JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4, as Instructor in Cutting and Tailoring, I.T.I. (Women), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh 2. The case of the petitioner is that after passing her matriculation examination, she joined the course in Cutting and Tailoring, run by Rural Development Department at Bharari Development Block, District Hamirpur. She passed the same in the year 1987. Thereafter, she joined the Industrial Training Institute for Women at Hamirpur and passed the I.T.I. course in Cutting and Tailoring in the year 1988. Thereafter, she continued her training and joined Cutting and Tailoring Course in the Central Crafts Institute for Women at Chandigarh as well as Industrial Training Institute at Sundernagar, from where she did the course of Embroidery and Needle Work. She also undertook the advance course of Dress Making from the National Council for Advance Training in the year 1994. As per her, an advertisement was issued by the Principal of Industrial Training Institute, Bilaspur, in Divya Himachal, dated 09.08.2006, inviting applications from eligible candidates for being appointed against the post of Instructor to be engaged on self-financed basis in the Industrial Training Institute for Women at Bilaspur. Petitioner appeared in the interview for the post in issue on 24.08.2006. Her grievance is that respondent No.4 who was much less qualified than the petitioner and less proficient than her in the trade, was selected against the post in issue, ignoring the more meritorious candidate, i.e. the petitioner. It is on these basis that this petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for setting aside of the appointment of respondent No.4. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed by respondents No.1 to 3, in which it has been mentioned that the candidates who had responded to the advertisement were interviewed on 24.08.2006 and though the petitioner was fulfilling essential qualification, but her resume alongwith application for the post in issue were not found as per the requirement. As per said respondents, petitioner had produced two experience certificates issued on the same letter heads of the Kangra Welfare Society under same dispatch and diary number as well as the date with different nature to draw the benefit of experience, yet she was given due credit of her experience. As per said respondents, petitioner had produced two experience certificates issued on the same letter heads of the Kangra Welfare Society under same dispatch and diary number as well as the date with different nature to draw the benefit of experience, yet she was given due credit of her experience. Respondent No.4 was found academic and technically more qualified than the petitioner in terms of requirements of the institute and therefore, she was offered the appointment. Thus, prayer has been made by the said respondents for dismissal of the petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. Petitioner has sought setting aside of the appointment of the private respondent as an Instructor, which appointment was made in the year 2006. Though, it is the contention of the petitioner that she was more meritorious than the selected candidates, however, respondents No.1 to 3 have clarified in the response filed by them that it was respondent No.4 who was found to be better suited for the job in issue on the basis of her academic and technical qualifications. 6. In my considered view, when it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was not qualified to be considered for appointment against the post of Instructor, then simply because the petitioner feels that she was more qualified than the selected candidate, the same does not confers upon the petitioner any right to pray for setting aside of the appointment of selected candidate. This, I say for the reason that selection of a qualified candidate cannot be set at naught by the Court, until and unless the Court is satisfied that the appointment was not on merit, but due to some extraneous reasons. 7. In this case, no malafides have been alleged against the Selection Committee that selection of respondent No.4 was for extraneous reasons and was not on merit. 7. In this case, no malafides have been alleged against the Selection Committee that selection of respondent No.4 was for extraneous reasons and was not on merit. That being the case, this Court cannot at this stage enter into the subjective analysis of adjudging as to who was the better candidate, because in my considered view, it was the Selection Committee which was the best Judge in the cause and the decision of the said Committee has to be respected in the absence of there being any material on record to substantiate that selection of respondent No.4 was not on merit, but on extraneous considerations. 8. Thus, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.