JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel appeared for the respondent-SAIL. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment by fixing only 15% of full marks in the interview and further for quashing the decision of the respondent-authorities in the selection process whereby they have fixed total of 50 marks in interview, which comes to 50% of full marks fixed for written test. 3. As per the factual matrix of this case, one advertisement was published by the respondent-Bokaro Steel Plant being Advertisement No. BSL/R/2009-02 for filling up the posts of Medical Officers in different faculties. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner made an application under O.B.C. Category for consideration of his case to be appointed as Medical Officer (General), in which, around 300 candidates appeared in the written examination wherein the petitioner was declared successful and was called for appearing in the interview along with 19 other successful candidates. Thereafter, final result was published wherein ten candidates were declared successful for the post of Medical Officer (General) but the petitioner could not make it to the final. Being aggrieved with such action of the respondent-authority, the petitioner has made an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, seeking therein certain information from the respondent-authority. Pursuant thereto, it was informed that petitioner could obtain 80 marks out of 100 in the written examination whereas only 20 marks out of 50 in the interview. It is further stated that qualifying marks in the interview for General/OBC candidate was 25 and as the petitioner could not obtain the minimum qualifying marks, his name was not considered for final selection. It has further been stated that the petitioner has although obtained 80 marks in the written examination but has been disqualified by allotting 20 marks in the interview which according to the him is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the settled principle of the law. It has further been stated that the petitioner has although obtained 80 marks in the written examination but has been disqualified by allotting 20 marks in the interview which according to the him is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the settled principle of the law. It has also been stated that qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to General and O.B.C. Categories has been fixed as 25 which according to him cannot be same because of the fact that in one of the advertisements issued by the Steel Authority of India as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, reserved category candidates were to be given relaxation in the prescribed qualifying marks for the written test, group discussion and the interview. Thus, the qualifying marks in the interview, which was fixed as 25 marks for both General and OBC category candidates is against the settled principle of law and as such the petitioner would have been declared successful since he has obtained 20 marks in the interview, which is 40% of the full marks fixed for the interview. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon an advertisement issued by another subsidiary of the Steel Authority of India Limited i.e. Bhilai Steel Plant as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, wherein, Medical Officer (General) and Medical Officer (Dentistry) have been advertised as a two independent and separate cadre while in the instant case the respondents have wrongly advertised the vacancies by clubbing two separate cadres i.e. Medical Officer (General) and Medical Officer (Dentistry) ignoring the reservation policy as well as cadre division. 5. It has further been stated that irregularities have been committed in the entire selection process as because the candidates ought to have been called for interview in the ratio of 4:1, applicable to each category in order of merit based on the performance of the candidate in written test, but in the present case, the candidates have been called to appear in the interview in the ratio of 2:1, that too not in order of merit rather in order of their respective roll numbers. 6. Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the selection list prepared by the respondent-authorities is not in consonance with the rules and as such it should be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the selection list prepared by the respondent-authorities is not in consonance with the rules and as such it should be quashed and set aside. It has been further argued that the criteria of allotment of marks is erroneous as the same is not as per the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the reservation policy has not been followed at all. Fixing higher marks in the interview is against the settled principle of law as merit cannot be decided mainly on the basis of interview and due weightage of marks of the candidates in written test shall also be taken into consideration at the time of preparation of final list for selection. The petitioner has obtained 80% of marks in the written test of the selection process whereas he has been allotted only 40% marks in the interview making him ineligible for the final selection. It is further stated that criteria of higher marks in the interview gives chances of manipulation and favoritism that is why it is not advisable to the recruiting authority to fix higher marks in the interview. Thus, the entire selection process vitiates and the selection list is fit to be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-SAIL. 8. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-SAIL vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the criteria of selection process is under challenge whereas the same was completed in the year 2010 itself. The learned counsel further argues that after being declared unsuccessful, the petitioner has challenged the selection process and also the criteria of allotment of marks which is not permissible at this stage. Learned counsel further argues that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition as the entire selection process has come to an end in the year 2010 itself and persons have already been appointed and unsettling of merit list will create third party interest. It is further submitted that no right is accrued to the petitioner to get himself appointment even if his name appears in the selection list of waiting list. 9. It is further submitted that no right is accrued to the petitioner to get himself appointment even if his name appears in the selection list of waiting list. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since already the examination is over and the results have been published and this writ petition has been preferred after publication of the results, no interference is warranted in the instant case for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The examination is over and the results have been published. (ii) Petitioner has approached this Court after fully participating in the process of examination and only after being declared unsuccessful. (iii) Even if vacancies are still there, no right has accrued to the petitioner for appointment as filling-up of the vacancies totally lies within domain of the employer and not the legal right of the candidates. (iv) Petitioner never raised objection and rather, accepted and fully participated in the examination. None other than the petitioner have approached this Court with a prayer for grant of grace marks. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. M.C. Gupta vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, (1979) 2 SCC 339 , has held as under: “When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala-fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be.” Similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 4184 of 2005 (Bimlesh Kumar vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Another) and this Hon’ble Court, while dismissing the said writ application, has held that petitioner had appeared in the examination without any objection and subsequently, writ application has been filed after results have been declared and appointments have been made and as such, I find no merit in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions, I do not find any illegality or any infirmity in the recruitment process conducted by the respondents for appointment to the post of Medical Officers. 11. There is no merit in the instant writ application and resultantly, the same is hereby dismissed.