Respondents- University vide its Advertisement Notice dated 1.6.2002 invited applications for selection/appointment to various posts indicated therein. One of the posts advertised was Deputy Registrar for which, following qualifications/eligibility criteria was laid down : " DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1. A Masters degree with at least 55% (50% in case of Senior teachers/Administrative Officers who are already in the University system) marks or its equivalent grade of B in the seven point scale with the letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Masters degree level, from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. 2. Five years experience as Lecturer in a College/University with experience in Educational Administration. @TBLCN = OR Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education; @TBLCN = OR Five years administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or an equivalent post." Petitioner, who claims to be eligible person, applied for the aforesaid post and some other posts. However, the issue involved in the present petition, is only in respect to the post of Deputy Registrar. Before the selection process could be concluded, writ petition being SWP No. 2893/2002 was preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondent to interview the petitioner. Vide interim direction dated 30.12.2002 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner was directed to be interviewed. However, his result was not to be declared till further orders from the court. Interim direction issued by the court, is reproduced herein: "Petition is admitted to hearing. Issue notice. Mr. J.P.Singh accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Notice in the CMP also. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to interview the petitioner also for the post of Deputy Registrar. However,the result of the petitioner shall not be declared till further orders." Consequent upon aforesaid direction, petitioner was interviewed for the post of Deputy Registrar and after the conclusion of the selection process, respondents 5 and 6 were appointed against two of the three posts advertised. According to the petitioner, no select list was published or appointment letter made known. He preferred another writ petition being SWP No. 507/2003 seeking direction for issuance of select list as well as appointment letters in respect to selection/appointment of respondents 5 and 6. According to the petitioner, no select list was published or appointment letter made known. He preferred another writ petition being SWP No. 507/2003 seeking direction for issuance of select list as well as appointment letters in respect to selection/appointment of respondents 5 and 6. This court passed order dated 27.3.2003 disposing of writ petition on the assurance of counsel for the University that the petitioner will be issued copies of appointment orders, in case the petitioner will approach. It is on the basis of aforesaid order, the petitioner was issued copies of appointment orders of respondents 5 and 6. These orders are placed on record as Annexure-H to the writ petition. Both respondents 5 and 6 were appointed vide appointment order dated 8.3.2003. In the meanwhile, SWP No. 2893/2002 filed by the petitioner, came to be disposed of vide Judgment dated 28.4.2003 whereby petitioner was allowed to challenge appointment of private respondents and seek appropriate relief. Through the medium of this petition, petitioner is seeking quashment of appointment orders dated 8.3.2003 whereby respondents 5 and 6 were appointed and is also seeking writ of mandamus for direction to appoint the petitioner against the post of Deputy Registrar which was lying vacant at the time of filing of writ petition. Main ground of challenge for seeking relief as projected in the writ petition, is that, petitioner is M.Sc Ist Class with M.Phil and Ph.D with ten years experience whereas respondents 5 and 6 are only M.A. and MBA respectively with about five years experience each. Petitioner claims that he has better merit and qualification than selectees and his performance in the interview is also better than the private respondents. University filed its disclaimer to the petition and resisted the challenge to the selection of respondents 5 and 6 primarily on the ground that private respondents were possessed of the requisite qualification and experience as prescribed in the advertisement notice and recruitment rules as also that their selection is made by an expert selection committee comprising of members of repute and varied experience both administrative and educational. In respect to the claim of the petitioner, it is stated that petitioner is not possessed of requisite five years experience of Assistant Registrar or equivalent post. The experience claimed by the petitioner, is in a private concern, which is not equivalent to the experience required for the post. In respect to the claim of the petitioner, it is stated that petitioner is not possessed of requisite five years experience of Assistant Registrar or equivalent post. The experience claimed by the petitioner, is in a private concern, which is not equivalent to the experience required for the post. He has also no comparable experience in research establishment or other institutions of higher education. It is further averred in the reply that notwithstanding ineligibility of the petitioner, he was interviewed pursuant to the direction of the court and has not been found fit by the selection committee. It is further stated that the selection committee on consideration of inter se merit of the candidates, who appeared for interview, found respondents 5 and 6 better than all the candidates and accordingly selected /recommended for appointment. The selection committee did not find any other candidate suitable for the third post. Hence, no recommendation was made for appointment against third vacancy of Deputy Registrar. From the advertisement notice, it is evident that experience required for the post, should be as Lecturer in a College/University with experience in Educational Administration or comparable experience in research establishment or other institutions of higher education or Administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or of equivalent post. The petitioner placed on record experience certificate from M/s Uptron India Limited, a private company. This experience apparently does not satisfy the requirement of the advertisement notice. Without commenting on this aspect, suffice it to say that petitioner has been duly considered by the selection committee constituted for the purpose. The committee found respondents 5 and 6 more suitable than the petitioner. As a matter of fact, except private respondents, no other candidate has been found suitable for the post in question. Therefore, not only the private respondents were selected, one post still remains unfilled due to non availability of suitable candidate. It is settled proposition of law tha the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review in respect to selection, cannot sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the selection body. The High Court can only examine the manner of exercise of the power and procedure adopted for the selection. It is settled proposition of law tha the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review in respect to selection, cannot sit as a court of appeal over the decision of the selection body. The High Court can only examine the manner of exercise of the power and procedure adopted for the selection. Regarding inter se merit of the candidates, it is within the exclusive domain of the selection body and High Court in exercise of its power, cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the selection body. It is equally settled that possession of higher qualification, does not speak of better quality of the person. It is not the qualification which alone is the decisive factor for making selection but a host of other considerations like experience in the field, aptitude and performance in the interview are other relevant factors that are examined by the expert selection body. Petitioner has not challenged the mode and manner of selection or the competence of authority and expertise of the members of the selection committee. The only ground of seeking relief, is that the petitioner has better qualification. It is not for this court to reassess the merit nor this court has any expertise to evaluate the merit of the candidates. As mentioned above, power of judicial review in such matters is limited. The claim of the petitioner that one vacancy of Deputy Registrar is lying vacant and therefore, he should be appointed against it, also cannot be accepted for the reasons that even selectee has not right to seek appointment, if the employer does not want to fill up the vacancy. In the present case, the petitioner is not even a selectee. Otherwise also, there may be other candidates having secured better position in the selection than the petitioner. As per the opinion of the selection body no other candidate was found suitable including the petitioner, hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on this count also. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.