K. RAMAMOORTHY,j ( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "lt is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may graciouslybe pleased to:- (i) a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent from finalisingand declaring the result of the interview held on 16. 8. 99 for the post ofassistant Professor in North African Studies at School of International Studies,in Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi; (ii) a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings held by theinterview Board in interview on 16. 8. 1999 for the post of Assistant Professorin North African Studies at School of International Studies in Jawhar Lalnehru University, New Delhi; (iii) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to hold theinterview afresh and consider the candidature of the petitioner on the basisof merit and the essential on the basis of merit and the essential qualificationwhich is required for the post of Assistant professor in North African Studies,which only the petitioner possesses till date. " ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, is that the Chairperson ofcwaas, was the man who ousted the petitioner and wanted to appoint his owncandidate and the respondents deliberately were waiting till the retirement of Mr. K. R. Singh who was the guide of the petitioner in submitting the thesis. It is further statedthat the members of the Interview Committee were biased against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was the only person possessing the requiredqualification and specialisation in the area north African Studies and had a validclaim for the post of Assistant Professor in North African Studies. ( 3 ) THE Acting Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru University had filed the counter-affidavitto the writ petition. The allegations in the writ petition are denied and it is stated thatthe case of the petitioner was considered by the Selection Committee and thecandidate selected was also specialised in North African Studies. It is stated thathaving participated in the selection process, it is not open to the petitioner tochallenge the constitution of the Committee. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regarad to thequalifications prescribed for the post, the petitioner was the only person, as stated inthe writ petition, who satisfied the requirements with reference qualifications. Theselection Committee, without considering the qualifications of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regarad to thequalifications prescribed for the post, the petitioner was the only person, as stated inthe writ petition, who satisfied the requirements with reference qualifications. Theselection Committee, without considering the qualifications of the petitioner. Theselection Committee was not properly constituted and there was no proper selectionmethod adopted by the Selection Committee. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the University, Mr. S. C. Dhandha, submitted that thepetitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee and out of all the candidatesappeared, the person having the requisite qualifications was found fit by the Selectioncommittee for selection and he was appointed. The petitioner has not chosen toimplead the selected candidate as a party to the writ petition. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the University. Mr. S. C. Dhanda. submitted that in viewof the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in "dr. G. Sarana Vs. University oflucknow and Others", (1976)3 SCC 585 that a candidate who participated in theselection process cannot seek to challenge the Constitution of the Committee, thepetitioner is not entitled to any relief and he has not made out any case for interferenceby this Court. Mr. S. C. Dhanda, the learned counsel for the. University, has alsoreferred to the judgment of Supreme Court in "madan Lal and Others Vs. State ofjandk and Others", (1995) 3 SCC 486 and judgment of this court in CWP. No. 513/75dated 21. 3. 1979, titled, "dr. A. S. Jawatkar Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University andothers, wherein the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in "dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow and Others", (1976) 3 SCC 585 , was followed. The learnedcounsel for respondent has also referred to the judgment in "the Chancellor andanother s. Dr. Bijayananda Kar and Others", (1994) 1 SCC 169 . ( 7 ) ON the materials placed on record, it is clear that the case of the petitioner wasconsidered by the Select Committee along with other candidates who had appliedfor the post. The only rightof the petitioner is for being considered for Selection, It isnot open to the petitioner to invite this Court to go into the fact how the minds of themembers of the Selection Committee worked to assess the merits of the candidates. The only rightof the petitioner is for being considered for Selection, It isnot open to the petitioner to invite this Court to go into the fact how the minds of themembers of the Selection Committee worked to assess the merits of the candidates. Experts on the field were on the Selection Committee and they had considered thesuitability of the candidates, and it is well settled that this Court cannot sit judgmentover the decision of such a Selection Committee. I do not find any merits in the writpetition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. ( 8 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs.