JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - Aggrieved by the non-selection to one of the posts of a Drawing Teacher under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathana, Regional Officer. Bhubaneswar, the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action of the authority as arbitrary. 2. Admittedly the Petitioner appeared for test for selection to the post of Drawing Teacher with educational qualification of having passed the examination under the Central Board of Secondary Education in 1989 with 44 per cent of marks and subsequently the degree in Bachelor of Fine Arts in the year 1988 with 59.09 per cent of marks from the Utkal University. So far as the co-curricular attainments are concerned, she furnished particulars for having the standard upto the national level in Khoko in the year 1986 and on regional level in the years 1982 and 1983, and 1986 organised by the Kendriya Vidiyalaya Samiti, Bhubaneswar. It is claimed that although she fa ired very well in the interview and expected to come within four of the merit list, but to her utter surprise, she found less meritorious candidates having lesser per centage of marks have been selected. She, therefore, challenges the action as violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Con., situation of India and prays to quash Annexure-7, the select-list. 3. In the counter-affidavit the opposite parties have denied the allegation of mala fide or arbitrariness. It is claimed that the selection committee consisted of seven members including the Chairman Dr. P.C. Mohapatra. The selection committee went through the process of selection and adopted the criteria as per the letter dated 29-11-94 of the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Regional Office annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. According to the opposite parties, the marks were awarded strictly as per the guide-line and on proper evaluation. Since the Petitioner secured less mark than the other candidates, she could not be selected. It is further averred that the number of candidates were short-listed by adopting the proportion of 1: 8 ratio and since the Bhubaneswar Regional office had the requirement of 21 posts, all total 168 candidates were called for interview of whom selection was made of ten candidates from general category, five candidates from O.B. C. and four candidates from S.C. category. Since no S.T. candidates were found suitable for selection, the two vacancies reserved for them are still lying vacant. Since no S.T. candidates were found suitable for selection, the two vacancies reserved for them are still lying vacant. The opposite parties thus claim dismissal of the writ petition pleading that the same has no merit. 4. Heard Mr. J.M. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned counsd for the opposite parties. We have perused the xerox copy of the bio-data furnished by the Petitioner as well as the xerox copy of the tabulation register, Annexures-I and II series. 5. In para 10 of the counter-affidavit the opposite parties denied the allegation of wrong evaluation/method of selection as alleged by the Petitioner. They averred that the selection committee adopted the procedure prescribed under Annexure-A. We have carefully gone through the criteria mentioned under Annexure-A for selection to the post of Drawing Teacher. The same is self-explanatory. A model calculation for the purpose of correct assessment has been given out indicating therein the method/procedure for arriving at the total percentage of marks obtained by a particular candidate. It indicates the per- centage of marks for + 2 examination, B.A. examination, Diploma in fine Arts (5 years), Post-Graduation, additional qualification curricular activities (inter-University level) and experience. Nothing has been brought out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to how this criteria which is claimed to have been adopted for the candidates is either perverse or wholly unacceptable being unreasonable or arbitrary or that the total marks i. e. 58 awarded to the Petitioner is incorrect or is the result of wrong/miscalculation. The xerox copy of the tabulation register, Annexure-I indicates that marks awarded to the candidates numbering 10 including the Petitioner who were interviewed on 7-6-95. Annexure-II is the copy of the tabulation register showing 11 candidates to have been interviewed in between 3-6-1995 to 8-6-1995 thus totalling 21 candidates for the post of Drawing Teachers on regional basis. Further, we may point out that the criteria as well as the formula adopted under Annexure-A cannot be said to be wholly the result of any mala fide on the part of the prescribing authority and adopted by the selection committee. There is no allegation of mala fide on the part of any member of the selection committee except it was alleged that opposite party No. 1 the Assistant Commissioner on the verge o? his retirement acted illegally. We do not appreciate such a bald allegation. 6. There is no allegation of mala fide on the part of any member of the selection committee except it was alleged that opposite party No. 1 the Assistant Commissioner on the verge o? his retirement acted illegally. We do not appreciate such a bald allegation. 6. The other irregularity alleged by the Petitioner is that the other candidates selected do not have their medium of education in Hindi and English whereas, the Petitioner holds a Higher Secondary School Certificate with Hindi and English as subjects. We do not find that there is any mention that subjects like Hindi and English are compulsory subjects for selection to the post of Drawing Teacher as indicated in the advertisement, Annexure-3. The essential qualification was invited to be, Five year recognised Diploma in Drawing and Painting/Sculpture/ Graphic Art or Four-Year Diploma in Fine Arts and Crafts from Vishva-Bharati, Shanti Niketan or Diploma in Fine Arts from Government School of Arts and Crafts, Patna, or M.A. in / Drawing and Painting from Agra University, Agra or Equivalent Recognised Degree or B. Ed. DegreejDiploma in Fine Arts from Regional Colleges of Education. 7. Since all the candidates whose merit have been evaluated are-found to have confirmed to the minimum essential criteria, we do not find anything wrong in the evaluation. We have not found any justifiable reason to interfere with the action of the opposite parties. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed, but without cost. S. Chatterji, A.C.J. 8. I agree. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed