ORDER 1. The present writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.9.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.8089/2014 (Deepak Singh Dangi v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others). [Reported in 2016(I) MPWN 28 ]. 2. The fact of the case reveal that the selection was made by the Indian Oil Corporation in respect of LPG distributorship and the respondent No.4 Khalid Mohd. was selected by the Indian Oil Corporation. A letter of intent was issued on 7.11.2014. A complaint was preferred by the present appellant Deepak Singh Dangi stating that the person, who has been selected i.e. Khalid Mohd. does not belong to OBC category and he has used false and fabricated caste certificate. The Indian Oil Corporation has dismissed the complaint filed by the present appellant and the writ petition preferred by the present appellant has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the caste certificate was issued by the competent authority and the selection is based upon the caste certificate, wherein it has been reflected that respondent No.4 belongs to OBC category. The learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that whether the caste of the respondent No.4 is false and fabricated has to be looked into by the competent authority and, therefore, question of interference by this Court does not arise. The learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that Indian Oil Corporation has accepted the caste certificate, which was issued by the competent authority. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment apex Court in the matter of K. Vinod Kumar v. S. Palanisamy and others, reported in (2003)10 SCC 681 . Para 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- “11. The law is settled that over proceedings and decisions taken in administrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken. No infirmity is pointed out in the proceedings of the Selection Board which may have the effect of vitiating the selection process. The capability of the appellant herein to otherwise perform as an LPG distributor is not in dispute. The High Court was not, therefore, justified in interfering with the decision of the Selection Board and the decision of BPCL to issue the letter of allotment to the appellant herein.” 3. The capability of the appellant herein to otherwise perform as an LPG distributor is not in dispute. The High Court was not, therefore, justified in interfering with the decision of the Selection Board and the decision of BPCL to issue the letter of allotment to the appellant herein.” 3. The learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the present appellant to challenge the caste certificate of the private respondent. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant has informed that he has filed an appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Backward Class and Minority Welfare Department and the same are also pending. In the light of the aforesaid statement as the appeals are still pending the question of interference by this Court does not arise. Resultantly, this writ appeal stands dismissed.