IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7990 of 2008. Decided on: 26.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar Sharma … Petitioner. Versus H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The post of Technical Group Instructor/Education Foreman was published on 16.10.2000 in the daily edition of “The Tribune”. The minimum qualification prescribed for filling up this post was three years diploma in Engineering from a recognized State Board of Technical Education or equivalent. The petitioner submitted application for considering his candidature for this post. He along with respondent No.3 was called for interview. Respondent No.3 was found suitable by the Selection Committee. His name was recommended for the post in question. He joined his duties. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 Mr. Onkar Jairath has strenuously argued that his client was more meritorious vis-à-vis respondent No.3. He further contended that his client was holding B.E. Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya (Engineering College), Vallabh Vidyanagar (Gujarat). He lastly contended that his client had also qualified Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE 2000) and secured 75 per cent marks. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that respondent No.3 was in possession of minimum qualification prescribed vide advertisement Annexure R/1. He then contended that it was the prerogative of the Selection Committee to adjudge the suitability of the candidates on the basis of screening test and interview. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 was in possession of minimum essential educational qualification prescribed vide Annexure R/1 dated 16.10.2000. It is also true that the petitioner was possessing B.E. Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the recognized institute. It appears from the pleadings that the suitability of the candidates was adjudged on the basis of screening test as well as on the basis of interview. The Selection Committee has found respondent No.3 more suitable. His name was recommended for appointment. Respondent No.3 also possessed the minimum working experience as prescribed in the advertisement. It is not stipulated in the advertisement that the candidates with higher qualification were required to be given any preference. The petitioner and respondent No.3 were considered 3 in the O.B.C. category. The suitability of the candidates is to be adjudged by the Selection Committee. This Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the recommendations made by the Selection Committee unless or until there is breach of any rule/regulation constituting the committee or specific mala fide are alleged against the members of the Selection Committee. In the present case, the petitioner has not pointed out any deficiency in the constitution of the Selection Committee nor any mala fides have been alleged against the members of the Selection Committee. Moreover, the Selection Committee has not been arrayed as party-respondent. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 26, 2009. (cr)