1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 651 OF 2003 Ajay Kumar Yadav. ...... Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. ...... Respondents. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner. Mr. R. R. Shetty with Mr. D. A. Dube for the Union of India. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI and A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2008. P. C.: The petitioner filed the Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the legality of the selection of certain persons as scale-man. He succeeded in getting the selection of those persons annulled. The affected were not, however, made parties to the Original Application. The Official respondent acting on the judgment of the Tribunal issued show cause notice to the affected persons, who filed another Original Application before the Tribunal being Original Application No. 172 of 2002. The Tribunal, while allowing this Original Application also recorded the order passed by it in an earlier Original Application filed by the writ petitioner being Original Application No. 763 of 1999 and held that the order passed in Original Application No. 763 of 1999 would remain inoperative. The 2 show cause notices issued in pursuance to the order passed in Original Application No. 763 of 1999 were set aside. 2. The petitioner has now challenged the order passed in Original Application No. 13 of 2002. It is an admitted position that there are no rules governing appointment of scale-man from the post of casual labourer. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no rule which was applicable to the Sepoy. The Official respondent adopted the rules which were meant for selection of Sepoy. Sepoy's post was a non-selection post and is being filled up on the basis of seniority. Therefore the post of scale-man should have been treated as a non- selection post and selection should have been made on the basis of seniority and as he was senior to selected candidates he should have been selected. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that since there were no rules for appointment to the post of scale-man, the Official respondent in order to have fair selection adopted the methodology that was adopted for selection of Sepoy. By adopting the methodology meant for appointment of Sepoy it cannot be said that the rules framed for appointment of Sepoy was also applicable to the selection of scale-man. He submits that in the absence of rule, the employer can adopt any method to make selection provided the selection is fair. All the candidates were put to 3 tests and the candidates who qualified the tests were thereafter interviewed. The selected candidates as well as the writ petitioner qualified the tests. Thereafter the interview was conducted and selection was made on the basis of their merits. The petitioner was below in merits than the selected candidates. 4. We feel, the selection method adopted by the respondents was fair, transparent and objective. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to such a selection in the absence of any plea of malafide. We do not find that the petitioner had any reason to complain about the order passed by the Tribunal. He had also contended before us that one of the respondents was not qualified to be selected as he had no minimum experience as scale labourer which was a requirement. This plea was not taken in Original Application No. 172 of 2002 which is now the subject matter before this Court. It appears that such a plea was taken in the earlier Original Application but the Tribunal did not decide this question. This question is of little interest now. The respondent has produced a statement, copy of which is taken on record, to show that the said respondent had requisite experience as workman. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in B. V. Sivaiah & Ors. V/s. K. Addanki Babu & Ors., reported in (1998) 6 SCC 720. We find that this decision is not relevant for 4 the purpose of deciding the present controversy in the matter. 6. For the reasons stated above, we do not fine any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. P. BHANGALE, J.)