ORDER 1. The petitioner in these special leave petitions claimed that he was entitled to be considered for filling up of two vacancies arising in the Indian Administrative Service in respect of non-civil service officers. Since two vacancies were available, in keeping with the ratio of the names of candidates to be nominated for the said two posts, ten names were required to be nominated by the State Government for such selection. At the relevant point of time, since there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner, his name was not included within the list of ten candidates. 2. The petitioner thereupon moved Writ Petition No. 33375 of 2009 before the High Court and obtained an interim order whereby the State authorities were directed to include the petitioner's name in the list of nominated candidates. As it appears from the facts as disclosed, the name of the petitioner was included at Serial No. 11 of the said list. Since the interim order had been complied with and the name of the petitioner was included in the list of nominated candidates, the writ petition was subsequently closed at the instance of the petitioner on 3-6-2010. Thereafter, having regard to the selection process, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which disposed of the matter on the ground that the petitioner had already obtained his relief by virtue of the interim order. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15897 of 2010 before the Kerala High Court against the said order of the Tribunal. . 3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Review Petition No. 569 of 2010 for review of the order by which the writ petition had been disposed of. The same being allowed, Writ Petition No. 33375 of 2009 was revived but again dismissed on 12-7-2010, on the ground that the petitioner's remedy lay before the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1221 of 2010 before the Kerala High Court which was dismissed on 16-7-2010. The pending WP No. 15897 of 2010 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that in view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the jurisdiction to consider ,such matters was with the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is against the said order that the present special leave petition has been filed. 4. It is against the said order that the present special leave petition has been filed. 4. Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petition, urged that since the petitioner had been found by the Tribunal to have topped the list of candidates, his name ought to have been at Serial No. 1 of the select list which was ultimately prepared, but instead he was placed at Serial No.4. One of the main grievances advanced by him was that the persons who were ultimately placed at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 and were selected for appointment to the two vacancies, had been awarded 5 marks each under Regulation 5(ii) which ought not to have been awarded to them. It was his case that had the marks not been awarded, the petitioner would have been on top of the list. It was also urged that right at the initial stage, when the petitioner's marks were computed on the basis of the guidelines, he had been denied a certain number of marks which could ultimately have a bearing in the selection process. As far as the finding of the High Court regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition is concerned, Mr Giri urged that the relief prayed for by the petitioner before the High Court was such that could have been given both under Article 226 of the Constitution and by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. The learned Solicitor General, however, countered the submissions made by Mr Giri by indicating that as far as the petitioner's non-selection in the list of ten candidates to be forwarded to the Central Government, is concerned, such a point was no longer available since the petitioner had been considered and the petitioner's name had been forwarded and he was also considered along with other candidates by the Selection Committee for the purpose of filling up one of the two vacant posts. The learned Solicitor General also submitted that after the name of the petitioner had been nominated, his case had been considered and it is on an appraisal of the respective merits of the candidates that he had been placed at Serial No.4 in the final list. 6. The learned Solicitor General also submitted that after the name of the petitioner had been nominated, his case had been considered and it is on an appraisal of the respective merits of the candidates that he had been placed at Serial No.4 in the final list. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not think that this is a case which calls for our interference, since the main grievance of the petitioner was that he had not been included in the list for being considered for selection and the selection process ultimately has not been questioned, except for the fact that it has been submitted that the first two candidates had been wrongly awarded the marks. in terms of Regulation 5(ii). This is an area which we are not willing to embark upon, having regard to the fact that such selection was done by a Selection Committee appointed for the purpose and there is no allegation of any mala fide intention on their part in having awarded the said marks which they were entitled to award in terms of the Regulations. 7. We, accordingly, find no reason to interfere with the orders of the High Court and the special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.