JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings of the third respondent in Ref.CHNLRO/RH/RGGLV-1E, dated 14.05.2013 and for consequential direction to the third respondent to implement the proceeding of the draw for selection of RGGLV, dated 26.10.2012. 2. The facts which are relevant for consideration herein are: The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste community. Pursuant to the notification issued by the third respondent on 28.12.2011, in a Tamil Daily, inviting application for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Gopalpatti / Vembarpatti, Dindigul District, the petitioner submitted his application on 27.01.2012. On 30.11.2012 the third respondent herein, by his letter in Ref:CLRO/RGGLV-2011-2012, directed the petitioner to submit the proof of ownership of land and affidavit in a prescribed format from the family unit. The petitioner also complied with the same. As per the brochure on the selection of RGGLV, the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements. After consideration of the documents submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent awarded 35 marks for educational qualification, 40 marks for amount in SBI Account, 10 marks for ability to arrange Bank loan from SBI and 10 marks for field verification, thereby totally awarded 95 marks. The petitioner obtained 2nd rank in the final list and he was also fully qualified in the draw for selection of RGGLV for Gopalpatti / Vembarpatti, Dindigul District in SC category for the plan 2011-2012. The third respondent, by his letter in Ref:CHNLRO/RH/LPG-RGGLV, directed the petitioner to appear, along with photo identity card issued by the Government Department, for the draw on 26.10.2012 in the Branch Office at Madurai. In the interview conducted by the third respondent, the petitioner was declared as selected candidate. Hence, the petitioner has been successfully elected as RGGLV for Gopalpatti / Vembarpatti, Dindigul District. Thereafter, for a long time the respondents herein kept silent and did not circulate a letter of intent to the petitioner, so as to enable him to start his work. In the interview conducted by the third respondent, the petitioner was declared as selected candidate. Hence, the petitioner has been successfully elected as RGGLV for Gopalpatti / Vembarpatti, Dindigul District. Thereafter, for a long time the respondents herein kept silent and did not circulate a letter of intent to the petitioner, so as to enable him to start his work. Hence, the petitioner on 11.03.2013 sent his representation to the respondents requesting them to expedite for issuance of letter of intent at the earliest, for which the petitioner has received the impugned notice from the third respondent, dated 14.05.2013, stating that upon scrutiny of the documents produced by the petitioner during the field verification, it was found and established that he is not qualified as per the eligible criteria for selection of RGGLV as he has secured only 56.6 marks, which is less than 60 marks required for qualifying. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was awarded 95 marks and he was also selected in the interview, with utter disregard to the above selection, the third respondent has passed the impugned letter. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 3. When the matter came up for admission, after hearing both sides, this Court on 13.06.2013 has passed the following orders; "3. It is evident from the list published by the respondents on 15.10.2012 one S.Palaniammal got 95 marks, the petitioner got 95 marks and C.Manjula got 62.6 marks. Even assuming that the petitioner got disqualified, S.Palaniammal is the candidate, who got 95 marks and C.Manjula only got 62.6 marks and that would not enable the respondents to conduct a draw and it could be conducted only when the candidates got equal marks. However, when S.Palaniammal got 95 marks and when C.Manjula got 62.6 marks, it is very curious to note that C.Manjula was awarded dealership. 4. Therefore, the respondents are injuncted from going ahead with any further action for allotment and for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV for Gopalapatti / Vembarapatti until further orders and any order to be passed in this case will affect S.Palaniammal and C.Manjula and therefore, the petitioner is directed to implead those persons as respondents." 4. 4. Therefore, the respondents are injuncted from going ahead with any further action for allotment and for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV for Gopalapatti / Vembarapatti until further orders and any order to be passed in this case will affect S.Palaniammal and C.Manjula and therefore, the petitioner is directed to implead those persons as respondents." 4. It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the third respondent, after due consideration of the documents submitted by the petitioner awarded 95 marks and declared the petitioner as selected candidate in the draw for awarding RGGLV for Gopalpatti / Vembarpatti, Dindigul District, has arbitrarily passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner is not qualified as he has secured only 56.5 marks, which is less than 60 marks required for qualifying. According to the petitioner, only in order to favour some other person, the third respondent has not issued the letter of intent to the petitioner and purposely evaded the petitioner, who was declared as selected candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that keeping the minimum amount of Rs.2 lakhs in the SB account is not mandatory for SC/ST category applicants and therefore, his rejection on the basis of the above defects is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the selection process for award of RGGLV consists of three stages i.e., L1 to L3. L1 stage is mere scrutiny of the documents. Though the petitioner was awarded 95 marks in L1 stage and declared as selected candidate in the draw conducted on 26.10.2012, the Field Verification Committee found the following major defects in the documents submitted by the petitioner; (i) As per the guidelines, the petitioner must have a Bank Balance of Rs.2 lakhs in SB account on the date of application, on the contrary, the petitioner was having only Rs.52,554/- in his SB account. (ii) As per the advertisement, the applicant should submit the income Tax returns of the last financial year i.e., 20102011, on the contrary, the petitioner submitted the Income Tax Returns of the year 2008-2009. On the basis of the field verification report, the marks obtained by the petitioner in the initial stage was revised, thereby he secured only as 56.5 marks, which is lower than the qualifying mark. On the basis of the field verification report, the marks obtained by the petitioner in the initial stage was revised, thereby he secured only as 56.5 marks, which is lower than the qualifying mark. There is absolutely no mala fide on the part of the respondents. According to the respondents, merely because the petitioner has secured 95 marks and was declared as selected candidate, in the initial stage, he cannot claim that he has to be awarded letter of intent and the respondents have every right to reject the applicant, at any stage, if they found defects, as per the guidelines. After rejection of the petitioner's application, the respondents have conducted redraw on 27.05.2013, in which one Ms.C.Manjula was declared as successful candidate. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 7. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials placed on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had secured 95 marks in L1 stage and in the draw conducted, on 26.10.2012, he was declared as selected candidate. According to the petitioner, the respondents, having declared the petitioner as selected candidate, ought to have issued letter of intent for the award of RGGLV to him and instead the respondents, in order to favour some other persons, has arbitrarily rejected the candidature of the petitioner as he has secured less than the minimum mark for SC / ST candidates. According to the respondents, the selection process consists of two stages L1 and L2, and the petitioner was awarded 95 marks only at L1 stage, after scrutiny of the documents and subsequently in the draw conducted on 26.10.2012, he was selected. The selection process would not come to an end at that stage itself. Thereafter, the Field Verification Committee inspected the spot and found that the petitioner has not submitted the Income Tax Returns for the financial year 2010-2011 and the petitioner is not having a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in his SB account on the date of verification. On the basis of the Field Verification Committee report, the marks awarded to the petitioner at L1 stage was revised, as per which, he has secured only 56.5 marks. Whereas the other candidates fulfilled all the requirements and got more marks. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 8. On the basis of the Field Verification Committee report, the marks awarded to the petitioner at L1 stage was revised, as per which, he has secured only 56.5 marks. Whereas the other candidates fulfilled all the requirements and got more marks. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in order to favour some other person, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, unless the mala fide intention is established by the petitioner with the substantial proof, this Court cannot presume that the impugned order was issued with mala fide intention by accepting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, the petitioner has not produced any substantial proof, except saying that since the petitioner was awarded 95 marks at the time of scrutiny of the documents, he ought to have been issued letter of intent. Further, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot conduct a roving enquiry with regard to the enquiry made by the Field Verification Committee of the respondents. 9. It is well settled that the scope of interference of the Court in the selection process is very minimal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment (K.Sajeesh Babu Vs. N.K.Santhosh and others) has held that in the matter of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee/ Board consisting of qualified persons in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts, who had constituted the Selection Committee. It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who are more familiar with the technicalities / nature of the work. In the other case reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 492 (K.Indira Vs. Union of India, rep. It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who are more familiar with the technicalities / nature of the work. In the other case reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 492 (K.Indira Vs. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and others), a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that a judicial review would be permissible only on the established grounds like mala fide, arbitrariness or unreasonableness and it would not be proper for the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to go deep into the records of the Selection Board and to examine the validity of the rival claims upon appreciation afresh of the materials on such records and on the basis of such reappraisal to decide whether the selection was properly made or not. 10. In this case, I do not find any substantial material to come into the conclusion that the impugned order was passed with the mala fide, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.