ORDER Ms. Justice Bakhshish Kaur, Chairman: The process/procedure undertaken/adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for making selection to the post of lecturer in English (School Cadre) is under challenge in this OA. The applicant who was one of the candidates interviewed by the [Commission has, therefore, sought following reliefs: "(i). That the process/procedure undertaken and adopted by the Commission for making selections to the post of Lecturer in English (School cadre) may be held illegal, invalid and of no legal consequence. The Commission may be further directed to conduct interviews by adopting a procedure in accordance with the settled law and give due weightage to higher/additional educational qualifications and restrict the percentage of marks for interview to 12.2% of the total marks. They may also be directed to give total marks. They may be directed to give weightage to the marks obtained by the applicant and other candidates in the written/screening test conducted by the commission on 14.3.98. (ii) That in case marks for oral interview have been kept more than 12.2% then the respondent Commission may be directed to proportionately reduce the awarded marks to the level of 12.2% and percentage of marks.thus rendered surplus may be suitably added to other components of selection process so that newly assigned proportions come to the equation of 100% of the total selection marks. (iii) Respondents may be directed to produce entire record pertaining to the case including. (a) The apportionment of marks under various Heads given by the Selection Committee. (b) The recommendations made by each Member of the Selection Committee and the recommendations ultimately made by the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the Public Service Commission." 2. The consistent stand taken by the respondents is that OA is not maintainable as the selected candidates have not been impleaded as party. The candidates who has already taken a chance in the interview and not selected cannot challenge the process of selection as no one can be allowed to approbate and reprobate. On merits it is averred that the selections were made on the basis of an overall assessment of the merit of the candidates based on their academic achievements, personality, general awareness, conceptual approach, professional knowledge etc., therefore OA, is liable to the dismissed. 3. We have heard Sh. DP. Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sh-D.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. 3. We have heard Sh. DP. Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sh-D.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. Abhilasha Kumari, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.2. 4. The applicant passed matriculation examination securing 811/950 marks 85.5%. She obtained Bachelors degree from H.P. University and also qualified in MA English from the said University. The applicant was, therefore, eligible for appointment as lecturer. She fairly did well in interview and was hopeful of her selection. She had also qualified the written test and was directed to appear in interview scheduled on 19.8.1998. But after interview she was not recommended for appointment. She also qualified screening test four times held in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1998. At the same time Commission declined to show details of the marks obtained by her in the written examination or in the oral interview. She has right to Know about her performance. It appeared that she believed that she was not given marks for educational qualifications. In this way entire procedure was based on oral interview which is not permissible in law and is totally eye wash. 5. We have perused the record relating to the successful candidates, maintained by the Commission. It is apparent that no written test was held. The Commission has notified the vacancies i.e. 28 posts of Lecturer School Cadre (English i.e. General-12 Gen, IRDP=3, SC=5 SC-IRDP=1, SC=WFF=1, ST=2, OBC=4. Class III in the pay scale of Rs. 18000=32000 (pre-revised), through direct recruitment. In response to the notification, 823 candidates applied for the above posts. They were provisionally admitted. Since the number of candidates was large vis-a-vis number of vacancies to be filled in, they were, in the first instance put to a screening test which was held on 14.2.1998. Only 661 candidates appeared in the said test. Based on the merit of the said screening test, 111 candidates (General=45, Gen-IRDP=12, SC=26, SC-IRDP=5, ST=8, OBC=15) were called for the interviews held in the office of the Commission w.e.f. 17.8.1998 to 31.8.1998. On the basis of their performance in the interview the Commission has recommended the candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of lecturer. Their educational qualification and experience etc, was kept in view at the time of interview and they were awarded marks under column of general grading. On the basis of their performance in the interview the Commission has recommended the candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of lecturer. Their educational qualification and experience etc, was kept in view at the time of interview and they were awarded marks under column of general grading. In this way of selection was made on over all merit of the candidates based on the academic qualification, personality, generality awareness and professional knowledge etc. To short list the number of candidate the screening test was conducted and obviously no marks are given for screening test as is being claimed by the applicant. It is well settled that Court cannot interfere with the policy decision of the government for recruitment, unless it is arbitrary as held in "State of Orissa and others vs. Bhikari Charan Khuntia and others, 2004 SCC (L&S) 188." 6. In Dr. Parijat De Vs. Dr. Amarendra Kumar Samaddar Chowdhury and Ore, (Calcutta High Court) 2004(3) SLR 211 "it has been observed that where there is a recommendation of an expert body, such recommendation should not be interfered with by the court, unless a very strong case has been made out of unfairness and partisanship. In the case in hand no such case is made out. The Court/Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate court and quash the selection by itself scrutinising the comparative merits of the candidates. 7 Apart from the aforesaid discussion the applicant is not maintainable as the applicant has not impleaded the selected/appointed persons. Their selection/appointment cannot be challenged or quashed at their back. In our opinion no directions can be issued to the respondents to hold fresh interview after declaring the selection of lecturers (English being in valid as prayed by the applicant. On some what similar grounds OA2169/93 Lekh Raj vs. State of HP. and others was decided by this Tribunal on August 6, 2004. There also the applicant had not impleaded the persons selected by the selection committee. In "Ishwar Singh and others vs. Kuldeep Singh and others, 1995 Suppl, (1), SCC 179", it has been observed as under: "It has not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that except lshwar Singh, no other selected candidate was impleaded before the high Court. The selection and the appointments have been quashed entirely at their back. In "Ishwar Singh and others vs. Kuldeep Singh and others, 1995 Suppl, (1), SCC 179", it has been observed as under: "It has not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that except lshwar Singh, no other selected candidate was impleaded before the high Court. The selection and the appointments have been quashed entirely at their back. It is further stated that even Ishwar Singh, one of the selected candidates, who was a party, had not been served and as such was not heard by the High Court. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in hearing the writ petition the absence of the selected candidates especially when they had already been appointed. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated December 8, 1972 and bend the case back for fresh decision after notice to the parties. The appeals are allowed ion the above term. No costs." 8. In "Arun Tiwari & Others vs. Zlla Mansan Siksha Sangh & others, AIR 1998 SC 331, wherein it was held this application without (sic-impleading) them (sic-as) parties and without issuing them notices is illegal. It was also a case where the applicant had challenged the recruitment process and the selection of selected candidates, without impleading them as party to the proceedings. 9. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration we are of the considered view that the OA is not only devoid of merit but it also suffers from legal requirement of non-joinder ofnecessary parties i.e. the candidates selected/appointed in preference to the applicant. Finding no merit in the OA the same is hereby dismissed. -