Judgment :- Grievance of the petitioner who is working as Assistant Lecturer (Electrical) in the first respondent Polytechnic is that he being the sole candidate in the feeder category entitled to be promoted as a Lecturer has been overlooked by the Selection Board. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer provisionally on 1-3-1977. His service was terminated on 31-3-1977. He was appointed again on 1-8-1977 and continues in that post thereafter. He is a graduate in Engineering. 2. Petitioner contends that he has necessary qualifications to be selected as lecturer and he alone is available in the feeder category and so he should have been selected by the Selection Board. He was called for interview on 5-8-1988. In the interview held on 6-8-1988 sixth respondent was selected for the post of the Lecturer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was only one qualified person in the feeder category there was really no necessity for inviting applications for the appointment of a Lecturer. 4. Petitioner's case is that he is eligible, fully qualified and entitled to get promotion under the Kerala Technical Education (Private Engineering Colleges/ Polytechnics) Service Rules (Ext.Pl) as Lecturer in the existing vacancy. Rule 16 of Ext.P1 provides that for non-selection posts promotion is according to the seniority from the next lower category. It states that all the posts of Lecturers and above shall be treated as selection posts. It is made clear that all posts below the Lecturers shall be treated as non-selection posts. As per Rule 16, the appointment/ promotions shall be made by the Management on the recommendation of the Governing Body of the College/ Polytechnic as the case may be. 5. Under the Special Rules for Technical Education Service, appointment of a Lecturer in a Polytechnic shall be either by transfer from the categories of Assistant Lecturers and Head Draftsman in Junior Technical Schools. In the absence of suitable candidates under the above categories, the appointment can be by direct recruitment. As Ext.P1 provides that selection posts will have to be filled up according to merit and ability, in the case of appointment by transfer seniority can be considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal 6. Contention of the petitioner is that he is the only candidate available in the feeder category and so he should have been promoted as Lecturer. Contention of the petitioner is that he is the only candidate available in the feeder category and so he should have been promoted as Lecturer. When there is only one candidate available in the feeder category to be promoted as Lecturer, the question that arises for consideration is whether it would disentitle the respondents from making any direct selection for the post. Rule 16 of Ext.P1 shows that post of a Lecturer is a selection post and the appointment to that. post has to be made by the Management on the basis of merit and seniority. As the Special Rules enable direct recruitment in the absence of a suitable person in the feeder category, contention of the petitioner that he being the sole incumbent in the feeder category should have been promoted and there was no need for direct recruitment to the post of a Lecturer is not tenable. His contention that considerations of merit and seniority arise only when there are more than one candidates in the feeder category and so long as it is not there his promotion should have been automatically made is difficult to be accepted as the post of a Lecturer is a selection post and as the Special Rules clearly say that suitability is the criterion in the matter of promotion. 7. Admittedly petitioner was interviewed. He participated in the interview without any demur. The Selection Board consisting of experts found that the petitioner was not suitable for the time being to be promoted as a Lecturer. Contention of the petitioner that the very interview was uncalled for as he alone constituted the feeder category cannot be accepted as the very post of Lecturer is a selection post and the Rules provide for the assessment of suitability of the candidate for such post. Without any fear of contradiction it can be held that for selection posts it would be open to the respondents to resort to direct appointment whenever it is found that no person in the feeder category is suitable for the higher post. Without any fear of contradiction it can be held that for selection posts it would be open to the respondents to resort to direct appointment whenever it is found that no person in the feeder category is suitable for the higher post. Merely because the petitioner has the necessary educational qualification to be considered for the higher post, that by itself will not be sufficient to give him automatic promotion on the sole ground that he is the sole candidate in the feeder category when the Selection Board consisting of eminent experts, representatives of the management and the Government found him not suitable for promotion. That apart, having taken part in the process of selection, petitioner cannot challenge it on the ground that there was absolutely no necessity for the selection in view of the availability of himself in the feeder category. 8. As the Selection Committee interviewed candidates including the petitioner and selected a suitable person (6th respondent) for the post, this Court cannot interfere with it especially when petitioner could not establish any vitiating factors or illegalities in the process of selection. Nor could he establish that the Selection Committee acted prejudicially to the petitioner or acted in a partisan manner. He could not attribute any malafides in the selection made by the Committee. The scope of judicial review cannot be extended for analysing the comparative merits of the candidates interviewed by the Selection Committee to come to a different finding as if in an appeal. In Da/pat Abasaheb Solunke and others v. Dr.B.S.Mahajan and others (1990 (1) S.C.C.305) the Supreme Court held: "It is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinizes the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Select ion Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. In the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. The court has no such expertise. In the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction." As the Selection Committee has assessed the relative merits of all candidates interviewed by it and made the final selection and as it stands unsoiled by any procedural illegality or patent illegality in the constitution of the Committee or manifest bias or malafides affecting the selection, this Court cannot interfere with it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the Original Petition. O.P. is dismissed. No costs.