JUDGMENT : 1. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- Vide Annexure P-1, respondent No.3 invited applications for appointment from eligible candidates to the posts detailed in the advertisement. This advertisement, i.e. advertisement No.33-2 of 2017, was uploaded on the Website in the month of September, 2017. In terms thereof, opening date for submission of online recruitment application form was 16.09.2017 and the closing date for submission of the application form was 15.10.2017. 2. The issue involved in this petition is with regard to the post of Preservation Assistant on contract basis in the department of Language and Culture, which post stood advertised against Post Code No.597. In terms of the advertisement, one post of Preservation Assistant was advertised which was reserved for Scheduled Caste (UR) category. The essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post in issue was B.Sc. with Chemistry from a recognized university and desirable qualification was certificate in Cultural Preservation or one year experience in Cultural Preservation. 3. Petitioner and the private respondent being eligible for being considered for appointment against the post in issue applied for the same. Vide Annexure P-5, i.e. Press Note dated 07.08.2019, respondent No.3 declared the result of written objective type screening test for the recruitment to the post in issue which was held on 26.03.2019. In terms of the Press Note, 83 applications were received for the post in issue, out of which 40 applications were provisionally admitted and in the written objective type screening test held on 26.03.2019, thirteen candidates appeared, out of whom, four candidates were reflected to be short listed for further selection process. 4. It is not in dispute that the private respondent was reflected at serial No.1 viz-a-viz the four candidates short listed and the petitioner was reflected at serial No.3. This reflection of the candidates was by way of depiction of their respective roll numbers allotted to them for participating in the process. Thereafter, vide Press Note, dated 03.09.2019, Annexure P-6, the private respondent was declared to be the selected candidate to the post in issue and feeling aggrieved by the selection of the said respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Mr. Thereafter, vide Press Note, dated 03.09.2019, Annexure P-6, the private respondent was declared to be the selected candidate to the post in issue and feeling aggrieved by the selection of the said respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appointment of private respondent is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the respondent-Commission has erred in not appreciating that in terms of the advertisement for the post, it was only the petitioner who was having the requisite experience of having served against the post in issue, which extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Commission while offering appointment to the private respondent, who was not having any experience at all. On this short count, he has prayed for quashing of the selection of the private respondent. No other point was urged. 6. The petition has been resisted by the respondents. Respondents No.3 and 4 have filed their separate replies, whereas the State has adopted the reply filed by respondent No.3. In its reply, filed by respondent No.3, said respondent has mentioned that the post in issue was advertised by the Commission and it was mentioned in the advertisement that the selection process will be of 100 marks, consisting of 85 marks written examination and 15 marks of evaluation on prescribed parameters. These parameters were clearly defined and spelled out in advertisement Annexure P-3. Said respondent has further mentioned in the reply that respondent No.4 Sanjay Kumar scored 53.26 marks, i.e. 51 marks in written test and 2.26 marks in evaluation, whereas the petitioner scored total 48.83 marks, i.e. 44 marks in written test and 4.83 marks in evaluation. As per the mode of selection,15 marks of evaluation were earmarked by granting 2.5 marks to experience maximum upto five years by granting 0.5 marks for each completed year related to the post applied for in Government/Semi-Government Organization and one mark was earmarked for training related to the post. In terms thereof, the petitioner was awarded one mark for training and 2.5 marks for experience, whereas no marks for experience were granted to respondent No.4. 7. In terms thereof, the petitioner was awarded one mark for training and 2.5 marks for experience, whereas no marks for experience were granted to respondent No.4. 7. On the strength of said reply filed by respondent No.3, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent has also submitted that the selection of the private respondent has been done by respondent No.3 strictly in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and despite due weightage being given to the petitioner with regard to the experience possessed by him, he could not gain appointment as the private respondent had scored more marks than the petitioner in the written test. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 9. It is not in dispute that both petitioner and the respondent were eligible for being considered against the post in issue. The grievance as raised by the petitioner through counsel with regard to selection of the private respondent is on the count that due weightage was not given by respondent No.3 to the experience which the petitioner had and respondent No.4 who was not having any experience at all was recommended for appointment by ignoring the legitimate candidature of the petitioner. 10. In the considered view of the Court, there is no merit in the said contention of the petitioner. Though, there is no dispute that the petitioner was possessing experience which was a desirable qualification in terms of the advertisement, but it also is a matter of record that the selection was to be made on the basis of sum total of evaluation criteria and not just on the basis of experience. It is borne out from the reply filed by respondent No.3 which has not been disputed, that in the written test, private respondent had out-scored the petitioner and thereafter, when the sum total of the marks allotted to the petitioner and the private respondent was done after taking into consideration the marks obtained by them in the objective test as well as marks obtained in evaluation, the marks of the selected candidate i.e. respondent No.4 were much more as compared to the petitioner. This is also borne out from Annexure R4/2, which is the roll number wise result of the candidates declared by respondent No.3 for the post of Preservation Assistant. 11. This is also borne out from Annexure R4/2, which is the roll number wise result of the candidates declared by respondent No.3 for the post of Preservation Assistant. 11. Thus, in view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds that the appointment of respondent No.4 is either in violation of the provisions of the advertisement or the Recruitment and Promotion Rules nor this Court is convinced that due weightage was not given to the experience which the petitioner was possessing and record demonstrates that despite due weightage being given to the petitioner with regard to the experience possessed by him, respondent No.4 outscored him on the basis of the marks scored by him in the objective type screening test, this petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.