JUDGMENT : S.L. JAIN, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13-3-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2175/2001 the appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. A brief resume of the facts required to be stated for disposal of the petition is as follows: The State Government had sanctioned some posts to be filled under the M.P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Bharti Tatha Seva Ki Shartein) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1997 Rules’). The respondent No. 2 published an advertisement for one post each of English and Political Science Shiksha Karmi Grade I. Appellant and two others namely Indra Bhan Kuchwaha and Vijay Tamrakar (respondent No. 4) applied for the posts. These three candidates were called for personal interview. The interview was conducted by a committee of seven members. The criteria for the selection was 60% marks on the basis of educational qualification, 25% marks on the basis of teaching experience and 15% marks for oral test. The committee awarded the following marks to each of the candidates. Thus respondent No. 6 Vijay Tamrakar got 46 marks while appellant Jai Kumar got 45 marks and respondent No. 6 Vijay Tamrakar was selected. In the interview marks were awarded by each member of the committee as follows. 3. Being aggrieved by the selection of respondent No. 6, appellant had preferred an appeal before the Collector, Shahdol who decided the same on 20-4-1999 holding that there was some manipulation in the selection. Accordingly, he cancelled the proposal of Nagar Panchayat, Khand dated 9-9-1998 whereby Vijay Tamrakar was selected for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade I and also cancelled the appointment of Vijay Tamrakar and directed that appellant Jai Kumar Awadhiya be appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade I, Political Science. 4. This order of Collector was challenged by the respondent No. 6 before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, who allowed the revision setting aside the order of the Collector dated 20-4-1999 and remanded the case with a direction that respondent No. 6 Vijay Kumar Tamrakar be given an opportunity of hearing and the appeal may be decided afresh. 5. Learned Collector decided the appeal vide order dated 28-7-2002 and directed the Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Khand to constitute a fresh selection committee excluding Sunderlal Charamkar. 5. Learned Collector decided the appeal vide order dated 28-7-2002 and directed the Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Khand to constitute a fresh selection committee excluding Sunderlal Charamkar. As per these directions the committee was required to interview the three aforesaid candidates including the appellant and the candidate securing highest marks was to be appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade I, Political Science. This order of Collector, Shahdol was challenged in revision before the Commissioner, Rewa Division who allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Collector and maintained the decision of the Selection Committee. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 2175/03 before this Court with a prayer to quash the same. 6. The learned single Judge held that selection committee assessed all the candidates on the three criteria envisaged by Rule 5(9) and on the basis of the total marks obtained respondent No. 6 was selected. The selection cannot be held to be bad because all the members of the committee gave highest marks to respondent No. 6. The learned Judge did not find fault in the selection process and consequently dismissed the writ petition. It is against this order, appellant has filed this appeal. 7. We have heard Shri P. R. Bhave learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. 8. It is contended by Mr. Bhave, that all the members gave full marks to the respondent No. 6 just to ensure his selection, though he was not an eligible candidate. He got only 31 marks in the educational qualification and no marks in the teaching experience, still in the interview he was awarded 15 marks. A person having better educational qualification and teaching experience is expected to fare better in the interview. However, we decline to agree with it. There is no universal rule that a person getting more marks in the University should get proportionately same marks in the interview. As per rule 5(9) oral test included the test for communication skill in local dialect, knowledge of local environment, general knowledge, and training and teaching aptitude. When the committee found better communication skill in local dialect, better knowledge of environment and better general knowledge and better training and teaching aptitude in the candidate, and gave highest marks to him, the same cannot be doubted. 9. When the committee found better communication skill in local dialect, better knowledge of environment and better general knowledge and better training and teaching aptitude in the candidate, and gave highest marks to him, the same cannot be doubted. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one of the members of the committee namely, Sunderlal Charmakar gave an affidavit before the Collector, that there was manipulation in the interview and the marks awarded by him to the respondent No. 6 were under the influence of Chief Municipal Officer. Subsequently Sunderlal himself stated that the marks were awarded by him without any influence. Simply because Sunderlal has given an affidavit stating that he awarded marks under the influence of Chief Municipal Officer, it cannot be inferred conclusively that there was any manipulation. Sunderlal did not make any complaint anywhere, therefore, the version given by him in his affidavit certainly is an after-thought. More over there were other six members in the committee. All the members uniformly gave highest marks to the respondent No. 6. All official acts are deemed to be performed regularly. In the absence of some trustworthy material regarding alleged manipulation it cannot be inferred that the respondent No. 6 was awarded highest marks in the interview in an unfair manner. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that since the interview leaves the scope for partiality, therefore, allotting 15 marks for interview was unfair. There can be no doubt that viva voce is very useful in assessing the personal characteristics and traits of a candidate, therefore, it is regarded as an important tool along with other tests. The selection was not on the basis of viva-voce alone. 60% marks were allotted for the qualification, 25% marks were allotted for teaching experience and 15 marks were allotted for oral test. Looking to this, the selection cannot be said to be unfair. 11. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No. 6 was facing prosecution for offence under sections 147, 307/149 and 324, Indian Penal Code. His past record of criminal background should not be ignored, therefore, he was not a suitable candidate for being appointed. Looking to this, the selection cannot be said to be unfair. 11. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No. 6 was facing prosecution for offence under sections 147, 307/149 and 324, Indian Penal Code. His past record of criminal background should not be ignored, therefore, he was not a suitable candidate for being appointed. Here it is worth mentioning that in the order of the Collector, it has been specifically mentioned that respondent No. 6 was acquitted of the charge, therefore, his prosecution for the aforesaid offence cannot be said to be a ground for not appointing him on the post for which he was selected by the committee. It is not the case of appellant that respondent No. 6 concealed any fact regarding his past background. 12. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that some of the members of the committee were illiterate. This contention also cannot be accepted. There is no material available in support of the contention that some of the members were illiterate. It cannot be said that an illiterate person having practical wisdom cannot judge the knowledge in respect of local environment, communication skills in local dialect and training and teaching aptitude. In a democratic State where every citizen is having equal status, no discrimination can be made on the ground of illiteracy. A person having less academic qualification can prove himself to be a successful leader, therefore, this argument also is bereft of substance. 13. Learned senior counsel lastly submitted that in the qualifying examination and teaching experience total marks of the appellant were 43 whereas respondent No. 6 was having 31 marks and in order of fill up this difference of 12 marks, in the interview only two marks were given to the appellant and 15 marks were given to respondent No. 6, so that he may come above the appellant. Marks obtained in the qualifying examination cannot be said to be the sole criteria for selection. One may get more marks in the university examination for more than one reason and securing higher marks in the qualifying examination alone is no guarantee of better aptitude over the candidate getting less marks in the interview. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. A person showing outstanding performance in communication skill in local dialect, knowledge of local environment, general knowledge and training and teaching aptitude may get the maximum marks. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. A person showing outstanding performance in communication skill in local dialect, knowledge of local environment, general knowledge and training and teaching aptitude may get the maximum marks. Thus, the genuineness of the selection cannot be doubted only on the ground that one of the candidates got maximum marks prescribed for interview. 14. No other point was raised before us by the appellant. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed in limine.