Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records of the first respondent in O.A. No.592 of 2004 including the order dated 13.9.2005 and quash the same.) P. Sathasivam, J. Considering the limited issue raised, by consent of the petitioner and the contesting second respondent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 13.09.2005, made in O.A. No.592 of 2004, the I.C.F. (Integral Coach Factory) Administration has filed the above Writ Petition to quash the same. 3. Heard Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mrs.Anna Mathew for the contesting first respondent. 4. Inasmuch as the Tribunal has issued only an interim direction, keeping the main Application pending on its file, it is unnecessary for us to refer all the factual matrix as stated by the petitioner and the second respondent. 5. It is the grievance of the applicant (second respondent herein) that viva voce marks awarded by the Viva Voce Committee were not based on proper evaluation and that the evaluation can be entrusted to a different Committee. It is our duty to point out that before the Administrative Tribunal, the counsel, who appeared for the Department/respondent therein, expressed no objection to send the matter before a different Committee as suggested. Apart from the fact that the Standing Counsel who appeared for the I.C.F. had no objection and agreed for the suggested course, the Tribunal has gone into the materials placed before it in order to ascertain prima facie case. 6. Before the Tribunal, the applicant has demonstrated that though he secured 90 marks out of 150 in the professional ability (written examination), he did not secure 60 marks in the latter category. It is also seen that the applicant was the only candidate, who passed the written examination among 12 candidates, and according to him, he performed well in the viva voce. It is also his claim that in spite of the fact that he answered all the questions that were put to him very well, marks were not awarded properly. Before the Tribunal, it was brought to their notice that the applicant was able to recollect the questions put to him and answers in the viva voce. It is also his claim that in spite of the fact that he answered all the questions that were put to him very well, marks were not awarded properly. Before the Tribunal, it was brought to their notice that the applicant was able to recollect the questions put to him and answers in the viva voce. Taking note of the applicant’s academic qualifications and his ability to remember the questions put to him, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the award of 6 marks out of 25 marks would not correctly represent the evaluation. 7. It is also brought to our notice that though the above said aspect has been highlighted in ground (j) of the Original Application, the Department has not specifically denied the same. In those circumstances, taking note of all the factual details, particularly the applicant’s performance in the written examination and his claim that he answered well in respect of all the questions in viva voce, and after recording the fact that the counsel appearing for the I.C.F Administration has no objection for sending the matter before a new Committee, the Tribunal constituted a Committee consisting of the following officers of the Southern Railway, 1. Shri. G.Gunalan, Chief Electrical Workshop Engineer 2. Shri. R.P.Udhya Kumar, Chief Electrical Engineer/Construction 3. Shri. V.Subramaniam, Chief Controller of Stores 8. As a matter of fact, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has brought to our notice that apart from the above said three names, the applicant has also furnished names of three other officials from I.C.F. It is not in dispute that all the above mentioned Officers are of equivalent cadre. In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be blamed and we are of the view that the Tribunal is fully justified in constituting a Committee of Officers from Southern Railway, who are all of equivalent cadre. The impugned order of the Tribunal shows that only after considering all the relevant materials and arriving at a prima facie conclusion, a new Committee has been constituted, consisting of three qualified officers of Southern Railway. As stated earlier, the counsel for the Department had no objection for the course adopted by the Tribunal. 9. Further, though a direction was issued for placing the marks in a sealed cover before the Tribunal, it cannot be construed that the Tribunal is going to finalize/select the person concerned. As stated earlier, the counsel for the Department had no objection for the course adopted by the Tribunal. 9. Further, though a direction was issued for placing the marks in a sealed cover before the Tribunal, it cannot be construed that the Tribunal is going to finalize/select the person concerned. Undoubtedly, it is for the concerned authority to take a decision depending on the marks to be secured in the viva voce before the new Committee. Hence, there is no basis for the apprehension raised on the side of the Department. 10. In the light of what is stated above and in view of the fact that the impugned order being only an interim direction based on prima facie conclusion, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are hereby closed.