ORDER : Petitioner has assailed notification dated 26.12.2014 issued by the first respondent-Dean-Cum-Director, Government Dental College and Research Institute, Bangalore. By that notification, respondent no.4 has been selected as Dental Health Officer in Government Dental College and Research Institute. According to the petitioner, notification dated 21.8.2014 was issued by the first respondent inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Dental Health Officer (DHO). Annexure-C is the copy of that notification, by which, one post for Scheduled Caste Category, one post for General Merit Category and one post for Hyderabad Karnataka (local candidate) was the allocation based on reservation. 2. Petitioner, respondent nos.4 and 6 had applied to the said post in Scheduled Caste Category. Petitioner as well as respondent nos.4 and 6 were called for the interview and thereafter as per Annexure-B, respondent no.4 has been selected as Dental Health Officer (Annexure-A). That notification is assailed in this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government pleader for respondents 1 to 3, who has appeared on advance notice. 4. Petitioner’s counsel has drawn my attention to Annexure-C/Notification dated 21.8.2014, by which applicants who were eligible were called for being selected and appointed to the post of Dental Health Officer. He stated that the qualification for the post was B.D.S. Degree from any University established by Law in India, must be registered in a State Dental Council or Indian Dental register. He drew my attention to method of selection at Paragraph 8 of that notification and contended that the selection was to be based on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the marks obtained in the interview conducted by the selection committee. The maximum marks in the interview was 15 and that petitioner had obtained higher percentage of marks in B.D.S examination as compared to respondent no.4, but the selection committee had allocated marks for paper presentation; paper publication; Gold Medal/First Rank; higher qualification and experience without notifying the candidates about these aspects and as a result, respondent no.4 has been allocated marks on the aforesaid aspects and has been selected as Dental Health Officer wheareas according to learned counsel there could not have been allocation of marks on the aforesaid heads. Therefore he contended that the impugned selection is illegal and arbitrary and hence the matter calls for interference by this Court. 5. Therefore he contended that the impugned selection is illegal and arbitrary and hence the matter calls for interference by this Court. 5. I have considered these submissions in light of the material on record. 6. Annexure-C dated 21.8.2014 is the notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post of Dental Health Officer and Anesthetist. In this case we are concerned with the post of Dental Health Officer. Petitioner, respondent no.4 and 6 had applied for that post in Scheduled Caste Category. The minimum qualification prescribed for the said post is the B.D.S Degree from any University and must be registered in State or Dental Council or Indian Medical Register. The method of selection at paragraph 8 of the said notification reads as under: “Candidates will be selected through the process of interview. Candidates will be called for interview in the ratio of 1:5. The method of recruitment shall be on the basis of merit. The merit list shall be prepared on the basis of the percentage marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the marks obtained in the interview conducted by the selection committee. The Maximum marks in the Interview shall be fifteen (15). If two candidates secure equal percentage of marks, then candidate older in age may be selected.” Based on the percentage of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the marks obtained in the Interview conducted by the selection committee, the maximum marks allotted in the interview being 15, selection of candidates was to be made. Having regard to the fact that the minimum qualification is B.D.S Degree and being conscious of the fact that the persons who possess a higher qualification than B.D.S. Degree may also apply, the selection committee had decided to allocate marks on various other heads i.e. paper presentation, paper publication, Gold Medal or First Rank, higher qualification, experience. This has been done by taking into consideration the percentage of marks obtained in the B.D.S. examination to be out of 85 and marks have been allocated on the aforesaid heads. In fact, petitioner has also been allocated marks on the heads of paper presentation, but respondent no.4 has been allocated marks on the heads of paper presentation; paper publication; higher qualification and experience. 7. The object of the said allocation is ultimately to see that the best candidate is appointed to the said post who has higher qualification and experience. In fact, petitioner has also been allocated marks on the heads of paper presentation, but respondent no.4 has been allocated marks on the heads of paper presentation; paper publication; higher qualification and experience. 7. The object of the said allocation is ultimately to see that the best candidate is appointed to the said post who has higher qualification and experience. If the petitioner also had a higher qualification and such other criteria which were prescribed above, then she would also have been entitled to higher allocation of marks on the aforesaid heads. In fact, she has been allocated marks on the head of paper presentation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot express any grievance with regard to allocation of marks on the aforesaid heads. That is left to the wisdom of the selection committee and it would in fact bring in more efficacy in the selection process, as the selection committee would have to apply its mind to these aspects and ascertain as to whether the eligible candidates had the aforesaid qualifications, which are in addition to the minimum qualification prescribed. Wherever the candidates possessed those additional qualifications they have been allocated marks including the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4. In fact in the interview and personality test, respondent has secured 4.2 marks whereas the petitioner has secured 3.6 marks. 8. On an over all combination of the marks obtained in the B.D.S. examination and the marks obtained on the various heads referred to above and the marks obtained in the interview, the selection committee has prepared the grand total and in the grand total it is noted that petitioner has obtained 60.01 marks, whereas respondent no.4 has obtained 66.52 marks. The manner in which the selection has been made cannot be stated to be arbitrary or illegal, as there has been application of mind by the selection committee to various qualifications of the eligible candidates who have the requisite qualifications in terms of what has been determined by the selection committee. Therefore there has been an over all application of mind vis-a–vis each of the candidates eligible to be interviewed and there has been allocation of marks on the aforesaid heads as well as on the basis of their academic qualification and the marks obtained in the interview. Therefore there has been an over all application of mind vis-a–vis each of the candidates eligible to be interviewed and there has been allocation of marks on the aforesaid heads as well as on the basis of their academic qualification and the marks obtained in the interview. If the selection committee has decided to allocate marks on the aforesaid heads of the different candidates and selected the best candidate to the post of Dental Health Officer, this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot substitute its wisdom and judgment for the wisdom and expertise of the selection committee. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. 9. Writ Petition is dismissed.