarly situated Teachers working in the School, who were found to be eligible, to apply for the post of Junior Lecturers in the Junior College, run by the Railways, the petitioner had submitted the application for the post of Junior Lecturer in Economics. 6. It further appears that in consonance with Rule 217 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (for brevity “IREM”), a Committee had been constituted to conduct the viva-voce and that the procedure prescribed under Rule 219 of the said IREM Rules was followed. 7. It is also not in dispute that the Principal of the Junior College was also a member in the team of Interview Committee. The said committee interviewed all the candidates with reference to their professional ability, personality, address, leadership, academic qualification and record of service and seniority. That apart, obtaining minimum marks of 60% as against the head of “professional ability” was prescribed. 8. It was further pointed out by the Tribunal, after perusing the records of interview, that the petitioner had secured only ‘25’ marks as against the required marks of 60% whereas the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have secured ‘34’ and ‘31’ marks, respectively, i.e., more than 60%. 9. From the above, it could be seen that the interview for selection to the post of Junior Lecturer was not simply based on the ability in the subject of Economics, but, in fact, more stress was laid on the professional ability, personality, etc., and obviously, the petitioner could not secure the marks of 60% under the head “professional ability”, whereas the selected candidates i.e., respondent Nos.4 and 5 have secured the required marks. The post of Junior Lecturer in Economics is a selection post and the seniority does not confer any absolute right nor that is the only consideration for promotion. 10. It is also not in dispute that other two candidates, who were selected in the interview, as Junior Lecturers in Economics, were also teaching Mathematics before their selection. 11. The short length of interview of the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, also cannot be sustained, for the reason that, it is not the length of interview that really matters, but it is only the other parameters, subject to the satisfaction of the Selection Committee, which would be relevant. 12. This Court or the Tribunal cannot interfere with this selection process, when the same was conducted in accordance with the IREM Rules i.e., Rules 217 and 219 of the said Rules. 13. That apart, no mala fides are attributed to the constitution of the Committee or any of the members of the Committee. When there are no mala fides, specifically attributed to the selection process and the members of the Committee, interference by this Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, is wholly unwarranted. We are also of the firm view that since the selection is purely on the basis of several parameters already fixed, no absolute right can be said to have been conferred on the petitioner. 14. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any infirmity, irregularity, illegality or mala fides in the process of selection of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Accordingly, we are in total agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 15. For the foregoing, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17TH JANUARY 2008 DR