JUDGMENT: VIPIN SANGHI, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the Selection Order dated 26.02.2020, by which respondent no.4 has been selected to the post of Dean of the College of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner also assails the recommendations of the Screening Committee and the Selection Committee as regards the private respondents, who are respondent nos.4 & 5 and the consequential selection of respondent no.4 and placement of respondent no.5 in the wait list. 2. The petitioner also seeks issuance of an appointment order to the post of Dean of the College of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar for tenure of five years. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Professor, Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, College of Technology, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, having adequate qualifications, experience and merit to be appointed as the Dean, College of Technology, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Respondent no.3 i.e. Chief Personnel Officer, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar issued the advertisement on 14.08.2019 inviting applications of eligible candidates for appointment as the Dean of the aforesaid college. 5. The petitioner, apart from respondent nos.4 & 5 and few others, applied for the said post. The Vice- Chancellor of the said university constituted a screening committee. The Screening Committee shortlisted the petitioner and four others for the purpose of conducting interview. 6. The interviews were conducted by the Selection Committee constituted by the Chancellor of the University. After the entire process was completed, the marks were awarded to the five candidates, as follows:- DETAILED PERFORMANCE AND MARKING CHART FOR THE POST OF DEAN/DIRECTOR OR EQUIVALENT POST FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT Advertisement No.A-25/2019 dated 16.08.2019 Date of Interview: 17-02-2020 Name of the post with pay scale: DEAN, COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, PB-4 Rs.37400-67000 and AGP Rs.10000.00+ other allowances (according to six pay commission) Sl. Name of the candidates A B A+B C A+B+C Academic Background Experience, Presentation in the subject, publications and achievements Total Interview performance Grand Total Graduate Degree Master Degree Ph.D. Medal Total 05 05 10 05 25 55 80 20 100 1. Dr. Triveni Prasad Singh 05 05 10 0.0 20 39.75 59.75 9 68.75 2 Dr. Name of the candidates A B A+B C A+B+C Academic Background Experience, Presentation in the subject, publications and achievements Total Interview performance Grand Total Graduate Degree Master Degree Ph.D. Medal Total 05 05 10 05 25 55 80 20 100 1. Dr. Triveni Prasad Singh 05 05 10 0.0 20 39.75 59.75 9 68.75 2 Dr. R.S. Jadoun 05 05 10 0.0 20 38.00 58.00 10 68.00 3 Dr. Alaknanda Ashok 05 05 10 0.0 20 38.00 58.00 18 76.00 4 Dr. Geetam Singh Tomar 04 05 08 0.0 17 38.00 55.00 15 70.00 5 Dr. Hardwari Lal Mandoria 05 05 08 0.0 18 34.50 52.50 10 62.50 7. Consequently, Dr. Alaknanda Ashok, at serial no.3 of the aforesaid tabulation, who is arrayed as respondent no.4, scored the highest marks i.e. 76, whereas Dr. Geetam Singh Tomar scored the second highest marks i.e. 70 - arrayed as respondent no.5, and the petitioner secured the third highest marks i.e. 68.75. 8. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of marks to respondent no.4 and 5 under Column ‘B’ i.e. for “experience, presentation in the subject, publications and achievements”. The maximum marks under Column ‘B’ were fixed at 55. The petitioner was awarded 39.75 marks; and, respondent nos.4 and 5 were awarded 38 marks each. According to the petitioner, respondent nos.4 & 5 were not entitled to be awarded 38 marks, and they have been awarded excess marks by the respondent-university. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the different heads, for which marks were required to be awarded, and the manner in which the evaluation had to be done, was stipulated by the respondents and the Screening/Selection Committee was obliged to follow the same. 9. According to the petitioner, respondent nos.4 & 5 did not deserve the marks awarded to them under the different heads, which form components of the Head ‘B’ i.e. experience, presentation in the subject, publications and achievements. 10. At this stage, we may observe that there is no allegation of any mala fides or bias against the petitioner, or in favour of any of the candidates, much less respondent no.4 & 5, made by the petitioner in respect of any of the members of the Screening/Selection Committee. 10. At this stage, we may observe that there is no allegation of any mala fides or bias against the petitioner, or in favour of any of the candidates, much less respondent no.4 & 5, made by the petitioner in respect of any of the members of the Screening/Selection Committee. It is also not in dispute that the members of the Screening Committee and Selection Committee comprised of competent and qualified persons, whose appointment to the Screening Committee and Selection Committee has not even been challenged by the petitioner. 11. Having said this, we would also like to observe that in matters of selection, particularly, to high ranking post such as Dean, College of Technology, it is not for the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to sit in judgment over the evaluation made by the Competent Screening/Selection Committees, and to interfere with the process of evaluation by delving into the detailed process of assessment and marking of the competing candidates. This Court is primarily concerned with the legality of the decision making process and not with the decision on its merits. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the service profile of respondent no.4 shows that, though she was appointed as Professor by G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar w.e.f. 01.12.2012, she went on deputation, firstly, to CSIR and served as Scientist ‘F’ and, thereafter, she served as Director, Women Institute of Technology, Dehradun. According to the petitioner, these posts, namely, Scientist ‘F’ at CSIR and Director, Women Institute of Technology, Dehradun were lower than that of Professor. 13. We do not find merit in this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, and the submission is liable to be rejected on the face of it. 14. This is for the reason that respondent no.4 having been appointed to the substantive post of Professor at G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar she proceeded on deputation to CSIR and, thereafter, to Women Institute of Technology, Dehradun as Director and, while so proceeding on the deputation, she carried with her, her position/ rank of Professor. This apart, learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the certificate issued by CSIR, which records that respondent no.4 worked as Senior Principal Scientist between 30.07.2010 and 30.06.2014. This apart, learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the certificate issued by CSIR, which records that respondent no.4 worked as Senior Principal Scientist between 30.07.2010 and 30.06.2014. The post of Senior Principal Scientist in CSIR is a post equivalent to that of Professor, which is evident from the document placed before the Court by respondent no.4 i.e. the Eligibility Criteria to be an AcSIR Faculty. 15. The next submission of the petitioner is with regard to the award of marks to respondent no.4 in respect of the publications to her credit. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that papers published in Refereed journals for the last five years carried maximum marks of seven. According to him, only papers which had NAAS rating (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences) could be considered for the purpose of evaluation and marking. The marking scheme in respect of published papers in Refereed journals was the following:- “Paper having NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Scientists) rating more than 7 will be given 0.5 marks each. For those journals where Thompson Reuters Impact Factor is available, the scores will be assigned as 6.00+Impact Factor to equate with NAAS rating.” 16. According to the petitioner, respondent no.4 had only one publication, which had NAAS rating, even though, she had 17 publications to her credit. Respondent no.4 has explained that this interpretation of the petitioner - that only publications having NAAS rating could be considered is fallacious, for the reasons, that NAAS rating is awarded only in respect of publications in the field of Agriculture, whereas, the position for which the petitioner and respondent nos.4 & 5 competed, is that of the Dean, College of Technology, which is having courses in - not merely Agriculture, but in other streams of Science and Technology i.e. Computer Engineering, Information Technology Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering, Industrial and Production Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Agricultural Engineering. 17. We find this explanation to be reasonable and the interpretation advanced by the petitioner - that only publications having NAAS rating, could be considered for the purpose of evaluation does not appeal to us. 18. 17. We find this explanation to be reasonable and the interpretation advanced by the petitioner - that only publications having NAAS rating, could be considered for the purpose of evaluation does not appeal to us. 18. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Screening Committee or the Selection Committee, as these are the matters over which we do not have any expertise, and which the experts in the field have examined. 19. The petitioner has made similar submissions in respect of other attributes for which marks have been awarded to respondent nos.4 & 5. However, we are not inclined to go into those aspects for the reasons we have already indicated hereinabove. 20. We, accordingly, dismissed this writ petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs.