Judgment : The petitioner, who is a B.E. graduate in Civil Engineering of the Madras University and who appeared for the interview for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Corporation of Madras and not selected, has filed the above writ petition for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), made in pursuance of the. interview intimation of the 1st respondent in G.D.C. No.E3/54849/92, dated 12. 1992 and quash the same and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider and appoint the petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in their office. .2. The petitioner, though challenged the selection of the 20 candidates, has not impleaded them as party respondents and when it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner and also to the petitioner who was present in court on 111. 1995 at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner realising the mistake has made the following endorsement on the second page of the writ petition: .“I am challenging my non-selection I am not pressing that the selection list should be quashed. If my submission for appointment is considered, I am satisfied. (Sd.) P.Karunakaran. 111. 1995, Counsel for the petitioner. (Sd.) S.Malarvizhi (petitioner) 111. 1995.” 3. The case of the petitioner in short is that she belongs to Scheduled Caste, that the 1st respondent directed her to appear for interview for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Corporation of Madras by the impugned call letter and that she accordingly appeared for the interview on 212. 1992 and performed well. According to the petitioner, she has all the required qualifications such as apprenticeship training and previous experience in similar organisation like M.M.D.A.. but she was not selected. .4. Mr. A.E. Chelliah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing submitted that when there is a Government Order allotting 30% of the vacancies to ladies, respondents 1 to 3 have violated the said Government Order. He would submit that respondents 1 to 3 have failed to respect that Government Order in letter and spirit and therefore, the order of appointment of 20 persons to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Corporation of Madras is unlawful and illegal and is also in violation of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that respondents 1 to 3 have failed to respect that Government Order in letter and spirit and therefore, the order of appointment of 20 persons to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Corporation of Madras is unlawful and illegal and is also in violation of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Senior Counsel, not a single lady candidate was appointed for the said post. It is further contended that when the qualification of apprenticeship training is a must for the appointment of engineer, the appointment order given to others who do not possess even this basic qualification would go to show that respondents 1 to 3 are favouring some ineligible persons. It is next contended that when the petitioner has secured 59.89 marks in her B.E. degree course and did her best in the interview and also comes from Scheduled Caste, the failure on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to appoint her as Assistant Engineer (Civil) is unjust, unfair and unlawful. It is also submitted that the petitioner comes from a poor family, that she is the eldest among the six children in the family and and the therefore her non-selection is a heavy blow to her and her family. In order to substantiate her contention, the petitioner has filed her mark sheet, community certificate, etc., as annexures to the petition. .5. J.Kanakaraj, J., in W.M.P. No. 14784 of 1993 in W.P. No.9580 of 1993 passed the following order on 18. 1993: ."The selection of Assistant Engineers (Civil) is challenged on the ground that 30% reservation for women candidates has not been followed On that ground, the writ miscellaneous petition is seeking reservation of one post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to be given to the petitioner in the event of her success in the writ petition. I am of the opinion that such reservation will only result in preventing some other persons from being appointed. On the other hand, the proper order would be to the effect that the appointments made will be subject to the result of the writ petition. The writ miscellaneous petition is ordered accordingly." 6. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, filed a detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner filed a rejoinder on 111. 1995. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, filed a reply to the rejoinder on 16.! 1.1995. .7. The writ miscellaneous petition is ordered accordingly." 6. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, filed a detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner filed a rejoinder on 111. 1995. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, filed a reply to the rejoinder on 16.! 1.1995. .7. According to the Corporation of Madras, out of all the candidates interviewed, only one lady candidate had performed well and she was selected and appointed. Further, according to the existing rules, there is no apprenticeship training prescribed to the said post and no such qualification was notified to the Employment Exchange. As such, there is no point in saying hat persons without apprenticeship training have been appointed. It is stated in the counter affidavit that as per the existing rules, a bachelor’s degree in Engineering is the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer. The Employment Exchange was requested to sponsor candidates with the above qualification only. As far as the petitioner is concerned, though she is an Engineering Graduate and is also having apprenticeship training, her performance in the interview as very poor when compared to other candidates. It is asserted that the selection and appointment were made strictly in accordance with the rule of reservation prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.69, P. & A.R. Department, dated 12. 1989, in which the Government have ordered for reservation of 30% of vacancies for women candidates. 8. As directed by this Court, the entire file relating to the interview and selection was placed before this Court for perusal. I have perused the same, particularly the statement showing the marks awarded by the interview committee to all the candidates interviewed and also the rank list. From the list it is seen that the petitioner has secured only six marks in the interview and her rank was 111 out of 112 candidates, i.e., she is the last but one candidate who secured only lesser marks in the interview. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Corporation that G.O.Ms.No,69, P. &. A.R. Department, dated 12. 1989 specifically says that if no qualified and suitable woman candidate is available for selection and appointment, the turn will go to the male candidate, and that therefore the petitioner cannot claim appointment merely on the ground of being a woman candidate since it is not mandatory to select unsuitable woman candidates under this category. A.R. Department, dated 12. 1989 specifically says that if no qualified and suitable woman candidate is available for selection and appointment, the turn will go to the male candidate, and that therefore the petitioner cannot claim appointment merely on the ground of being a woman candidate since it is not mandatory to select unsuitable woman candidates under this category. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation. There is no question ofviolation of the said Government Order as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner. The Corporation of Madras has selected candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview and appointed candidates only on merit and as per the existing rules of the Corporation of Madras. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the points raised by the petitioner in the rejoinder, at the time of argument. The said contentions, in my opinion, are without any merit. G.O.Ms No.89, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-S) Department, dated 12. 1989 reads as follows. "The Government direct that a minimum of 30% of all future vacancies in Government Departments/ Government owned Undertakings/ Corporations/ Societies and also in local bodies, which are to be filled through direct recruitment shall be set apart for women candidates irrespective of the fact whether the rule of reservation applies to the posts or not. In respect of the posts to which the rule of reservation applies, the 30% of the vacancies shall be set apart for women candidates following the existing reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Open Competition. Women candidates will also be entitled to compete for the remaining 70% vacancies along with men candidates. 2. The order of rotation to be followed shall be as specified in the annexure to this order. 3. If qualified and suitable women candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or Open Competition is not available for selection for appointment in the turn allotted for them in the cycle, the turn so allotted shall go to the male candidate within the respective category. In respect of the posts to which the rule of reservation does not apply, the turn so allotted shall go to the next male candidate. 4.This order shall take immediate effect. 5. Formal amendment to the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules shall be issued separately. In respect of the posts to which the rule of reservation does not apply, the turn so allotted shall go to the next male candidate. 4.This order shall take immediate effect. 5. Formal amendment to the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules shall be issued separately. (By order of the Governor) (Sd.) x;,xxx Chief Secretary to Government." 11. In respect of the post to which the rule of reservation applies, 30% of the vacancies shall be set apart for women candidates following the existing reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Open Competition, which are to be filled through direct recruitment. The Government in the above Government Order have categorically stated that if qualified and suitable women candidates belonging to Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes or Open Competition are not available for selection for appointment in the turn allotted for them in the cycle, the turn so allotted shall go to the male candidate within the respective category. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the intention of the Government is not only to appoint women candidates but also see that suitable women candidates are to be appointed to run the Department in an efficient manner. .12. It is contended on behalf of the Corporation that in the recruitment procedure being followed in the Corporation of Madras for selection of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, oral interview alone has been conducted by the officers who are well versed in the respective fields. In the instant case, in my view, the committee constituted by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, consists of one Deputy Commissioner, who is an I.A.S. Officer and also a post graduate in engineering, besides the Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineer (Buildings). Therefore, it is seen that all the members of the Committee are conversant with engineering subject. The two officers viz., Thiru Lonappan, Chief Engineer and Thiru KrishnaBhagawan Bhat, Superintending Engineer (Buildings) have acquired rich experience in the engineering field. The other officer of the interview committee viz., Thiru Jacob, I.A.S., is also a postgraduate in engineering. Therefore, it is seen that all the members of the Committee are conversant with engineering subject. The two officers viz., Thiru Lonappan, Chief Engineer and Thiru KrishnaBhagawan Bhat, Superintending Engineer (Buildings) have acquired rich experience in the engineering field. The other officer of the interview committee viz., Thiru Jacob, I.A.S., is also a postgraduate in engineering. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the interview committee has put several questions with regard to the technical side and general knowledge to all the candidates including the petitioner and the candidates were assessed on the basis of the answers given by them on the various questions put to them and that there is no mala fide or discrimination in favour of any individual. 13. I have already perused the file produced by the Corporation relating to the interview in question. It is seen from the rank list that the petitioner is the last but one in that list prepared by the interview committee, having scored only six marks. It is also seen that the 20 candidates selected have secured the maximum of 17 marks and minimum of 10 marks. The 20th person has secured 10 marks. All the interview committee members are no more in Corporation service and two of them have already retired on superannuation. Therefore, there is no scope, in my opinion, for showing any favouritism to any one of the candidates by the interview committee. This apart, all the candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and none is known to any of the Committee Members. I am of the view that the Corporation can follow its own norms and procedure in the matter of appointment and there is no point in referring the notification of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission where the selection itself is entirely different. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Corporation, as per the existing rule, there is no apprenticeship training prescribed to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Corporation of Madras. Therefore, the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner has necessarily to fall to the ground. .14. It is seen from the file that the Employment Exchange has sponsored 154 candidates, out of which 112 candidates attended the interview and out of that, 20 candidates following the rule of reservation have been selected and appointed. Therefore, the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner has necessarily to fall to the ground. .14. It is seen from the file that the Employment Exchange has sponsored 154 candidates, out of which 112 candidates attended the interview and out of that, 20 candidates following the rule of reservation have been selected and appointed. Among the candidates appointed, five candidates belong to Scheduled Caste (four according to communal rotation and one fitted against O.C. turn). With regard to the performance of the woman candidates, it is stated that only one candidate was found suitable and she was selected and included in the panel. The attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner that not even one woman candidate was selected is not only not correct, but against the real state of affairs. The reason for not following 30% reservation for women candidates is only because of their poor performance in the interview. No rule would say that the woman candidates should be selected even though their performance at the interview is very poor. As pointed out in the reply affidavit, the Corporation of Madras is attending to the needs of the citizens of Madras and the post of Assistant Engineer mainly required public contracts besides activities such as formation of road, construction of bridges, buildings, storm water drain, etc. Therefore, there cannot be any second opinion on the question of selecting the best among the available candidates who attended the interview, which is not only in the interest of the administration but also in public interest. 15. As already seen, the interview committee members are all experts on the field and they have conducted the interview and awarded marks on the basis of performance of each and every candidate at the interview. The interview committee after considering the materials on record and the personal assessment of merit of the applicants has prepared a panel according to merits and selected them for appointment. The process of appreciating and weighing the various factors is the function of the interview committee, which is having the necessary expertise and experience to perform its duties properly. In my opinion, there cannot therefore be any re-appreciation or re-appraisal of relevant material factors, relative qualifications and evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates in a writ proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, there cannot therefore be any re-appreciation or re-appraisal of relevant material factors, relative qualifications and evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates in a writ proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The Corporation has placed before this Court the file relating to the interview in question. The interview committee has drawn up the list after discussing the merits of each candidate and selected the required number of applicants out of several applicants. As the interview committee itself is headed by three persons who are well versed in that particular field, there should not be any difficulty in ensuring that the proceedings and decisions of the interview committee are free from arbitrariness and informed by reasons. The functioning, proceeding and decision of the interview committee is transparent from the file produced. 16. For the fore-going reasons, I hold that there are no merits in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.