JUDGMENT 1. "This criticism is mere a reflection on the examiners than on the system itself. If there can be manipulation or dishonesty in allotting marks at interviews, there can equally be manipulation in the matter of awarding marks in the written examinations. In the ultimate analysis whatever method is adopted its success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of objectivity and devotion to duty." 2. The above quote is from one of the earliest decisions of Supreme Court of India reported as Chitralekha Vs. State of Mysore AIR 1994 SC 1823 at page 1831. 3. The further observations made are reproduced below: "But learned counsel for the appellants raised a larger question that selection by interview is inherently repugnant to doctrine of equality embodied in art 14 of the constitution for whatever maybe the objective tests laid down in the final analysis the awarding of marks is left to the subjective satisfaction of the selection committee and therefore, it gives ample room for discrimination and manipulation. We cannot accept such a vide contention and condemn one of the well accepted mode of selection in educational institutions. James Hart in his "An Introduction to Administrative law observed at page 180 thus: "A test or examination to be competitive must employ an objective standard of measure. Where the standard or measure is wholly subjective to the examiners, it differs in effect in no respect from an uncontrolled opinion of the examiners and cannot be termed competitive". "In the field of education there are divergent views as regards the mode of testing the capacity and calibre of students in the matter of admission to colleges. Orthodox educationists stand by the marks obtained by a student in the annual examination. The modern trend of opinion insists upon other additional tests such as interview, performance test, psychiatric tests etc." 4. In the light of the above observations this case be examined. 5. The petitioner sought appointment to the post of lecturer in the discipline of Commerce on 17th of Dec. 1993 Advertisement notification for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Commerce was issued by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner applied for the said post. He was not successful. He has approached this court. 5. The petitioner sought appointment to the post of lecturer in the discipline of Commerce on 17th of Dec. 1993 Advertisement notification for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Commerce was issued by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner applied for the said post. He was not successful. He has approached this court. It is submitted; i. that the questions which were put to him had no relevancy to the subject regarding which he was supposed to teach. ii. that he had answered all the questions correctly. iii. that the private respondents who came to be selected have lower merit. 6. The respondents have filed objections. The stand taken by them is that the claims of the petitioner were considered. He was found to be lower in merit; he was not selected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties, I am of the opinion that the only right which is vested in citizen is a right of consideration. The petitioners claim was considered. The argument that some of the questions which were asked to him had no relevance to the subject regarding which he was supposed to teach is an argument which cannot be accepted. What is to be seen is not only whether right answer was given but the manner is which answer was given in relevant. Ability of a candidate to react and alertness which is displayed is relevant. This is a matter on which opinion has to be expressed by the selecting authority. Even if all these assertions made by the petitioner are taken as correct still it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. This is a matter on which decision has to be taken by the respondents and this decision cannot be subjected to any judicial review. Petitioner found to be without merit. Disposed of such.