Per K. S. Radhakrishnan. CJ: 1. Writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking writ of certiorari to quash the selection process initiated by the official respondents for filling up the posts of Principals along with the recommendations made by respondents 2 and 3 and also Government Order dated August 22, 2000; and also for writ of mandamus directing official respondents to initiate fresh process of selection for filling up the posts of Principals, and till that time a direction was sought not to allow respondents 4 to 42 to function as Principals or draw salary of the post in any manner; and also for consequential reliefs. Learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the process of selection initiated by the official respondents or defect in the constitution of the Committee, or in the selection of respondents 4 to 42, and dismissed the writ petition by order dated February 2, 2006 against which this appeal has been preferred. 2. Before us various contentions were raised by learned counsel on either side about the manner in which selection was made, the criteria followed in the selection of Principals etc. Most of the contentions raised before us do not have any factual foundation in the writ petition. We are, therefore, disposing of this appeal strictly on the basis of the pleadings raised in the writ petition by the parties. It is made clear at the outset that the selection and the appointments were made in the year 2000 and at this stage, after eight years, whether this Court is justified in upsetting the same on the basis of the pleadings raised in the appeal memorandum, is a relevant question. 3. We are in this case concerned with promotions to the posts of Principal in Higher Education Department. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department had discussions with the Public Service Commission and expressed the need for holding Departmental Promotion Committee for appointment to the posts of College Principals in the Higher Education Department on March 9, 2000. It was agreed that the Administrative Department would address all eligible candidates to furnish their bio-data on the format to be devised by the department. Candidates who were working as Selection Grade Lecturers in various Colleges were called upon to furnish the bio-data. 4. It was agreed that the Administrative Department would address all eligible candidates to furnish their bio-data on the format to be devised by the department. Candidates who were working as Selection Grade Lecturers in various Colleges were called upon to furnish the bio-data. 4. The minimum eligibility criterion for direct recruitment / promotion was laid down in the Jammu and Kashmir Education (Gazetted) Colleges Service Recruitment Rules, 1995. Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules says that no person shall be eligible for appointment or promotion to any post in any class, category or grade in the service unless he possesses the qualifications as laid down in the Schedule II and fulfils other requirements of recruitment as approved in the rules and orders for the time being in force. The Rule also stipulates that appointment to the posts shall be made on the recommendations of the Commission; (a) by direct recruitment; (b) by selection; and (c) partly by direct recruitment and partly by selection in the ratio and in the manner mentioned against each post in the Schedule. Schedule 11 of the 1995 Rules stipulates the minimum qualification for recruitment / promotion. The minimum qualification prescribed is Masters Degree in any subject, and for the post of Principal College of Education, the minimum qualification is M. Ed. or equivalent and the post has to be filled in by selection from amongst persons in Class II Category A and B with at least five years experience in that Class. Petitioner and contesting respondents had the requisite qualification for consideration to the post of Principal by way of promotion. 5. Though petitioner was not initially called for interview but, later, his request was acceded to and he was also asked to appear before the Departmental Promotion Committee on July 14, 2000 at 10 a.m. Petitioner, accordingly, appeared before the DPC. According to petitioner, he faired well in the interview and replied all questions put to him by the Selection Committee. However, he was not selected. Contesting respondents 4 to 42 were selected by the DPC and appointment orders were issued to them. According to petitioner, he faired well in the interview and replied all questions put to him by the Selection Committee. However, he was not selected. Contesting respondents 4 to 42 were selected by the DPC and appointment orders were issued to them. Petitioner challenged promotion of respondents 4 to 42 essentially on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has stated that he is aggrieved of the process of selection initiated and completed by the PSC/DPC for filling up the posts of Principal and of placement of respondents 4 to 42 as Principals in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400 - 22,400. Petitioner has stated that Selection Committee was not properly constituted in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980. Consequently, not only the recommendations, but also the order dated August 8, 2000 was liable to be set aside. Further, in paragraph 17(b), petitioner has stated that two external Experts associated with the selections were not experts in the subject of Economics. Petitioner has also stated that they kept mum at the time of interview. In such circumstances, the selection process initiated and completed by the official respondents for selection of candidates for appointment as Principals was not just and fair because the Experts associated in the selection process for evaluating and assessing merit of petitioner have not discharged their duty in accordance with law. In paragraph 17(c), the petitioner has stated that interviews were conducted by the DPC from June 19, 2000 to July 17, 2000 and every week the Experts were changed. The petitioner has submitted that it is not, therefore, a case where only one selection committee interviewed all the candidates but different selection committees had interviewed different candidates for filling up the posts of Principal and, therefore, the procedure adopted for making the selection was not in accordance with law. In paragraph 17(d), the petitioner has raised various allegations against one M. A. Charoo, one of the members of the Selection Committee. It is stated that he was instrumental in prevailing upon other members of the Selection Committee to drop the petitioner from the panel of selected candidates and he was biased towards the petitioner and has shown favour to selected candidates, Petitioner has stated that the entire process of selection was initiated with favourtism and also was actuated by mala fide. It is stated that he was instrumental in prevailing upon other members of the Selection Committee to drop the petitioner from the panel of selected candidates and he was biased towards the petitioner and has shown favour to selected candidates, Petitioner has stated that the entire process of selection was initiated with favourtism and also was actuated by mala fide. Petitioner has also stated that the requirements made by the University Grants Commission were also not followed by the Selection Committee. 6. Above are the main contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. The petition was countered by the State Government, respondent no.1, as well as by the Public Service Commission, i. e., respondents 2 and 4 as also by Mr. M. A. Charoo, respondent no.2-A. Respondents 2 and 4 in their counter affidavit have specifically stated that the selection was made by them in accordance with the recruitment rules sanctioned vide SRO 77 dated April 3, 1995. It was stated that bio-data of all eligible Senior Grade Lecturers was furnished by the department and the DPC was convened as per Rule 60 read with Rule 63(c) and 64 of the J&K PSC Business and Procedure Rules for preparing the select list. The parameters for assessment of the candidates adopted were as follows: i) Seniority: 20 marks ii) Bio-data valuation : 25 marks iii) Interview : 55 marks. 7. Further, they have stated in detail the weightage given to seniority of candidates. Candidates appointed as Selection Grade Lecturers on January 1, 1986 were given full award of 20 marks; candidates appointed after January 1, 1986 upto December 31, 1986 were given 18 marks; candidates appointed during the year 1987 were given 16 marks and so on, in a manner that 2 marks were decreased for every succeeding year. Candidates who were appointed as Selection Grade Lecturers in 1995, thus, got no marks for seniority. Further, the respondents have detailed out the method in which marks were allocated for bio-data evaluation. It is also stated that the selection was made by the Interview Board after conducting interviews from June 19, 2000 to July 15, 2000 and it was assisted by Experts from outside State. Further, the respondents have detailed out the method in which marks were allocated for bio-data evaluation. It is also stated that the selection was made by the Interview Board after conducting interviews from June 19, 2000 to July 15, 2000 and it was assisted by Experts from outside State. It was also stated that the Experts were not required to judge only the academic excellence of the candidates but their academic perspective, administrative acumen and other related factors relevant to the running of prestigious educational institutions. 8. We find that the above mentioned criteria was uniformly applied to all the candidates, including the petitioner and the petitioner had participated in the entire selection process along with the contesting respondents. Having failed to make the grade, petitioner cannot challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee. It is not open to him now to challenge the appointment of Experts as well as the manner in which they conducted themselves at the time of the interview. Allegations of mala fides have also been raised against one of the members of the Selection Committee, Mr. M. A. Charoo saying that he was ill-disposed towards the petitioner. Mr. Charoo has categorically denied the allegations leveled /against him by filing a counter affidavit. Allegations remained mere allegations and are not substantiated by materials or data. 9. We find that the learned Single Judge has considered all the grounds taken by the petitioner and found no illegality in the process of selection or the manner in which the interviews were conducted, or in the constitution or composition of the Committee. We have already indicated that petitioner has now, at the appellate stage, tried to raise various other grounds which were not urged in the writ petition. 10. We are also informed that subsequent to the impugned selection, there were two other similar selections conducted by the DPC and petitioner also participated in both the selection processes, but he failed to make the grade in both the selections. Such being the factual situation, in the year 2008 this Court is not justified in examining the various issues raised for the first time in the appeal relating to the selections made in 2000 and then grant the relief prayed for. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the only mode which was prescribed for selection was by way of interview. He referred to Government Order no. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the only mode which was prescribed for selection was by way of interview. He referred to Government Order no. 109-HE of 2000 dated March 30, 2000 to establish his contention. In fact that Government order was not produced by the petitioner before the Writ Court, it was produced by the respondents in appeal. Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a contention now in appeal on the basis of the Government Order, saying that interview can only be the sole criteria for promotion. In the matter of promotions, in our view, seniority is a relevant criteria and the Selection Committee rightly gave weightage to seniority, qualification, experience etc. of the candidates while conducting the interview. Those factors are also relevant. However, we need not examine these aspects in this appeal for lack of substantial pleadings in the writ petition. In such circumstances, we find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by the Division Bench. Appeal lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed.