JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner is a Group 'C' employee in Surendranath Women College in Kolkata. She participated along with the private respondent no.7 in the process of promotion to the post of Assistant to Cashier. 2. The petitioner was an Accountant and the private respondent no.7, who was the other candidate completing for the post, was the Steno-Typist. After being eligible for being considered for promotion, the petitioner as well as the private respondent no.7 appeared in an interview. Two of the members of the interview panel were external experts i.e. not the part of the regular day to day Management of the College. The said two persons have been arrayed as the respondent nos.5 and 6 in the instant proceeding. 3. On the basis of the marks obtained in the interview process given by each member of the Selection Committee, it was found that the private respondent no.7 secured higher marks than the writ petitioner and was given promotion. He has joined the post in working thereat and due to retire by the end of this month. 4. The writ petitioner would assert before this Court that two external experts have uniformly given identical high marks to the private respondent no.7 under the head character and uniformly very low marks was awarded to the petitioner under the same head. 5. It is stated that the said external persons have done so because they belonged to a rival political party and had intended to deprive the petitioner. The promotion process is, therefore, assailed on the basis of bias and mala fides. It is further stated that the departmental promotion committee must act with fairness and be impartial. It is also argued that the assessment by D.P.C. must be fair and unreasonable. 6. Reference in this regard is made by the Counsel for the petitioner to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Badrinath Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 . At paragraph 47 of the said judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has stated as follows: '47. Every officer has a right to be considered for promotion under Article 16 to a higher post subject to eligibility, provided he is within the zone of consideration. But the question is as to the manner in which his case is to be considered. At paragraph 47 of the said judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has stated as follows: '47. Every officer has a right to be considered for promotion under Article 16 to a higher post subject to eligibility, provided he is within the zone of consideration. But the question is as to the manner in which his case is to be considered. This aspect is a matter of considerable importance in service jurisprudence as it deals with 'fairness' in the matter of consideration for promotion under Article 16. We shall therefore refer to the current legal position.' 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner next relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. A.K. Narula reported in (2007) 11 SCC 10 particularly paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof. '15. The guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to DPC by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in CRs. DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness, that the selection calls for interference. Where DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the process of assessment by DPC, the court will not interfere (vide SBI v. Mohd. Mynuddin [ (1987) 4 SCC 486 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 464 : (1987) 5 ATC 59] , UPSC v. Hiranyalal Dev [ (1988) 2 SCC 242 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 484 : (1988) 7 ATC 72] and Badrinath v. Govt. of T.N. [ (2000) 8 SCC 395 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 13] ). The Review DPC reconsidered the matter and has given detailed reasons as to why the case of the respondent was not similar to that of R.S. Virk. If in those circumstances, the Review DPC decided not to change the grading of the respondent for the period 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988 from 'good' to 'very good', the overall grading of the respondent continued to remain as 'good'. If in those circumstances, the Review DPC decided not to change the grading of the respondent for the period 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988 from 'good' to 'very good', the overall grading of the respondent continued to remain as 'good'. There was no question of moving him from the block of officers with the overall rating of 'good' to the block of officers with the overall rating of 'very good' and promoting him with reference to DPC dated 13-6-1990. In the absence of any allegation of mala fide or bias against DPC and in the absence of any arbitrariness in the manner in which assessment has been made, the High Court was not justified in directing that the benefit of upgrading be given to the respondent, as was done in the case of R.S. Virk. Re: Question (ii) 16. We have gone through the judgment dated 11-2-1992 of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 12316 of 1990 and the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12-7-2001 in LPA No. 586 of 1992 in the first round of litigation.' 8. Counsel for the College submits that the marks obtained by the Selection Committee as disclosed by the College in its affidavit-in-opposition is the basis of the writ petitioners submission. It is further stated that if the College had anything to hide, they need not have disclosed these documents. 9. One of the external experts, namely, Debasish Banerjee, has filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the instant proceeding. He has indicated that the reason why lower marks have been awarded to the petitioner. It was because she was unable to reply any of the questions put forth in course of the interview. 10. Affidavit-in-oppositions have been filed by the respondent nos.4 and 7 and reply thereto, has been filed by the writ petitioner. 11. This Court finds that normally persons, who conduct interview, especially external experts, did not participate in legal proceeding but in the instant case, there is a specific affidavit filed by the concerned interviewer expressly justifying the lower marks awarded to the writ petitioner. 12. This Court notes that awarding of marks against the question put by an individual member is purely subjective and the same cannot be interfered with. This Court cannot take note of the allegations that the external expert person was a different person of political background. 12. This Court notes that awarding of marks against the question put by an individual member is purely subjective and the same cannot be interfered with. This Court cannot take note of the allegations that the external expert person was a different person of political background. The petitioner must be deemed to have known the background of each of the interview members and had participated in the said process without protest or demur. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576 at Paragraph 16 this Court would be slow to interfere with the selection process. 13. Reference to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Badrinath (supra) would undoubtedly indicate that the Honble Supreme Court had treated the facts of the case as an exception to the general rule that promotion processes are generally not interfered with. The above appears to be in uncertain terms and power exercised by the Honble Supreme Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 14. While the dicta laid down in paragraphs set out from the aforesaid judgments read with the dicta laid down in the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in A.K. Narula (supra) would definitely indicate that the Court may enter into a question of whether the promotion process was vitiated by bias or mala fides and whether it was fair and impartial or reasonable, such enquiry would require appropriate evidence that is not exactly available before the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In any event, as the Honble Supreme Court of India has already laid down the general Rule, is that a person is entitled to participate in the promotion process but cannot claim to be promoted as a matter of right. Whenever there is an element of subjectivity involved particularly in viva voce and interview processes, a Writ Court cannot and does not interfere with the same. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. In Re: CAN 437 of 2020 17. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, the connected application being CAN 437 of 2020 is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. In Re: CAN 437 of 2020 17. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, the connected application being CAN 437 of 2020 is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.