JUDGMENT 1. - Since on similar set of facts common question is involved in all the above writ petitions, on joint request of counsel for the parties, the above writ petitions are heard and decided by this common order. 2. An advertisement dated 5.8.1996 was issued by respondent-Commission b) which, amongst others, 17 posts of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the department of Technical Education were also notified. Out of which 8 posts were reserved for ST and OBC. Minimum qualifications and conditions for eligibility were also notified as per relevant Mules. 3. The petitioners also applied in pursuance to the advertisement mentioned above. However, after scrutiny of the application forms, the petitioners were informed by the Commission that in view of large number of applications, as pri criteria fixed by the Commission it is not possible to call the petitioners for interview Action of the Commission in not calling the petitioners for interview is under challenge in the present writ petitions. 4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as pci advertisement the Commission could not have short listed the number of candidate." to be called for interview in an arbitrary manner on the basis of some criteria fixed by the Commission. The shortlisting could be done only on the basis of higher qualifications as mentioned in the advertisement itself. 5. It has further been submitted by Mr. Sharma that in other selections the Commission has been shortlisting the number of candidates by way of holding a screening test. However, in spite of allowing all the applicants to appear in the screening test, the Commission has adopted a criteria which is also not justified in the eyes of law. Moreso, in view of the fact that in the criteria the Commission has taken its consideration the marks obtained by the applicants in their secondary and higher secondary which has no relevance so far as present selections are concerned. 6. Another submission of Mr. Sharma is that petitioners have earlier been appointed on temporary basis after recommendations of a selection Committee and now for regular selections they cannot be denied opportunity of interview only on the basis of criteria adopted by the Commission. 7. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Standing Counsel for the Commission, has submitted that in pursuance to advertisement as referred to above, the Commission received 2,000 applications including the petitioners. 7. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Standing Counsel for the Commission, has submitted that in pursuance to advertisement as referred to above, the Commission received 2,000 applications including the petitioners. Looking to large number of applications as compared to the number of vacancies advertised the Commission adopted a criteria for shortlisting. The criteria was duly approved by the Commission and a merit-list was prepared accordingly. The last cut of mark of the general category was fixed as 94.79% whereas none of the petitioners could reach that mark. Submission of Mr. Kumawat is that it is the sole discretion of the Commission to short list the number of candidates by any manner either by way of holding a screening test or on the basis of criteria adopted for the same. 8. Mr. Kumawat has contended that similar criteria has been adopted in various selections and the same has been approved by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ram Narain Sharma v. RPSC and another, D.B. Special Appeal (Def.) No. 423/1995, decided on 27.4.1995 , Rajesh Kumar v. State and others, decided on 15.3.1996 . He has also relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh v. State of Haryana and others, reported in 1997(4) SCC 662 and in the case of Secy. (Health) Department of Health v. Dr. Anita Puri and others, reported in 1996(8) JT SC 130 . Mr. Kumawat has also submitted the criteria adopted by the Commission in the present selections for perusal of the Court. 9. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and have also considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the judgments cited by counsel for the respondents. 10. In the advertisement itself it has clearly been mentioned that in case a large number of applications are received as compared to the number of posts notified, the Commission may resort to shortlisting on the basis of higher qualifications and experience. It is the discretion of the Commission to adopt any method for shortlisting which should be just and proper and be applied to all the candidates. In the present case, Commission has adopted a criteria to get the best persons and due weightage has been given to the higher qualifications and experience while considering the whole academic career as well. Same criteria has been upheld by... In the present case, Commission has adopted a criteria to get the best persons and due weightage has been given to the higher qualifications and experience while considering the whole academic career as well. Same criteria has been upheld by... Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Ram Narain Shrama's case. It has been held that it is for the expert body determining the criteria for screening the candidate while shortlisting to lay down particular norms. If the norms laid down is relevant, then the scope of judicial review ends. There may be other better methods, but it is not for the Court to select one or the other method. 11. In Secretary (Health), Department of Health v. Dr. Anita Puri and others , also the Apex Court has held that when a selections is made by an expert body like Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of malafides are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts. 12. In the present case also since the criteria adopted by the Commission has been made applicable on all the applicants, and no malafides have been alleged, I find no justification in interference of this Court in such matters. Since all the petitioners have not been able to reach the last cut of marks, no relief can be granted. to the petitioners in the present writ petitions. 13. Mr. Kumawat, counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the same selections to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering have been challenged by yet another applicant on the same grounds. However, the writ petition No. 1129/1997 filed by Anil Kumar Pradhan has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.5.1997. 14. In the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, I find no merit in the above writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court staying the declaration of the result of the interviews stands vacated automatically.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******