JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 26.9.2013 in OA No. 308(C) of 2013, has approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition, whereby and where under the grievance of the petitioner/applicant against rejection of his candidature for the post of lecturer in Graphic Art has been rejected. 2. Fact of the of the case is that the petitioner was an applicant for the post of Lecturer in the Graphic Art under the State Government, had applied for the said post against the advertisement dated 26.7.2012 but not selected and as such being aggrieved with the action of the selection committee, he had approached the Tribunal by filing an Original Application being O.A. No.3208(C) of 2013 assailing the selection but the Tribunal has rejected without considering the fact that he is a Master of Fine Art and had passed the said examination in first division from Utkal University of Culture. He had also passed Bachelor Degree Examination of Fine Arts and Crafts in first division from the Utkal University. The petitioner had also undergone Multimedia and Special Effects and has successfully specialized in the said course. The petitioner has been awarded many certificates in graphic art from the respective colleges. The further grievance of the petitioner that he was possessing all eligibility criteria for being considered as Lecturer in Graphic Art but his candidature has been rejected, these points had been raised before the Tribunal but not considered, hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha as well as the Orissa Public Service Commission has submitted on the strength of the counter affidavit that although got no opportunity to file counter affidavit before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal since the Tribunal has disposed of the original application at the stage of notice itself but however they have submitted that a detail counter affidavit has been filed by both the respondents i.e. the State of Odisha and Orissa Public Service Commission in this writ petition taking the common stand that no illegality has been committed by the selection committee i.e. Orissa Public Service Commission. It has been submitted that in pursuance to availability of vacancies in the Tourism and Culture (Culture) Department the Government had sent a requisition before the Orissa Public Service Commission vide letter no.2489/TC dated 29.9.2011 and no.854/TC dated 4.4.2012 for filling up of 8 posts of Lecturer in different disciplines including the discipline of Graphic Art of the Arts and Crafts Colleges. As per the requisition received from the Government the Orissa Public Service Commission had published an advertisement being Advertisement no.3 of 2012/13 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the aforesaid posts. The conditions, requirement and mode of selection for the posts of Lecturers in respect of different disciplines including Graphic Art in Government Colleges of Arts and Crafts are governed/regulated as per the Orissa Culture Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. In pursuance to such advertisement, applications from 21 candidates including the petitioner were received. The written examination for the recruitment was held on 5.5.2013. The petitioner and 8 other candidates including the opposite party no.4 were qualified in the written examination. They were provisionally selected and called on to appear viva voce test held on 6.9.2013. On the basis of marks obtained in the written examination, career assessment, experience as performing Artist and viva voce test, the Commission had recommended to Government in Tourism and Culture (Culture) Department the names of two candidates in order of merit for the post of Lecturer of Graphic Art vide letter no.5602/PSC dated 13.9.2013 i.e. (i) Sri Pradip Kumar Patra (UR), (ii) Sri Trinath Mohanty (SEBC). It has been submitted further that the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the opposite party no.4 and as such he has not been selected. It has been submitted further that the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the opposite party no.4 and as such he has not been selected. Further submission is that the fact regarding securing lesser marks by the petitioner could not have been taken into consideration by the tribunal while disposing of the original application since opportunity to file counter affidavit bringing the relevant facts before it could not have been provided but the fact remains that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the fact that there is no illegality in selection process selecting the opposite party no.4, declined to interfere on the ground that the petitioner was insisting to get weightage mark under the Performing Artist category, which according to the petitioner, has not been provided to him by the selection committee and if it would have been provided he would have secured higher marks than the opposite party no.4 but not accepting that plea on the ground that the opposite party no.4 had secured higher marks and as such the petitioner cannot be given preference for the reason that both the candidates cannot be equated so far as the marks are concerned. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record, after appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties, we found that the petitioner vis-à-vis opposite party no.4 and others had applied for consideration of their candidature as Lecturer in Graphic Arts under the Tourism and Culture (Culture) Department. In pursuance to an advertisement being advertisement no.3 of 2012-2013, altogether applications from 21 candidates including the petitioner and the opposite party no.4 had received, they had been directed to appear in the selection in which both the petitioner and 8 other candidates including the opposite party no.4 were qualified, they had been asked to appear in the viva voce test, thereafter the Orissa Public Service Commission, after assessment of the totality on the basis of the marks secured by one or the other candidates, have prepared a merit list in which two candidates namely Sri Pradipt Kumar Patra under Unreserved category and one Sri Trinath Mohanty under SEBC category had been recommended to be appointed by the Orissa Public Service Commission. We have perused the tabular chart containing marks in different examinations including the marks allotted on the basis of career assessment, performing Artist and viva voce and from its perusal it is evident that the opposite party no.4 has secured 142 marks while the petitioner had secured 141 marks, for better appreciation the comparative marks of the candidates is being reproduced below: Sl.No. Name Marks in written exam. Marks in career assessment Marks secured as performing artist Marks secured in VV test Total marks secured 1 Pradeep Kumar Patra (UR) 107 15 04 16 142 2 Trinath Mohanty (o.p.no.4) (SEBC) 94 15 08 25 142 3. Chhatrapati Sri Dibyaranjan Biswal (petitioner) 97 12 08 24 141 It is evident from the tabular chart as above that in the written examination the petitioner has secured 97 marks while the opposite party no.4 has got 94 marks, while in the career assessment the opposite party no.4 has secured 15 while the petitioner has secured 12, but so far as the marks performing Artist, both the petitioner and the opposite party no.4 have got 8 marks, likewise the opposite party no.4 got 25 marks in viva voce test while the petitioner has got 24 marks, total comes to 142 and 141 to the opposite party no.4 and the petitioner respectively. 5. Sole contention raised by the petitioner that his marks under the performing Artist has not been considered but we have found from the tabular chart that under the category of Performing Artist both the petitioner and the opposite party no.4 have been granted 8 marks each, as such there is consideration of the marks given on the basis of certificate of the performing Artist. The petitioner has made out a case before the Tribunal that he has not been given additional marks which he ought to have been given on the basis of experience of Performing Artist as per the certificates filed before the Tribunal but the Tribunal denying the plea on the basis of the fact that weightage of experience as Performing Artist is only to be given to the applicant for the reason that he is not a Performing Artist rather is a Graphic Artist only and as such not covered under the definition of Performing Artist as per the dictionary meaning of Performing Artist as has been discussed by the Tribunal in the order impugned (Annexre-2) and further since the applicant has secured one marks less than the opposite party no.4 hence the applicant/petitioner cannot be allowed preference in appointment vis-à-vis the opposite party no.4 and accordingly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 6. We, after appreciating the factual aspect as has been discussed herein above, are of the considered view that the Orissa Public Service Commission in pursuance to the selection process has scrutinized the candidatures of one or the candidates who had participated in the selection process for being appointed as Lecturer in Graphic Arts, in course thereof the Orissa Public Service Commission has come to conclusion that the opposite party no.4 is more suitable in comparison to the petitioner on the strength of securing higher marks than him, hence recommended in the said subject the name of the opposite partyno.4 for being appointed. We further find that the no irregularity had been committed by the Orissa Public Service Commission in granting weightage under the experience head to both the candidates, namely the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 but even thereafter the opposite party no.4 has secured 142 while the petitioner has secured 141 and accordingly opposite party no.4 had been considered to be more suitable in comparison to the petitioner. 7. 7. The ground taken by the petitioner that he was entitled to get the weightage under experience head of having certain experience certificates but that cannot be taken as ground for declaring him successful over and above the opposite party no.4 for the reason that that is not the criteria stipulated in the advertisement rather the Orissa Public Service Commission has proceeded with the selection process strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions advertised in the advertisement. Moreover, the question of preference on the strength of experience certificate can only be given if the candidates are on equal footing but that is not the case here. We, after taking into consideration all these aspects of the mater, have found that no illegality has been committed with respect to the selection of opposite party no.4 which has been questioned by the petitioner. Accordingly we decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.