Judgment R. N. Prasad and j. JJ. 1. This petitioner has filed this writ application for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Chairman-cum-Managing Director under the Coal india Ltd. pursuant to interview held on 27-6-1996 and the judgment in cwjc. No.3237/95 (R ). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Director (Technical) in central Coalfield Ltd. , since 16-4-1992. He is going to retire on 1-8-97. The posts of Chairman-cum-Managing director in the Central Coalfield Ltd. ; eastern Coalfield Ltd. ; Western Coalfield Ltd. ; and Northern Coalfield Ltd. ; are vacant due to retirement. For appointment of Chairman-cum-Managing director about 12 Directors were selected for interview on 20-7-1995. He is second senior most Director and is eligible for interview as there is no adverse in his service record but his name was not included for interview on 20-7-1995 for appointment on the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. On 20-2-1994 a demi official letter was issued under the signature of Secretary, government of India, Department of personnel and Administrative Reforms, ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, annexure-2, communicating that "while considering a proposal for appointment to a top level post in public sector undertaking, the Prime Minister, in the appointments Committee of the cabinet, noted that the panel of names recommended included a person who had only a year to go before retirement. The inclusion of such persons in the panel and their non-selection for appointment is likely to cause demoralisation to them. This aspect may be kept in view while making recommendations in future and candidates who do not have the prospect of a reasonable tenure of atleast two years in a top management post may not be recommended for appointment to such posts. "he has been orally informed that because of Annexure-2 his case is not being considered. He filed CWJC No.3237/95 (R) challenging communication, annexure-2, and arbitrary action of the respondents. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 11-6-96, Annexure-3, and set aside the communication Annexure-2, holding that Annexure-2 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. "he has been orally informed that because of Annexure-2 his case is not being considered. He filed CWJC No.3237/95 (R) challenging communication, annexure-2, and arbitrary action of the respondents. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 11-6-96, Annexure-3, and set aside the communication Annexure-2, holding that Annexure-2 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The Chairman of the Public Enterprises Selection board (hereinafter referred to as p. E. S. B) was directed to place the case of the petitioner before P. E. S. B. along with other eligible candidates for consideration for appointment/promotion to the post of Chairman-cum-Managing director. One Mr. VK. Sahgal who was also not called for interview filed a writ petition bearing C. W. J. C.807/86 before delhi High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24-5-1996, annexure-4, holding that the communication, Annexure-2, is not based on any reasonable criteria as the date of interview is always uncertain and directed for consideration. However, after the judgment in C. W. J. C. No.3237/95 (R) the petitioner was called for interview on 27-6-1996. He appeared before the Board for interview and was found fit for promotion, but respondents are not passing any order of promotion of the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The respondents be directed to produce relevant records of the case before this Court which will show that the petitioner was found fit for promotion but respondents are bent upon not to give promotion to the petitioner. He filed representation before the respondents on 9-7-96 annexing all relevant documents but as yet no order has been passed. The respondents are taking steps for appointment of the juniors ignoring the case of the petitioner. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 stating therein that interview for the Board level post is held by P. E. S. B. Selection is made in accordance with the guideline issued by the Government of india vide resolution dated 3-3-1987, Annexure-A , in which the objectives and functions of P. E. S. B. have been set out. It further provides the Constitution of P. S. E. B. and selection policy and the procedure to be adopted by P. E. S. B. while selecting the personnel for the Board level posts. It further provides the Constitution of P. S. E. B. and selection policy and the procedure to be adopted by P. E. S. B. while selecting the personnel for the Board level posts. The policy of the Government is to appoint through a fair and objective selection procedure for appointment of outstanding professional managers level I and level II posts. Therefore, unless better candidates are available from outside, internal candidates are preferred to the aforementioned posts. The Board level appointments are contractual appointments made on the basis of selection and not on promotion. Internal candidates are given preference in the matter of selection but they do not have any claim for such post. Respondent No.3, P. E. S. B. is the authority for making selection to the board level post. On the basis of enrolment made by p. E. S. B. the competent authority, i. e. the Appointment committee of Cabinet (herein-after referred to A. C. C.) makes appointment after approval of the President of India. 4. The Ministry of Coal initiates action after ascertaining vacancies likely to arise for the Board level post in particular undertaking. The public sector is advised to recommend and send names of internal candidates along with bio-data for being forwarded to P. E. S. B. The P. E. S. B. also writes to various public undertaking, the State Government etc. and circulates the job description related to the post to which the vacancy is likely to arise. After receipt of the names1 of internal candidates from Public Sector Enterprises, the ministry forwards the same with bio data and A. C. Rs. to the P. E. S. B. for taking necessary action for holding interview and selection. The P. E. S. B. selected the candidates for appointment in accordance with Clause 7 (2)of the Resolution dated 3-3-1987, Annexure-A. The names of the candidates impanelled by the P. E. S. B. along with relevant records, namely, bio data, A. C. Rs. etc. is forwarded to the concerned ministry to fill up the vacancies in the public Sector Undertaking from the impanelled list. 5. Pursuant to the order of this court dated 11-6-1996 Annexure-3, the petitioner was interviewed by the p. E. S. B. on 27-6-19% and he was not found suitable for the post of the chairman-cum-Managing Director. The selection of candidates is not made on seniority. 5. Pursuant to the order of this court dated 11-6-1996 Annexure-3, the petitioner was interviewed by the p. E. S. B. on 27-6-19% and he was not found suitable for the post of the chairman-cum-Managing Director. The selection of candidates is not made on seniority. It is the suitability of the candidates which is the most important factor for the purpose of selection. The recommendations/results of the interview are not communicated to any of the candidates since these are confidential in nature. The petitioner can claim only a right of consideration for the post. The selection of the candidates is not based on seniority. Merely because the petitioner was interviewed does not necessarily follow that the petitioner was found fit for selection. The petitioner has no right to seek a direction for appointment to the post as he has not been found fit for appointment on the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. The relevant records of the P. E. S. B. relating to interview of the petitioner shall be produced at the time of hearing of the case. 6. The respondents were directed to annex the recommendation of the p. E. S. B. with the counter-affidavit by order dated 22-8-1996. A Supplementary counter-affidavit was filed stating therein that the documents produced before the Court for perusal were original with regard to consideration of the case of the petitioner. There is no document other than what has been produced regarding decision of the p. E. S. B. in the matter of consideration of the petitioner. Photo copy of the document produced in the Court is being placed along with this affidavit in sealed cover for perusal of the Court. 7. An application on behalf of one s. K. Sen for being added as respondent in this case was also filed stating therein that he was selected for the post of chairman-cum-Managing Director. Since the order has been passed to keep one post reserved the respondents are not passing any order appointing him to the post of chairman-cum-Managing Director, hence he is a necessary party. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the second senior most director and he is eligible for appointment on the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. He appeared in the interview on 27-6-1996. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the second senior most director and he is eligible for appointment on the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. He appeared in the interview on 27-6-1996. He was found fit for promotion but the respondents are not passing order of promotion on one pretext or the other and they are taking steps for appointment of juniors ignoring the case of the petitioner. They have not produced relevant records, hence adverse inference may be drawn against the respondents. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that pursuant to the order passed in C. W. J. C. No.3237/95 (R) the petitioner was called for interview and he was interviewed on 27-6-1996. On consideration the p. E. S. B. did not find him fit for appointment. The post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director is not a promotional post rather it is a selection post. Seniority alone is not a factor a selection. The relevant record produced before the court clearly indicates that his case was considered by P. E. S. B. and he was not found fit for appointment. He cannot claim appointment on the post of Chairman- cum-Managing director, only because he is the second senior most Director. The intervenor was also allowed to assist the Court and he supported the case of the respondents. 9. It is manifest from the material available on the record that pursuant to the order passed in C. W. J. C. No.3237/95 (R) the petitioner was called for interview. He was interviewed on 27-6-1996. According to the petitioner he was found fit for appointment on the post of Chairman-cum-Managing director, whereas according to the respondents the petitioner was not found fit for appointment and not selected for appointment. The respondents produced relevant records to show that the petitioner was interviewed and his case was considered by the P. E. S. B. for appointment on the post of Chairman-cum-Managing director but he was not found fit for the post. A photo copy of the minutes of P. E. S. B. meeting No.91/96 held on 27-6-1996 at 10 A. M. has also been annexed in sealed cover with the supplementary counter-affidavit, wherefrom it appears that the case of the petitioner was considered and he was not found suitable for the post of chairman-cum- Managing Director. The said document also bears the signature of the authorities concerned. 10. The said document also bears the signature of the authorities concerned. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument pointed out that not annexing the relevant document with the counter-affidavit and producing the same in sealed cover amounts to denial of opportunity as it is not a document which involves public interest, hence an adverse inference be drawn against the respondents. However, learned Counsel for the respondents pointed put that these documents are confidential documents and is not remitted to the persons concerned and there is no question of denial of opportunity or drawing adverse inference against the respondents as the same have been produced before the Court. 11. In this regard it is pertinent to mention herein that not annexing the relevant document along with the counter-affidavit or producing before the Court at the time of hearing and annexing the relevant document with the supplementary counter-affidavit in sealed cover is of no consequence as in the counter-affidavit specific stand has been taken that the petitioner was interviewed pursuant to the order of the court and he was not found suitable for the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director. The documents produced before the Court and the documents annexed with the supplementary counter-affidavit also reveal the same thing that the case of the petitioner was considered by P. E. S. B. and he was not found suitable for the post. The petitioner has only a right of consideration and not that since his case was considered he has to be appointed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to say that consideration and decision of P. E. S. B. is not in conformity with Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, but nothing cogent was pointed out to doubt the decision taken by the p. E. S. B. Besides, it has been held by the apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and ors. V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486 that it is for the interview committee to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such an interview. The assessment of merit as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of the appellate body. The assessment of merit as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of the appellate body. The Court is not acting as appellate body over the assessment made by such an expert committee. In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and ors. V/s. State of Haryana and ors. (1995) 4 s. C. C.417, similar view was expressed and it was held that the figures relied upon may create suspicion in ones mind that some ailment of arbitrariness might have entered the assessment in the viva voce examination but suspicion cannot take place of proof and the court cannot strike down the selection made on the ground that evaluation of the merit of the candidates in viva voce examination might be arbitrary. The court cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives. 12. It is also manifest from clause 7 (2) of the Guidelines Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, that object of the government is to appoint outstanding professional managers to level I and II posts in Public Sector Enterprises through fair and objective selection procedure. It is further manifest from clause 7 (1) of guideline that the p. E. S. B. is not only mere Interview board but also to constitute into a search committee to look out for and identify suitable person who can be appointed to level I and II posts in Public sector Enterprises. The stand of the respondents is that considering the aforesaid object the P. E. S. B. considered the case of the petitioner and he was not found suitable for the post. It further appears from the guidelines and the materials available on the record that the post of Chairman-cum-Managing director is not a promotional post rather it is a selection post. A person cannot claim for appointment merely because of his seniority unless he is found suitable by the P. E. S. B. In the instant case, it is specific case of the respondents that the petitioner was not found suitable for the post. Thus no writ can be issued as claimed by the petitioner for appointment. 13. A person cannot claim for appointment merely because of his seniority unless he is found suitable by the P. E. S. B. In the instant case, it is specific case of the respondents that the petitioner was not found suitable for the post. Thus no writ can be issued as claimed by the petitioner for appointment. 13. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed but without cost. Application Dismissed.