JUDGMENT 1. - This case has come up upon application filed under Article 226 (3), Constitution of India. However, with the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer : "A} By an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction the selection process initiated by respondent No. 3 in pursuance of advertisement No. 1/2010 so far as it relates to selecting/shortlisting the candidates for interviews including himself for the post of Controller of Examinations may kindly be quashed and set aside and accordingly the respondents may kindly be directed to fill up the aforesaid post after initiating fresh selection process in accordance with law, after considering candidature of petitioner. B} Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners." 3. According to facts of the case, the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Controller of Examination in pursuance of advertisement Annex.-2 issued by the respondent University but the respondents did not consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Controller of Examination and did not call the petitioner for interview despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the post in question and many other candidates who do not fulfill the eligibility criteria have been called for interview. In the writ petition, it is also mentioned that respondents are going to make selection in illegal manner as the person responsible for scrutiny of applications and determining eligibility of candidates for calling for interview is himself one of the candidates for the post of Controller of Examination, therefore, the whole selection process may be quashed and it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to conduct fresh selection in accordance with law. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the entire pleadings of the writ petition. 5. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the entire pleadings of the writ petition. 5. Admittedly, following qualification has been prescribed for recruitment on the post of Controller of Examination by the respondent University : "CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION Essential Qualification : a. Atleast a Second Class Post Graduate Degree and b. Atleast 10 years experience of conduction of University Examination and other allied work at the execuitive level and having record justifying entrusting of confidential work OR At least 8 years of administrative experience in a position involving supervision, control and (sic) Graduate teaching experience. Desirable Qualification : Experience of University Administration and Familiarity with the working of University Bodies and Institutions. Note : (1) Persons already working in the University and who do not possess post graduate degree but are graduate may be considered for the post provided that such person (sic). The eligibility condition may be relaxed or modified at the discretion of Vice-Chancellor." The candidates are required to possess the above qualification for the purpose of selection on the post of Controller of Examination. Upon scanning the qualification of the petitioner, it is revealed that the petitioner was initially appointed as Book Lifter in the year 1973. Thereafter, he was promoted the post of L.D.C. in 1980 and further promoted to the post of U.D.C. In the year 1995, on the post of Office Assistant in 2000. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent in the year 2004 and got posted at Doongar College, Bikaner with effect from 13-5-2005. Thereafter the petitioner was selected for the post of Section Officer on 13-7-2005 and he is working as Section Officer in the University, therefore, the petitioner is claiming that he is eligible and possessing experience as required for the post of Controller of Examination. 6. After perusing the qualification and experience possessed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that neither the petitioner is possessing 10 years experience of conducting University Examination and other allied work at executive level, so also, the petitioner is not possessing 8 years' experience in supervision, control and planning nor 8 years teaching experience. The petitioner has placed on record certificates Annex.-1 showing that the petitioner worked as part-time Lecturer without any remuneration. The petitioner has placed on record certificates Annex.-1 showing that the petitioner worked as part-time Lecturer without any remuneration. In my opinion, when the petitioner himself is not possessing eligibility of experience, then, he has no right to challenge the selection process and further there is no specific documentary evidence on record to show that any other ineligible candidate has been called for interview by the respondents. Therefore, the person who himself is not eligible and possessing required qualification for recruitment on the post of Controller of Examination cannot be permitted to challenge the process of selection upon, bald allegations. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in this writ petition. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******