Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. By medium of this petition, the selection of respondent No.6 to the post of Language Teacher (TGT) through SMC on period basis in Government High School, Nehar Swar, District Sirmaur, has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the same is an outcome of favouritism as private respondent No.6 has been awarded unduly high marks in viva-voce/interview to ensure her selection, whereas, the petitioner has been awarded disastrously low marks making it impossible for her to bridge the difference so as to get selected. 2. Certain relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition may be stated thus. 3. An advertisement by way of news item appeared in the daily newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ wherein applications for the post of TGT and Language Teacher through SMC on period basis in the concerned school were invited. The petitioner being eligible also applied for the post. The interviews for which were held on 17.12.2014 in the Office of SDM, Nahan, in which respondent No.6 was selected and eventually came to be appointed. 4. The official respondents have justified the selection of respondent No.6 on the ground that she was more meritorious. Respondent No.6 has also justified her selection by claiming that she was more meritorious and was, therefore, rightly selected and thereafter appointed by the official respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that as per the notification dated 30.07.2014 which modified the earlier notification dated 17.07.2012, the members of the Selection Committee comprised of the following:- (i) SDM of the concerned Sub-Division - Chairman (ii) President of SMC of concerned school- Member (iii) Head of the Institution – Member Secretary of the SMC. 6. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to the same Patwar Circle and was thus awarded 10 marks for the same, whereas, respondent No.6, admittedly, did not belong to the concerned Patwar Circle and was thus deprived of these 10 marks. The comparative chart of the marks obtained by the petitioner and respondent No.6 is as under:- The List of Candidates for the post of L.T. to be filled through SMC on Period Basis in G.H.S. Nehar Swar U/C Govt. Sen. The comparative chart of the marks obtained by the petitioner and respondent No.6 is as under:- The List of Candidates for the post of L.T. to be filled through SMC on Period Basis in G.H.S. Nehar Swar U/C Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Bechar Ka Baag, District Sirmour, H.P. on Dated 17.12.2014 and Merit S. No Name Father’s Name D.O.B. Metric (5) 10+2 (5) Graduation (10) B.Ed. Post Graduation (10) T.E.T. (10) Concerned Total (50) Interview (10) Grand Total (60) Remarks 3 Parul Pundir Sh. Vineet Kumar 17-02-85 385/700 326/500 569/1000 442+226=668/1000 940/1600 92/150 No 23.7 9.33 33.03 55% 65.20% 56.90% 66.80% 58.75% 61.30% 2.75 3.26 5.69 ------ 5.87 6.13 10 Kumari Santosh Sh. Sadanand Sharma 4-3-1982 364/700 287/500 519/1000 --- 834/1600 88/150 52% 57.40% 51.90% 52.12% 58.60% Yes (10) 21.73 +10/31.73 32.56 2.6 2.87 5.19 5.21 5.86 0.83 7. It would be noticed that in the interview, respondent No.6 was awarded 9.33 marks, whereas, the petitioner was awarded 0.83 marks, out of 10 marks and the individual break-up of these marks is as under:- Score sheet of Candidates Applying for the post of L.T. in G.H.S. Nehar Swar U/C Govt. Sen. Sec. School Bechar ka Baag Distt. Sirmour, H.P. on dated 17.12.14. Sr. No. Name of the candidate Father’s Name S.D.M Chairperson (10) H.M. Member (10) S.M.C. Member (10) Total (30) Average (10) 3. Parul Pundir Sh.Vineet Kumar 9.5 9.5 9 9.33 10. Kumari Santosh Sh.Sadanand Sharma 0.5 Zero 2 0.83 8. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that private respondent No.6 has been awarded unduly high marks in the viva voce/interview to ensure her selection, whereas, disastrously low marks have been awarded to the petitioner to ensure that she is not selected because even if 2 marks out of 30 marks could have been awarded to her, then the same would have resulted into her selection. 9. Normally, this Court would not sit in appeal over the assessment of an individual candidate made by the respondents and would also not adopt a role of supervisory authority and revaluate the performance of a candidate at the viva voce/interview merely because of a whisper of favouritism has been levelled. But then can the Court ignore a selection which is an amalgam of favouritism and nepotism and uphold the same. 10. But then can the Court ignore a selection which is an amalgam of favouritism and nepotism and uphold the same. 10. I observe so because not only is the petitioner well-qualified and may be even more qualified than the members of the Selection Committee itself, but that apart the marks in favour of respondent No.6 have been increased from 7 to 9 in the individual marking conducted by the President, SMC and, on the other hand, as regards the petitioner, her marks have arbitrarily been reduced from 4 to 2. 11. Similarly, the Headmaster, the head of the Institution-cum- Member Secretary of the SMC had initially awarded 9 marks to respondent No.6 which have thereafter been scored of to make it 9½ and as regards the petitioner, she has been awarded “ zero marks” . 12. The S.D.M., on the other hand, has awarded 9.5 marks out of 10 marks to respondent No.6, whereas, the petitioner has only been granted 0.5 marks. Evidently, even after awarding such high marks, the difference of marks between the petitioner and respondent No.6 is only 0.47 marks and the petitioner has been awarded ridiculously low marks 0.83 out of 30 marks in the viva voce. 13. The members of the Selection Committee were called on by this Court to appear before it and explain the conduct and would claim that they had awarded marks strictly on the basis of the performance of the candidates. I am afraid that such contention on behalf of the members of the Selection Committee is not at all acceptable in teeth of the material placed on record. The Selection Committee, to say the least, has acted in a highly arbitrary and capricious manner and the selection is nothing but an outcome of favouritism and nepotism. The Selection Committee has shown complete insensitivity while dealing with the selection that too of candidates, who were highly qualified. The petitioner, admittedly, is a Post-Graduate in Political Science and has also qualified the Language Teacher Eligibility Test and the members of the Selection Committee would have this Court to believe that she was so dumb so as to be awarded 0 marks, 0.5 and 2 marks in the interview, whereas, respondent No.6 was so intelligent so as to be awarded 9, 9½ and 9½ marks each. 14. 14. I have no hesitation to conclude that the marks have been awarded to different candidates at the whims and caprice of the members of the Selection Committee to facilitate the selection of respondent No.6 or else such disparity in allocation of marks would not exist. There is virtually no element of selection and socalled process of selection was only a farce and mockery. 15. The learned Additional Advocate General would vehemently contend that simply because a candidate obtains more marks in the interview is not a ground to reach a conclusion that her candidature was in any manner favoured. I find no merit in this contention for the reasons already stated above. 16. The learned counsel for the private respondent would however vehemently argue that his client deserves the allocation of marks so awarded by the Selection Committee as after the appointment she has been giving 100% results in the school in her subject i.e. Hindi. I am afraid that this contention also cannot be accepted because it is not only the duty but the responsibility of a teacher to produce 100% results and in doing so he/she does no favour either to the student or the State. 17. As observed earlier, the only explanation given by the members of the Selection Committee was that respondent No.6 answered all the questions correctly and, therefore, was awarded high marks. 18. Undoubtedly, interview is one of the best modes of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position. While, the written examination will testify the candidate’s academic knowledge, the oral test alone can bring out and disclose his overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, ability to lead intellectual and moral integrity etc. 19. It is difficult to fathom that the petitioner lacked all such qualities so as to be awarded 0 marks by the Principal, 0.5 by the SDM and only 2 marks by the President of the SMC, who himself is only 7th class pass. To say the least, the entire process of selection was nothing, but a farce and clear eye-wash to appoint respondent No.6, by hook or crook. 20. To say the least, the entire process of selection was nothing, but a farce and clear eye-wash to appoint respondent No.6, by hook or crook. 20. After having concluded that there has been favouritism and nepotism in conducting the selection, the further question that arises for consideration is as to what action should be taken against the members of the Selection Committee, who had been entrusted and assigned with the responsibility of making a fair selection. Although, this is a fit case where stern action is called for against the members of the Selection Committee. However, taking into consideration the fact that the President of the SMC is not a Government servant and further taking into consideration that the head of the Institution has already retired, it will not be proper to single out and initiate any kind of proceedings against the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who is still serving and currently posted as such at Manali, District Kullu, particularly, taking into consideration her long career ahead. However, at the same time, she is warned to be careful in future. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The appointment of respondent No.6 is quashed and set aside and in her place, the official respondents are directed to forthwith offer appointment to the petitioner. 22. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.