JUDGMENT: 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. 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 candidate for being promoted to Class II cannot be disputed in view of the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents. There is also relevant connection between the test prescribed and the interest of public service. 7. 6. The respondents’ right to hold a test to ascertain the suitability of the candidate for being promoted to Class II cannot be disputed in view of the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents. There is also relevant connection between the test prescribed and the interest of public service. 7. Though there are four branches in Signals and Telecommunication department of the Southern Railway, when the incumbents reach a particular pay scale, they are merged as one single entity with a common seniority roster before they could appear for the promotion test for Class II. As a cadre has been formed in Class III drawn out from the four branches in the Signals and Telecommunication department, different tests cannot be prescribed for determining the respective promotional opportunities. Though drawn from four different branches they are put in the same cadre of Class III. and the test prescribed for the promotion to Class II can be only one, common to all the four branches. Even after promotion to Class II, they are interchangeable to any of the four branches till they are promoted as Divisional Engineers or equivalent grade in workshop as Works Manager or Production Engineer. 8. When the respondents have the right to hold the promotion test for Class II, and it can be only one test for all the four branches, the only question that remains to be considered is whether the scheme, of examination is discriminatory and operates to the disadvantage of the workshop candidates. The main contention of the appellant is that Part I of both Paper I and Paper II are compulsory for all the candidates, and only the candidates who had previous training in signals and telecommunication branch can answer those questions which have a practical bias, and as the workshop candidates have no previous experience in signals and telecommunication branches, they are unable to answer the compulsory questions in Paper I and Paper II, with the result their promotional prospects are adversely affected. Part I of Paper I are questions on signalling. Part I of Paper I are questions on signalling. Though it is compulsory to all, candidates from the Telecommunication branch or from the drawing branch have not come forward with the plea that they find it difficult to answer the compulsory questions in Part I of Paper I. Similarly, Part I of Paper II are questions on Telecommunication, and though it is compulsory to all, candidates from the signals branch or from the drawing branch have not come forward with the plea that they find it difficult to answer those compulsory questions. Excepting the appellant, the others in the workshop branch have not come forward with the plea of difficulties in answering the compulsory questions in Paper I and Paper II. The Railway Board has prescribed the syllabus for the promotion test for Class II. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the instruments used in signals branch and telecommunication branch are manufactured in the workshop only and the workshop candidates can answer the compulsory questions in Paper I and Paper II. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that no candidates from the workshop branch have so far passed in the written test as the compulsory questions in Paper I and Paper II heavily weigh against the workshop candidates in view of their lack of training in signals and telecommunication branches. The learned counsel for the respondents states that two workshop candidates, Radhakrishnamurthi and Purushothaman, have passed the written test and have been promoted to Class II. The learned counsel for the appellant then stated that they had initial training in signals and telecommunication branch and hence they were able to pass the written test. The learned counsel for the respondents further stated that all the workshop candidates have also initial training in the signals and telecommunication department, and this is disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The question whether a workshop candidate can answer the compulsory questions of Part I of Paper I and Part I of Paper II without practical training in signals and telecommunication branch, has now become a disputed question of fact. To adjudicate on such an issue, one has to scrutinise the syllabus, the type of compulsory questions and work in the workshop, and for all these matters evidence has to be adduced. To adjudicate on such an issue, one has to scrutinise the syllabus, the type of compulsory questions and work in the workshop, and for all these matters evidence has to be adduced. This Court, sitting in appeal, cannot go into such disputed questions which have to be decided on proper evidence, and not on the basis of allegations and counter-allegations. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are of a summary nature and not suitable for adjudication of disputed facts which we are facing in the present case. We, therefore, refrain from deciding this disputed issue whether the scheme of examination operates to the disadvantage of workshop candidates. Though we have refrained from adjudicating this disputed issue, we hope and express our desire that this matter should be reviewed by the concerned authorities, and if the scheme of examination for promotion to Class II weighs against the workshop candidates and works to their disadvantage, it should be immediately rectified. A letter from the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, dated 7th September, 1982, was produced in Court in which it is stated that if an eventuality arises for filling up the posts of ASTEs on an ad hoc basis pending posting of duly selected employees, the claims of the appellant along with others, will be considered for ad hoc promotion. As the appellant is a Scheduled Caste Candidate and has to serve in the Department for a number of years, it may also be considered whether his name can be included in the promotion panel, on an ad hoc basis, without loss of seniority. With these observations, the writ appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances, without costs. K.B.N. Singh, CJ.-After the judgment was delivered, an oral prayer was made by the learned counsel for the appellant for a certificate under Article 135 (1) of the Constitution. We are not satisfied that any substantial question of law of general importance is involved in the case which in our opinion needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The prayer for Certificate is refused. S.J. ----- Appeal dismissed.