JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge 1. Petitioner as well as respondent No.6 have competed for being engaged as Anganwari Worker in Angawadi Centre, Harkar Mohalla Tral. The selection process culminated in selection and engagement of respondent No.6. Aggrieved thereof, instant petition has been filed. 2. According to learned counsel petitioner has secured 321 marks out of 500 whereas respondent No.6 has secured 255 marks in matriculation examined. In the selection process out of 100 marks 75% marks were earmarked for matriculation and 25% marks for interview. Petitioner on the basis of percentage in matriculation examination is shown to have secured 48.15% marks whereas respondent No.6 is shown to have secured 38.25% marks. In viva voce out of 25, petitioner has been awarded 14 marks whereas respondent No.6 has been awarded 24 marks. In total petitioner is shown to have secured 62.15% marks whereas respondent No.6 is shown to have secured 62.25% marks. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that award of 24 marks in favour of respondent No.6 is sheer favour and is outcome of unfair and mala fide approach. Same has been done only with the object of showing favour because father of the respondent No.6 is the employee in the said department. It is also contended that the interview process was simply an eye wash. No questions were put and in an arbitrary manner marks have been allotted. 4. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents have pleaded that the Committee comprising of District Social Welfare Officer, Block Development Officer, Block Medical Officer and Child Development Project Officer conducted interview and all the four officers respectively have awarded marks to the candidates based on their performance. The weak performance of the petitioner earned her only 14 marks whereas the selected candidate i.e. respondent No.6 performed to the satisfaction of the Selection Committee so was awarded 24 marks. 5. The record as produced also is clear to the effect that the Committee has awarded the marks in accordance with the performance. It is also controverted that the respondent No.6 has answered each and every question as was put to her by the Selection Committee whereas the petitioner did not answer correctly all the questions put to her. 6. 5. The record as produced also is clear to the effect that the Committee has awarded the marks in accordance with the performance. It is also controverted that the respondent No.6 has answered each and every question as was put to her by the Selection Committee whereas the petitioner did not answer correctly all the questions put to her. 6. The Selection Committee has formed the opinion for award of marks, same cannot be substituted unless something extraneous or mala fide is discernible from the records or is otherwise established. 7. In the petition petitioner has not leveled any charge against the members of Selection Committee, instead has simply stated that the father of respondent No.6 is working in the department. It is to be made clear that the members of the Committee belong to three departments, in which department father of the petitioner is working is not made clear and it is not also made clear as to whether any of the members was approached or any of the member has shown any favour. Instead from the records it is discernible that BDO has awarded 05, BMO 06 marks, CDPO 06 marks and DSWO has awarded 07 marks, in total 24 marks have been awarded in favour of respondent No.6 whereas in favour of petitioner these four members respectively have awarded 04 marks, 04 marks, 03 marks and 03 marks, in total 14 marks, so overall she has secured 62.15% marks, therefore, has failed to make the grade. 8. Initially the argument appeared to be attractive but on scrutiny of the records,nothing substantial is forthcoming so as to show that the Selection Committee membershad any particular interest in respondent No.6 or in any manner were biased against thepetitioner. In absence of any solid base for holding mala fides in selection, the Courtcannot substitute its opinion to the opinion as framed by the expert committee. 9. It is also clear that the petitioner has participated in the process of selectionknowing fully well the criteria so adopted for selection, now she cannot turn around tosay that marks allocated for viva voce were on higher side. It is only after she has failedto make the grade she has turned around to claim that the marks awarded for vivavoce are on higher side. 10. For the afore-stated reasons, petition having no merit warrants dismissal,dismissed accordingly. 11. It is only after she has failedto make the grade she has turned around to claim that the marks awarded for vivavoce are on higher side. 10. For the afore-stated reasons, petition having no merit warrants dismissal,dismissed accordingly. 11. Record as produced by the learned counsel for the respondents be returned toher.