Judgment :- V.S. Sirpurkar, J. The appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant, at the relevant time, was working as Senior Intercom Operator in Videsh Nigam Sanchar Limited (in short VSNL), which is a Government of India Undertaking. He claims that he was doing the supervisory duties and functions of Traffic Operational Wing. He was also working for some time as Deputy Traffic Manager. 2.1. An advertisement was published on 31-1-1993 inviting for the posts of Deputy Chief Public Relations Officer, Senior Public Relations Officer, Public Relations Officer and two other posts in Accounts Department. We are concerned with the posts of Public Relations Officer. The qualification clause for the said posts was as under: "Minimum Qualification and Experience: For the positions at Srl.No.1,2,&3: Graduate in any discipline with Degree/Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism/Mass Communications. A minimum of 10, 8 & 5 years experience respectively in a large company in the private/public sector/Government Organisation in the area of Public Relations/Journalism/Mass Communication including Media production of in-house journal and other Mass Communication is essential. Those having experience in dealing with tour and arrangements will be preferred. The respective age limits for Sl.Nos.1,2 & 3 should not be more than 40, 35 and 30 years as on 1-1-1993. However, age is relaxable in respect of Departmental Candidates." The appellant applied for the posts relating to Public Relations Officer. However, he was not selected and respondents 4 to 8 were selected in the posts of the Public Relations Officer. Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection and the selection of respondents 4 to 8, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court. 3. The learned single Judge took the view that the appellant/petitioner could not substantiate his case that his non-selection was bad or that the selection of respondents 4 to 8 was illegal in any manner. Learned Judge took notice of all the contentions raised in the affidavit regarding the educational qualifications and the other qualifications of the appellant. His claim of having rich experience in the Public Relations was also taken note of by the learned Judge. However, the learned Judge found that the appellant/petitioner was working in a technical post of a Senior Intercom Operator and, therefore, could not be said to be having enough experience in the field of Public Relations also. His claim of having rich experience in the Public Relations was also taken note of by the learned Judge. However, the learned Judge found that the appellant/petitioner was working in a technical post of a Senior Intercom Operator and, therefore, could not be said to be having enough experience in the field of Public Relations also. The learned Judge also held that the post for which the petitioner insisted of being selected was a managerial post and as such beyond the reach of the petitioner and that nothing was wrong in his not being selected. It is this judgment which is challenged before us. 4. Petitioner appears in person. His mainstay of the argument is that he was possibly the best-suited candidate for the said posts since he had the qualifications of a graduation in Commerce, graduation in law, post-graduate certificate in Journalism and Mass Communication, post-graduate diploma in Public Relations as also a diploma in Trade Union Organisation and Administration. He had also done a certificate course in Labour Legislation, holding a diploma in Homoeopathy and that he had also appeared for the M.A. Political Science II Year examination. It is his further case that he was in the field of Public Relations in the Overseas Communications Services and that he had worked as the Madras Correspondent for the House Journal of VSNL from July 1987 to December 1982 and that he was also one of the founders of Madras Overseas Communications Service Staff Union and also a member of the Managing Committee of the Recreation Club. He was also the founder of the Overseas Communications Service Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited. 4.1. It is his case that in his comparison all the four respondents stood nowhere because two of them viz. S.B. Jadhav and M.K. Roy were not even graduates and they had no experience whatsoever so as to entitle them to be selected. The appellant/petitioner, therefore, contends that there could be no way that his claim for the selection could be in any way denied to him. 5. S.B. Jadhav and M.K. Roy were not even graduates and they had no experience whatsoever so as to entitle them to be selected. The appellant/petitioner, therefore, contends that there could be no way that his claim for the selection could be in any way denied to him. 5. As against this, Shri Vijayan, learned standing counsel for VSNL, points out that the appellant in reality was not entitled to be considered because he was not having the necessary qualification of experience but, however, he was later on invited for the interview and was not found fit to be selected in comparison to the four selected respondents. It was reiterated by the learned counsel that the interview panel consisted of the experts and before that, the qualifications of all the candidates who applied for the said posts were checked and it was only after a green signal was given by that panel, that the concerned candidates were interviewed, considered and ultimately selected. Learned counsel points out that in the counter before the learned single Judge, it was reiterated that respondents 4 to 8 were fully qualified to be considered. 6. Before we proceed to consider the rival submissions, it will have to be noted that the appellant retired from the service with effect from 31-1-1997. Therefore, there would be no question of his being able to be sent back for working as a Public Relations Officer. Appellant, however, points out that if he is declared to be selected then, he was atleast be entitled to draw all the benefits which he would have got after his appointment as a Public Relations Officer. 7. We cannot accept this proposition. After all, it is a trite law that the selection by itself does not create any right on the post and the benefits flow from the same could be available to a candidate only on his actual "appointment" to the post. It is obvious that at this juncture, we could not direct an appointment to the post. Even if the appellant had been selected but not appointed, he would not have been entitled to any of the benefits. Therefore, in reality, the issue has become infructuous. However, the appellant insists that that there has to be a finding regarding his entitlement of being selected. 8. Even if the appellant had been selected but not appointed, he would not have been entitled to any of the benefits. Therefore, in reality, the issue has become infructuous. However, the appellant insists that that there has to be a finding regarding his entitlement of being selected. 8. It is again a trite law that the Court, in its extraordinary original jurisdiction under Art.226, does not replace or cannot replace the Selection Committee and cannot substitute its intellect for the discretion and intellect of the Selection Committee. The only thing which has to be looked into is as to in what manner the selection has been done and as to whether the actions of the Selection Committee are bona fide or not. 9. Here is a case where the concerned candidate required minimum five years' experience in a large company in the private/public sector/Government Organisation in the area of Public Relations/Journalism/Mass Communication including Media Production of in-house journal and other Mass Communication. Now, it is an admitted position that the appellant was working not in a post related to the field of Public Relations in VSNL. He was working as Senior Intelcom Operator. This could not be a post connected with the subject of Public Relations. When we see the counter, it has been pointed out that the post of Senior Intelcom Operator is of a technical nature. The appellant, however, insisted on pointing out that he was actually doing the work relating to Public Relations and that even in his duty as a Senior Intelcom Operator, he was required to do the work of Public Relations. In a chart given along with this appeal, the appellant claims that he was having twenty years of experience in Public Relations in Overseas Communications right from 1974. We do not understand as to what is the meaning in this claim because, as a Senior Intelcom Operator, the appellant though would be communicating with the foreign countries, it does not mean that his duties were of such a nature as could be held to be relating to Public Relations Department. We do not understand as to what is the meaning in this claim because, as a Senior Intelcom Operator, the appellant though would be communicating with the foreign countries, it does not mean that his duties were of such a nature as could be held to be relating to Public Relations Department. It is informed by the learned standing counsel for VSNL that in fact a separate Public Relations Department had been created and though the appellant was offered the appointment in that department, he had declined to join that stream whereas all the four selected respondents belonged to the Public Relations stream of VSNL and as such they had the adequate exposure and experience. 10. Any person cannot insist upon being selected. There is no right of selection. The very fact that this post is a "selection post", for which an advertisement was floated and in which even the candidates from the open market were considered is suggestive of the fact that the appellant could not claim his selection as of right. The contention, therefore, is clearly incorrect. It is not for this Court to make a comparison in the merits of the selected respondents on the one hand and the appellant on the other. That was task of the Selection Committee and the Committee seems to have done it. It was not the case of the appellant that there was any inherent defect in the Selection Committee or that any of the members of the Selection Committee was biased or the process of selection was no bona fide. Once that position is obtained, there would be no question on the part of the High Court to issue a Writ, directing the Selection Committee to select the appellant or to reject the selection of respondents 4 to 8. 11. Appellant, however, very vehemently argues that the four selected respondents did not have enough experience. That position has been clearly denied in the counter by the respondents that the qualifications of the respondents 4 to 8 were examined and they were found to be in keeping with the norms fixed. 11. Appellant, however, very vehemently argues that the four selected respondents did not have enough experience. That position has been clearly denied in the counter by the respondents that the qualifications of the respondents 4 to 8 were examined and they were found to be in keeping with the norms fixed. This is besides the fact that in paragraph 3 of the advertisement notice, it is specifically mentioned: "The Management reserves the right to relax any of the conditions in the case of exceptionally meritorious candidates." Therefore, the question of our scrutinising the qualifications of respondents 4 to 8 also would not be relevant. 12. Appellant then points out that in comparison to his own earlier experience, respondents 4 to 8 had no experience whatsoever and they were also working in the technical posts. Once the respondents have come out with the clear case in counter that they were having the necessary experience and they also have the required educational qualifications and once that statement in the count has not been challenged in any manner, there will be no question of accepting such a contention on behalf of the appellant. The learned Judge, however, has given a finding that the appellant himself was not a qualified even to be considered for the post because he did not have the necessary experience of five years in the Public Relations department. We do not think that there is any thing wrong in the findings given by the learned single Judge. 13. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to the costs. C.M.P. No.295 of 1999 is closed.