ORDER : Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2014 passed in O.A.No.909 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Akhileshwar, learned counsel, representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Scientist-E and he was fully eligible to be promoted to the post of Scientist-F. However, the respondents have not considered his case for promotion to the post of Scientist-F and the Screening Committee itself has rejected his case and not even referred to the Special Assessment Board along with his batchmates. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.343 of 2011 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.01.2012 disposed of the said OA by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Scientist-F and if the petitioner is selected and promoted as Scientist-F, his seniority was directed to be fixed along with the scientists, who were selected during April, 2011. In pursuance of the same, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner by referring his case to the Special Assessment Board, but the Special Assessment Board has found the petitioner as ‘not yet fit’ and hence, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 29.06.2012. The rejection order is very cryptic and no reasons were assigned as to why the Special Assessment Board has rejected the case of the petitioner by declaring him as “not yet fit”. 3.1 Aggrieved by the said rejection proceedings, the petitioner has once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.Nos.894 and 909 of 2012. O.A.No.909 of 2012 was filed seeking to set aside the said rejection proceedings by directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Scientist-F. O.A.No.894 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Scientist-F for the year 2012. The Tribunal vide common order dated 28.03.2014 dismissed both the OAs. Aggrieved by the order passed in O.A.No.909 of 2012, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The Tribunal vide common order dated 28.03.2014 dismissed both the OAs. Aggrieved by the order passed in O.A.No.909 of 2012, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that during pendency of the present writ petition, the case of the petitioner was considered for the post of Scientist-F for the year 2015, but not for the year 2011 i.e., on which year, his batchmates were promoted for the said post. Learned counsel had further contended that the respondents have sent their representatives to the Special Assessment Board as members and on the instructions of the Director and Director of Personnel, the representatives have awarded less marks to the petitioner. Learned counsel had further contended that petitioner has impleaded the Director and Director of Personnel as respondent Nos.6 and 7 in their personal capacity before the Tribunal and also before this Court and specifically pleaded before the Tribunal as well as before this Court that respondent Nos.6 and 7 were biased against the petitioner and at their instance, their representatives forming part of Special Assessment Board, have awarded less marks. 4.1 Learned counsel had further contended that members of Special Assessment Board have considered the case of the petitioner with bias attitude, awarded less marks and the marks were written with a pencil, which can be easily tampered and this fact was specifically pleaded before the Tribunal and respondent Nos.6 and 7 have not appeared before the Tribunal to deny the same. When respondent Nos.6 and 7 are impleaded in their personal capacity and have not appeared to deny those allegations, then the allegations have to be treated as true. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in C.S. Rowjee and others vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1964 (962), wherein the Apex Court held that if the allegations of bias and mala fide are not denied, then they have to be accepted as true. Therefore, the respondents have arbitrarily and with a mala fide intention denied promotional opportunity to the petitioner to the post of Scientist-F. But without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, the Tribunal has mechanically dismissed the said OAs vide common order dated 28.03.2014. Therefore, the respondents have arbitrarily and with a mala fide intention denied promotional opportunity to the petitioner to the post of Scientist-F. But without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, the Tribunal has mechanically dismissed the said OAs vide common order dated 28.03.2014. 4.2 Learned counsel had further contended that the respondents have not even referred the case of the petitioner to the Special Assessment Board and the name of the petitioner was eliminated by the Internal Screening Committee and in those set of circumstances, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.343 of 2011 and in pursuance of the order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Tribunal only, the case of the petitioner was referred to Special Assessment Board and as the members of Special Assessment Board were biased against the petitioner, he filed O.A.Nos.894 and 909 of 2012 and impleaded respondent Nos.6 and 7 in their personal capacity. But the Tribunal dismissed the said OAs vide common order dated 28.03.2014. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 28.03.2014 passed in O.A.No.909 of 2012 and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Scientist-F along with his batchmates with effect from 2011 with all consequential benefits. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Special Assessment Board in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.343 of 2011, dated 24.01.2012 and the Special Assessment Board has found the petitioner as ‘not yet fit’ for promotion to the post of Scientist-F and the respondents have rightly issued rejection proceedings. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that the members of the Special Assessment Board are biased against him is concerned, the very same Special Assessment Board has considered the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Scientist-F during 2015, and if the Special Assessment Board was biased and having any mala fide intention, the Special Assessment Board ought not to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Scientist-F during 2015. 5.1 Learned counsel had further contended that there will be seven members from different fields in the Special Assessment Board. The petitioner has made allegations of bias only against respondent Nos.6 and 7, who were not even members of the Special Assessment Board. 5.1 Learned counsel had further contended that there will be seven members from different fields in the Special Assessment Board. The petitioner has made allegations of bias only against respondent Nos.6 and 7, who were not even members of the Special Assessment Board. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the representatives of respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are members of the Special Assessment Board were influenced is not correct and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Special Assessment Board at the instance of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.343 of 2011, dated 24.01.2012. When the Special Assessment Board has found the petitioner as ‘not yet fit’ for promotion to the post of Scientist-F, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A. The Courts cannot sit as Appellate Authority or Selecting Authority over and above the Special Assessment Board. 6.1 Moreover, insofar as the contention of the petitioner with regard to impleading respondent Nos.6 and 7 in their personal capacity is concerned, a perusal of the record discloses that respondent Nos.6 and 7 were not even members of the Special Assessment Board and in fact, it was specifically contended that their representatives were present as members in the Special Assessment Board. If the petitioner has impleaded those representatives who were forming part of the Special Assessment Board, then more light would have been thrown. Since respondent Nos.6 and 7 were not forming part of the Special Assessment Board, on this ground also this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. A mere and bald allegation is levelled in the affidavit that the members who were present in the Special Assessment Board were representatives of respondent Nos.6 and 7. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 might have influenced their representatives. Therefore, the decision relied on by the petitioner in C.S.Rowjee’ s case (referred to supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 might have influenced their representatives. Therefore, the decision relied on by the petitioner in C.S.Rowjee’ s case (referred to supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 6.2 Further, when the Special Assessment Board has considered the case of the petitioner and found that the petitioner could not clear the benchmark, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, every unsuccessful candidate would turn around and contend that the members of the Special Assessment Board have not properly assessed their cases. In the instant case, in the year 2015, the Special Assessment Board has considered the case of the petitioner and found the petitioner was fit for the post of Scientist-F. Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The Writ Petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.