Judgment :- PASAYAT, C.J. These two appeals by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short LIC) are directed against judgment of learned single Judge holding that its action in holding the respondents' in the present appeals to be ineligible cannot be maintained. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. Three original petitions, i.e. O.P. Nos. 19163 of 1995, 17156 of 1996 and 19897 of 1996 were filed by some candidates who had applied for the post of Development Officer under the Zonal Manager, LIC, Southern Zone. Petitioner K. Anil Kumar in O.P. No. 19163/95 and R. Sarat Priyan, second petitioner in O.P. No. 17156/1996 were included in the list of general candidates selected for appointment as Development Officer. The first petitioner in O.P. No. 17156 of 1996 was included in the contingency list. Petitioner in O.P. No. 19897 of 1996 was not included in the list. Grievance of the candidates is that although their names were included in the select list, they were not given appointment. The reason indicated by LIC for such non-appointment was their alleged relationship with certain officials working in office of the Zonal Manager, Southern zone. In the counter-affidavit filed by the LIC in the original petition it is stated that R. Sarat Priyan came within the category of candidates who were close relatives of employees of the LIC, who enjoy very influential position contributing to the selection of the candidates by the interview committee. Sarat Priyan is the son of Sri K. K. Ravikumar, Senior Branch Manager, Badagara Branch. Likewise, Anil Kumar's relative was a high official. Smt. Alice Decade is the daughter of Sri T. K. Lukose, Assistant Branch Manager (Sales), Badagara Branch. Her name was not included in the main list of candidates, but was included in the contingency list, which was to operate if any of the persons included in the main list does not join.Learned single Judge found that though there was some mention in the files produced before him that there was possibility of the relatives of the candidates exerting influence, there was no material whatsoever to support such a finding. Sri E. Subramani, learned counsel appearing for LIC submitted that selection of respondents was vitiated on account of extraneous considerations or influence exerted by the relatives. According to him, the Zonal Manager has recorded a finding to that effect. Sri E. Subramani, learned counsel appearing for LIC submitted that selection of respondents was vitiated on account of extraneous considerations or influence exerted by the relatives. According to him, the Zonal Manager has recorded a finding to that effect. Sri K. Ramakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that there was no material whatsoever justifying such an action. Even though reasons have been indicated in the files purported to have been maintained in this regard, they were found to be baseless by learned single Judge. Whenever a finding is recorded that extraneous considerations and influence have been exerted to make a selection, there must be some material to support such conclusion. Admittedly learned single Judge on perusal of the files found that no such material exists and even the reasons indicated by the General Manager do not refer to any positive material in that regard. Mere relationship of a candidate with an officer cannot be a ground to make him disqualified for selection. In Baliram Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 637 it was observed that materials should exist to show that extraneous consideration or influence was exerted. Merely because a candidate has secured high marks and his relative was a high placed officer under the employer, that cannot be a suspicious circumstance. No provision could be brought to our notice by learned counsel for the appellant to show that as to what would be a disqualifying factor when relatives of officers or members of staff are involved. Above being the position learned single Judge was justified in directing consideration of the case of the respondents.Appeals are without any merit and are dismissed. The direction of the learned single Judge shall be worked out by the end of March, 2000. Appeal dismissed.