JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral)-Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 6 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher. The interview for the post in question was held on 11.09.2007. Petitioner and respondent No. 6 appeared before the Selection Committee. Petitioner was awarded 50.3 marks and respondent No. 6 was allocated 51.3 marks. 2. Mr. Narinder Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that his client has not been awarded five marks for diploma in Physical Education Course. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 have strenuously argued that as per Annexure A-6, dated 10th October, 2007, petitioner could only be granted marks for possessing BPE qualification and he could not be separately awarded five marks for diploma in Physical Education Course. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Initially, the petitioner was awarded five marks for possessing Physical Education Course. However, when it came to the notice of the selection committee that petitioner is possessing BPE qualification, the selection committee amended the marks by allocating 10 marks to him for BPE course. However, he was not held entitled for five marks for diploma in Physical Education Course. A bare perusal of Annexure A-6 reveals that it is only when a candidate possesses one year B.P.Ed. course after BPE or after graduation, he is entitled to marks for Physical Education Course. Petitioner has done BPE Course. He was to be allocated marks for BPE Course alone. He could not be awarded any marks for diploma in Physical Education Course. Petitioner has secured 50.3 marks after allocating 10 marks for graduation and respondent No. 6 has secured 51.3 marks. Respondent No. 6 is a post graduate. He has not been awarded any marks for this post graduation qualification. The selection committee has adopted the correct procedure and its decision cannot be faulted with. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent No. 6 is more meritorious than the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.