JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner herein, in pursuance to an advertisement comprised in Annexure P-3 for eliciting applications from the aspirants/probable candidates for filling up the vacancies in various trades/categories as enunciated therein, applied for the trade/vacancy of Trainer Electronic Mechanic. The enjoined essential qualifications for any aspirant who concerted to be considered for selection and appointment to the trade/vacancy of Trainer Electronics Mechanic are expostulated in Annexure P-3/T, whose enunciations are extracted hereinafter:- “Essential Qualifications 10th pass or equivalent Technical (Engineering) from the recognized University or three years diploma (Engineering) from the recognized Board/institute or in the concerned Trade, National Trade Certificate/NAC. One year post in the Training Institute or industry. CTI Degree Holder experience of one year. Two years Diploma Holder by the competent Officer-Certification. NAC NTC- Two years.” 2. The petitioner herein as divulged by Annexure P-2 appended to the writ petition possessed Bachelors degree of Technology. Therefore he satiates the eligibility criteria for his being considered for selection and appointment as a Trainer Electronic Mechanic. 3. The petitioner alongwith other aspirants/applicants was interviewed by a Board constituted by the respondent concerned. However the petitioner scored lesser marks than respondent No.4. The petitioner canvasses before this Court that the parameters formulated or the methodology adopted by the selection committee concerned/ interviewing Board as depicted in the specimen Performa appended to Annexure R-1 prescribing the awarding of marks on the strength of or on the anvil of the experience possessed by the aspirant, has sequelled his candidature being arbitrarily discarded vis-à-vis respondent No.4, who however has been unfairly, besides untenably awarded marks on the strength of his possessing higher experience than the petitioner. In addition he contends that the factum of his possessing a Bachelors degree in Technology per-se ipso facto empowered him to get selection and appointment to the post against which respondent No.4 came to be appointed. Tritely put the petitioner herein though satiated or accomplished the eligibility criteria for his being considered for selection and appointment to the trade concerned. However, the mere factum of his fulfilling the eligibility criteria in as much as his possessing a Bachelors degree in Technology would not give succor to the contention of his learned counsel that merely on strength thereof he had a vested or an indefeasible a right to obtain selection and appointment to the trade against which respondent No.4 stood appointed. However, the mere factum of his fulfilling the eligibility criteria in as much as his possessing a Bachelors degree in Technology would not give succor to the contention of his learned counsel that merely on strength thereof he had a vested or an indefeasible a right to obtain selection and appointment to the trade against which respondent No.4 stood appointed. Even though, no portion of the advertisement apposite to the trade against which the petitioner applied for, prescribes the mechanism or the methodology to be formulated or adopted by the Interviewing Board/Selection committee concerned, yet the reticence in the Advertisement notice, whereby applications were elicited for filling up the vacancies in various trades inclusive of the trade apposite to the petitioner, qua the mechanism to be adopted by the interviewing board/selection committee for awarding marks to the aspirants, cannot be construed to be debarring, estopping or precluding the respondents to formulate a mechanism if otherwise fair and just, as well as non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory for adjudging the comparative merits of the contending aspirants or for evaluating and assessing their suitability for selection and appointment to the post/vacancy concerned. The prescription in the proforma appended to Annexure R-1 of higher marks being awardable for higher experience to any aspirant or probable candidate for the trade concerned, carries with it rather is also imbued with the virtue of it revering the experience garnered by the candidate or an aspirant concerned, dehors the mere possession of a degree in the trade concerned. Besides obviously the experience mobilized by an aspirant is justifiably reckonable for adjudging the suitability for selection and appointment of an aspirant/probable candidate to the trade concerned. Moreover, experience in the trade concerned empowers an aspirant who possesses it to while equipping him with the concomitant skill, efficiency and the experience in the trade concerned hence renders him more empowered to discharge the functions apposite to the trade concerned vis-à-vis a raw or inexperienced hand. The prescription in the proforma appended to Annexure R-1 qua the awarding of higher marks to an aspirant possessing higher experience does hence when facilitates rendition of or performance of duties by an aspirant possessing it, in a more skilled and efficient manner, as such, the prescription aforesaid does not smack of either malafides or arbitrariness or discriminatoriness. The prescription in the proforma appended to Annexure R-1 qua the awarding of higher marks to an aspirant possessing higher experience does hence when facilitates rendition of or performance of duties by an aspirant possessing it, in a more skilled and efficient manner, as such, the prescription aforesaid does not smack of either malafides or arbitrariness or discriminatoriness. Moreover, with respondent No.4 possessing higher experience than the petitioner as divulged in the reply of the respondents, as a corollary then his suitability for selection and appointment to the trade concerned was of an accentuated grade vis-a-vis the petitioner. The petitioner cannot fault respondent No.4 for his possessing higher experience and as a corollary his being awarded higher marks than him qua the facet of his possessing higher experience vis-à-vis him especially when for the reasons aforesaid, the mechanism as adopted in the proforma appended to Annexure R-1 for awarding of higher marks for higher experience, advances and promotes skill and efficiency, in the rendition of or in the performance of duties by the aspirants/candidate who possesses such experience vis-à-vis an aspirant/probable candidate who does not possess it. In view of above, there is no merit in the petition, same is accordingly dismissed as also the pending applications, if any.