Judgment :- 1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 3.10.2012 in O.A.No.326/2012 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has dismissed the application of the petitioner challenging his non-selection to the Group 'B' post. 2. The petitioner has been working as Senior Section Officer at Bangalore Cantonment Railway Station. The post held by him is a 'C' group post. As per the Rules of promotion, Group 'B' cadre is done through seniority-cum-selection process, which is known as 70% quota and through competitive examination, which is known as 30% merit quota. Both the quotas are filled through a selection process certified by Indian Railways under its master circular No.68 dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure 'A1'). 3. The respondents issued a notification dated 15.9.2012 for filling up of 6 posts (UR-03, SC-02, ST-01) of Assistant Divisional Signalling and Telecommunication Engineer/Assistant Signalling and Telecommunication Engineer in Group-B service. The petitioner participated in the written examination conducted on 31.3.2012 and qualified in the written examination. He was found fit in the medical examination. He was required to participate in the viva-voce and accordingly, he was advised to participate in the viva-voce to be held on 12.6.2012. 4. As per the master circular dated 30.3.2007 at Annexure 'A1', the selection to the Group 'B' post under 70% quota consisted of written examination for 150 marks and record of service (25 marks) and viva-voce (25 marks). The candidate should get 30 marks in viva-voce and record of service put together and atleast 15 marks in the record of service. Further, he has to secure 60% in aggregate i.e. out of 200 marks he has to secure minimum 120 marks to consider him for placing in the panel. The petitioner, who had participated in the viva-voce, had not secured the minimum 30 marks under the record of service and viva-voce put together. Therefore, he was not recommended for empanelment for Group 'B' post. Since Group 'B' post in Signal and Telecommunication Department is a post under safety category, no relaxation can be given, though the applicant belongs to reserved community. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the condition of securing 30 marks in the viva-voce and record of service put together, he was not eligible to be empanelled to the post of ADSTE/ASTE under group 'B' service. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the condition of securing 30 marks in the viva-voce and record of service put together, he was not eligible to be empanelled to the post of ADSTE/ASTE under group 'B' service. The provisional selection panel made by the respondents as per Annexure 'A6' dated 4.7.2012 did not contain the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.326/2012 challenging the said provisional list issued by the third respondent insofar as it pertains to his non- selection in the said list and the selection of respondent Nos.4 and 5. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to Group 'B' cadre in the said selection process as per his entitlement. 5. The application was opposed by the respondents. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, The Tribunal has rejected the application. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the list of eligible candidates for selection against 70% quota, the petitioner is the senior most candidate in the feeder cadre. He appeared and got qualified in the written examination held on 31.3.2012 and 9.5.2012. He has secured 90 marks in the examination out of 150. He has also secured 17.9 marks in service records. However, he was awarded 7 marks in the viva-voce. Thus, he has failed to obtain 30 qualifying marks out of 50 marks for getting selected in the selection process. It is submitted that his non-selection has resulted on account of the authority practicing favouritism/nepotism in the selection process resulting in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, who belongs to reserved community. He submits that he has made similar allegations before the Tribunal. The respondents have not produced any dependable proof to disprove the charge. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.V.BAKSHI AND OTHERS, etc. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - AIR 1993 SC 2374 . 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner had secured 90 marks in the written examination out of 150 marks. All the other candidates have secured much higher marks in the written examination. In order to pass the written examination, a candidate has to secure minimum of 90 marks out of 150 marks. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner had secured 90 marks in the written examination out of 150 marks. All the other candidates have secured much higher marks in the written examination. In order to pass the written examination, a candidate has to secure minimum of 90 marks out of 150 marks. He has secured 17.9 marks in the record of service and only 7 marks in the viva-voce. Thus, he has not secured minimum 30 marks in the record of service and viva-voce put together and has failed to secure total of 120 marks in aggregate of written examination and viva-voce and record of service. 8. In the viva-voce, the capability of the person to hold the Group 'B' gazetted post is being assessed by a committee of senior level officers. The viva-voce is considered to be the suitable method of assessing the capacity of the person to hold a gazetted post. The marks obtained in the record of service will not guarantee a person to perform well in the viva also. In the viva-voce, the questions are asked by a team of officers to test his practical knowledge and also his capacity/capability to meet out the crisis like situations that may emerge while discharging his duties. The petitioner has secured less marks not only in the written examination but also in the record of service and viva-voce put together than that of other persons, who have been empanelled. 9. It is argued that in the viva-voce, questions are not predetermined and also not recorded. Since these questions and answers are not part of the records, the submission made by the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted. The marks in the viva- voce has been allotted based on his performance as determined by the Committee. It is the best method to judge the suitability for a particular position. In this regard, the Court cannot sit in appeal over DPC findings. DPC recommendations can be challenged only on malafide or violation of rules. The petitioner has failed to establish malafide or violation of any of the Rules. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. We have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 11. DPC recommendations can be challenged only on malafide or violation of rules. The petitioner has failed to establish malafide or violation of any of the Rules. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. We have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 11. As per the master circular dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure 'A1'), the selection to the Group 'B' post under 70% quota consisting of written examination for 150 marks and record of service 25 marks and viva-voce 25 marks, a candidate should get minimum of 90 marks to qualify in the written examination. Thereafter, the qualified and selected candidate will be subjected to medical examination before the Medical Board. The qualified candidates in the written examination, who are found medically fit by the Board would be subjected to viva-voce along with scrutiny of record of service by the duly constituted Committee. For record of service and viva-voce, 50 marks are earmarked i.e. viva-voce 25 marks and records of service 25 marks and the qualifying marks in viva-voce and record of service is prescribed as 30, which should include atleast 15 marks in the record of service. The petitioner has secured 90 marks in the written examination out of 150 marks. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have admittedly secured 106 marks and 94 marks respectively in the written examination out of 150 marks. The petitioner has secured 17.9 marks in the record of service and only 7 marks in viva-voce and has not secured minimum 30 marks in the record of service and viva-voce put together and also failed to secure total of 120 marks in aggregate of written examination and viva-voce and record of service. That is why the Tribunal did not find any merit in his case and his application was dismissed. 12. The written examination, record of service and viva- voce are the three heads under which the eligibility of the person to hold the gazetted post is assessed. His knowledge in the professional subject is assessed in the written examination and his yearly performance is assessed by his immediate superior in the record of service. But in the viva, the capability of the person to hold the Group B gazetted post is being assessed by a Committee of senior level officers. His knowledge in the professional subject is assessed in the written examination and his yearly performance is assessed by his immediate superior in the record of service. But in the viva, the capability of the person to hold the Group B gazetted post is being assessed by a Committee of senior level officers. The viva-voce is considered to be the suitable method of assessing the capacity of the person to hold a gazetted post. It is well established that interview is the best mode of assessing suitability of a candidate for a particular position as it brings out over all intellectual qualities of a candidate. While written test will test a candidate's academic knowledge, oral test can bring out or disclose overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership, etc, The marks obtained in the record of service will not guarantee a person to perform well in the viva also. In the viva-voce, the questions are asked by a team of Officers to test his practical knowledge and also his capacity/capability to meet out the crisis like situations that may emerge during the course of duty. The petitioner has secured less marks not only in the written examination but also in the record of service and viva-voce put together than that of other persons who have been empanelled. 13. In D.V. BAKSHI's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that the factors to be assessed at the interview relate to his temperament, managerial ability, communication ability, interpersonal skills, ability to interact with colleagues and officials, general awareness in regard to his functional responsibilities and professional norms as well as norms of behaviour, etc. It has been further held that if there is any allegation of nepotism or favouritism, the same can be checked with reference to the record so maintained. Since the oral test being subjective and is susceptible to misuse, the degree of proof required for bringing home the charge of nepotism or favouritism may be light. But that is not to say that a mere allegation based on the fact that passing of an oral test is a must or that the marks reserved for the oral test are excessive will per se, without anything more, set the Court, probing into the records of the oral test. But that is not to say that a mere allegation based on the fact that passing of an oral test is a must or that the marks reserved for the oral test are excessive will per se, without anything more, set the Court, probing into the records of the oral test. But if the allegation is supported by some dependable proof, the Court will satisfy itself whether or not the charge is well founded. That is why a heavy responsibility lies on those examining the candidates at the interview to ensure that proper record is maintained so that there is no room for suspicion in the minds of the unsuccessful candidates that the result of the oral test is tainted with bias for or against any candidate because even light proof in support of the charge may upset the result of the oral test as a whole or qua a candidate, as the case may be. 14. It is not the case of the petitioner that the marks reserved for the oral test is excessive. The petitioner has not produced any materials to show that the respondents have practiced favouritism/nepotism in favour of the selected candidates. Even otherwise, the materials placed on record would clearly indicate that the respondents are not partial towards the selected candidates. 15. It is well established that normally the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of malafides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The Courts cannot sit as an appellate authority to examine recommendations of the Selection Committee like Court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and Courts rarely sit as a Court of appeal to examine selection of candidates nor is it the business of Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. (See M.V. THIMMAIAH AND OTHERS VS. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS - (2008) 2 SCC 119 ). The petitioner has failed to point out malafides or violations of any statutory rules. 16. We are of the view that the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.