JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The petitioner herein challenges the appointments, of, respondents No.4 to 11, against, the post of Executive Trainee (HR), (a) and, makes a further prayer qua the appointments, of, respondents No.4 to 11, hence, being quashed and set aside; (b) the petitioner further seeks quashing of Annexure P-9, whereunder, the posts, of, Executive Trainee (HR), were advertised. 2. The centralized focus of the petitioner, for, making an apt challenge, vis-a-vis, the appointments, of, respondents No.4 to 11, against, the posts of Executive Trainee (HR), rests upon (a) annexure P-8, making clear depictions, vis-a-vis, despite the petitioner scoring 90 marks in, the, written test, hers being allocated only 27 marks in the interview; (b) a candidate placed at serial No.8 scoring only 83 marks in the written test, being allocated 36 marks, in the interview; (c) a candidate placed at Sr. No. 7, though, scoring 102 marks in the written test, being allocated only 17 marks, in the interview. (d) From amongst the selected candidates, two enlisted at Sr. No. 9 and 11 being hence the wards/relatives, of, personnel serving with the respondent Nigam, thereupon, the counsel for the petitioner, hence contends qua the entire selection process being vitiated, and, it being a sham, besides, it, palpably emanating, from, lack of appropriate evaluation, of, the comparative merits, of, the contestants. 3. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot be accepted, given, the contesting respondent meteing a square rebutting reply thereto, with, underlinings qua the constituted Selection Board, rather comprising, of, persons of high caliber, qualifications and integrity, and, the allocation, of, marks to different candidates, standing anvilled, upon, their performance in the interview, and, in the group discussion. The aforesaid rebuttal borne, in, the reply of the contesting respondents, stands not pronounced, by cogent evidence, to be hence inapt, (i) besides no material stands placed, on record, hence displaying, qua, actual bias operating in the mind, of the selection committee concerned, in its hence proceeding to rather colourably under allocate or overallocate apt marks, in, the viva-voce, to, the aspirants concerned. The allocation of marks, to, the aspirants concerned, in proportions higher, than, the marks awarded to each in the written test, also cannot be construable to be per se tantamounting qua the members of the selection board concerned, being hence driven by any whim or caprices, (i) unless, trite pointed allegations of malafides stand directed against a particular member(s), of, the selection board, (ii) and, whereas with the aforesaid trite imputation(s) being amiss, (iii) thereupon, the aforesaid disproportion(s), in the marks acquired by the candidates, in, the written test, and, in the viva-voce, cannot per se ingrain, the selection process, rather with any vice. (iv) Furthermore, assessment(s) in the vivavoce, vis-a-vis, the caliber and knowledge, of, the candidates, being a subjective assessment, of, the expert(s) concerned, thereupon, it being not questionable, in, courts of law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the contesting respondents, has, proceeded, to, infract the mandate of Clause 16.1, and, Clause 16.2 of the HRM Manual, (a) whereunder, a, trite mandate, is, borne qua the panel of candidates, as recommended, by the Selection Board rather remaining alive, besides valid for one year, vis-avis, the enlisted candidates embodied, in, the approved panel, (b) the appointing authority being enjoined to, visa-vis, them make offers, of, appointment, (c) and, the apt offers of appointments, also bearing commensuration, vis-a-vis, the posts sanctioned, from time to time, by the competent authority. He further erects an argument that the effect of the afore infraction(s), is, hence the advertisement borne in Annexure P-9, hence, warranting its being set aside, and, consequent thereto selections or appointments, if any, being made, also carrying the apt nullificatory effect, (d) with a further corollary, qua the petitioner being entitled to be offered an apt appointment thereagainst. However, the aforesaid submission, is, extremely weak, and, rather falters, given the counsel for the petitioner, rather reading the aforesaid clauses, in, segregation, from, the mandate borne in clause 26.1 of the HRM Manual, the apt underlined portion whereof, stands extracted hereinafter: "26.0 Operation of Selection Panel: 26.1. .............................................Relevant panel will be operated in order of merit as per the number of posts notified in the advertisement. .............................................Relevant panel will be operated in order of merit as per the number of posts notified in the advertisement. Each time a recruitment is proposed, this will need approval of the Appointing Authority." (i) the aforesaid carries, a, connotation none other, than, qua the apt contemplated panel, as drawn, within, the ambit of clause 6.1, being drawable, vis-a-vis, the, number of posts, as, notified in the advertisement, and, the candidates enlisted, in, the apt panel, being invested with a right, subject to physical fitness, and, verification, vis-a-vis, their antecedents, for theirs being hence considered for appointment, against, the number of posts, as, stand advertised. (ii) Its sombre innate emphasis, is, qua the apt selection panel hence embodying therein, the, enlisted candidates, not, exceeding the apt notified number of posts, rather it bearing commensuration, vis-a-vis, the number of posts, as, advertised, and, the purpose of keeping it alive for one year, being, readable in tandem therewith, for, obviously ensuring that in case, any of the candidates, wheretowhom, the offer of appointment, is, made resigns, or, hence refuses to accept it, (iii) thereupon, the candidate occurring below him or her in the order, of merit, being entitled to receive, an, offer of appointment. However, the aforesaid contingency (iv) is not pronounced by any material existing on record, to rather stand sparked nor hence the envisaged method stood adopted, (v) the effect thereof is qua when within six months, since the issuance, of, the initial advertisement. reiteratedly, and, rather, upon, occurrence, of the herebefore contingencies, the, apt list embodying therein, the, empaneled candidates, for hence filling the apt vacancies was recourseable, whereas, with evidently, hence no apt vacancies, on account of resignation(s) or refusals, to join, rather occurred, thereupon, the appointing authority stood empowered, to, issue a fresh notification, for, initiating afresh the apt selection process, for, hence filling up the apposite posts. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.