JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through, the instant petition, the petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No.4, to, the post, of, Lecturer, History on PTA basis, in, Government Senior Secondary School, Harsar, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. She also seeks quashing of Annexure P-4, Succinctly, the challenge, as, cast by the petitioner, vis-a-vis, the selection of respondent No.4, to the post concerned, is, squarely embedded upon the contesting respondent, beyond the domain, of, the then in vogue criteria, vis-a-vis, meteing of marks to the aspirants, rather proceeding hence to include in the apposite score sheet, a, column appertaining, to extra curricular activities, (i) and, further awarding of marks to respondent No.4, on anvil, of his holding, a, NSS certificate, also concomitantly, being beyond the domain, of the apposite the then existing criteria, (ii) hence, the apposite meteing of marks, vis-a-vis, respondent No.4, on anvill of his holding, a, NSS certificate being both arbitrary, and, unreasonable, hence, the awardings, of, apposite marks in respect thereof, rather warranting subtraction, from, his total score. 2. However, the aforesaid contention is unamenable to acceptance, (i) as, a perusal of the records, appertaining, to, the ordained the then, in, vogue criteria, does make an apparent display of in the viva voce 15, points being earmarked, for, awardings by the expert, and, five marks being, earmarked for apt awardings, vis-a-vis, CCA, (ii) parlance whereof, is, none other, than, of, it appertaining, to co-curricular activities, hence, even if the coinage "cocurricular activities", was, substituted, by coinage "extra curricular activities", in the apposite score sheet, yet rather both visibly hence carry, a, similar parlance. (iii) In aftermath, the awarding of marks, vis-a-vis, respondent No.4, for his holding, a, NSS certificate, apparently, a, co-curricular activity, is not beyond the domain, of, the then ordained criteria. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner has contended, (a) that even when the petitioner alike respondent No.4, held, a, NSS certificate, besides, despite, its being produced, before, the apposite committee, yet its not being taken into consideration, by the committee, nor marks being awarded to her, (b) hence, he further contends that in respect thereto, she has been discriminated. However, the aforesaid contention, though anvilled upon apposite therewith pleading, cast, in paragraph No.4, of the petition, apt portion whereof reads as under: "4. However, the aforesaid contention, though anvilled upon apposite therewith pleading, cast, in paragraph No.4, of the petition, apt portion whereof reads as under: "4. ....despite petitioner producing a certificate of National Service Scheme (NSS), such marks were not awarded to her. Though, on the other hand, additnal five marks were awarded to respondent No.4, for producing the similar certificate...." (i) Yet an incisive reading thereof, does not, with specificity delineate, the factum qua one amongst the members, of the selection committee, before whom the apt NSS certificate, even if produced, rather, hence with his rearing, evidently proven malafides, against the petitioner, therepon, his refusing to accept, the apt NSS certificate, and, also hence his refusing to award marks, in, respect thereof to the petitioner. Absence of the aforesaid specific pleadings, vis-a-vis, any specific apposite member, of the committee, and, also hence absence, of, proven allegations of malafide(s) against him, whereupon, he stood prodded, despite tendering(s), of, the NSS certificate, hence not accept it, and, also refused to award marks thereon, vis-a-vis the petitioner, does constrain, this Court to conclude, that, the aforesaid apposite averments, cast in the petition being surmisal, and, being not amenable, for, their vindication. 4. Furthermore, the counsel for the petitioner, has contended, that with the selection being made, to the post of Lecturer in History, yet with Selection Committee concerned, acknowledging the previous teaching, by respondent No.4, in the subject of political science, and, also purportedly awarding marks in respect thereof qua him, is, grossly improper, (a) given, the awarding of marks, vis-a-vis, teaching experience, imperatively, requiring an apt nexus rather emerging inter se the apt previous experience, vis-a-vis, the subject, whereagainst, the selection is made. However, the aforesaid submission as addressed by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, is, rejected, (b) given, the phrase "teaching experience" being unamenable, to, any restricted, and trammeled signification qua it, only appertaining, vis-a-vis, teaching experience in a subject alike the one, whereagainst, the selection is desired, (c) AND, it not appertaining, vis-a-vis, teachings, in, any other subject, (d) more so when there, are, no specific reflections, borne, in the apposite advertisement, qua the aspirants being enjoined, to, hold teaching experience(s), only, in the subject concerned. Moreover, the apposite selection committee, also consists of a subject expert, and, he is solitarily bestowed, with, the apt empowerments, for, adjudging the knowledge, of, the aspirants, and, his subjective assessment, is, unamenable, for being faulted, unless allegations, of, apt malafides, are reared and are also proven. However, want thereof, renders the, awarding 10 marks, to each of the aspirants i.e. to the petitioner, and, to respondent No.4, vis-avis, their knowledge and experience in the subject concerned, hence, cannot be faulted, especially when he is solitarily bestowed, with the apt expertise, for adjudging, their, apt knowledge in the apt subject, and, teaching experience, in any subject dissimilar, to the advertised part, is, only supplemental thereto. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.