Honble MADAN, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. (2) The grievance of the petitioner as unfolded in this writ petition is that the respondents advertised 11 posts of Technical Assistants as per Annexure 3, i.e., Advertisement, dated 11.1.1991. The qualification which were prescribed for appointment to the said posts was Diploma in Civil/Electrical/Mechanical Engineering respectively with atleast 2 years practical experience in any of these specialities. These appointments were to be made in the Engineering College, Kota which is an autonomous institution of the Government of Rajasthan. Perusal of the said advertisement further reveals that the college reserved its rights not to fill up any of the posts so advertised. The vacancies for SC/ST quota were to be filled up by the mana- gement of the institution as per the rules of the Society. (3). Perusal of Annexure 4 dated 26.12.1991 reveals that the petitioner was called for practical test as well as interview which was held on 8.1.92 in the Administrative Block of the respondents institution. Candidature of the petitioner was however, not found suitable by the Appointing Authority, since a number of didates had applied for the aforesaid posts and out of which screening had to be carried out by the appointing authority on the basis of academic and other qualifications of the respective candidates and it has not been disputed by the petitioner that only those who were found suitable on the basis of their requisite qualifications were selected for appointment. (4). During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the bar that out of 11 candidates who were appointed only one candidate belongs to reserved category while other reserved categories candidates who were also available like the petitioner were not given appointment by the appointing authority. Learned counsel has however, not spelt out any arbitrariness in the matter of appointment of 11 candidates who have been given appointments by the respondents. I am of the opinion that it is always open to the appointing authority to consider the relevant merit of the candidates and it is further open to the appointing authority to carry out the screening test of the respective candidates and also to short-list the candidates, if necessary, since the number of candidates who applied is evidently much larger than the posts which are actually advertised and which are actually to be filled up. The law has been so well settled by the Apex court in series of judgments including the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan & Ors. (1), wherein similar question had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. It was held by the Apex Court that it is not the function of the court to hear the appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relevant merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not, has to be decided by a duly constituted Selection Committee which has an expertise on the subject, whereas the court has no such expertise. I am in perfect agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court inasmuch as it is not open for this court to substitute its own judgment over the well reasoned findings of the duly constituted Selection Committee which has given appointments to the candidates as referred to above. I am further of the view that it is the merit of the candidate alone which has to be given priority and not the caste of the candidates inasmuch as there is specific reservation under the rules as to the number of the candidates who are to be appointed from a particular caste. Even in that case it is open to the appointing authority to consider relative merits of the candidates who are to be appointed on the basis of reservations. The petitioner has not made out any such case for interference by this court, since no arbitrariness has been spelt out by the petitioner in the process of selection making by the appointing authority. (5). There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.