JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P4 notification dated 11.10.2023 issued by the 1 st respondent Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, for the post of Public Relations Officer in the 3 rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 select list dated 02.07.2024 published by the 1 st respondent Recruitment Board. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to conduct interview of the candidates afresh, in the presence of an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by this Court. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner applied for the post of Public Relations Officer in the 3 rd respondent Devaswom Board. The 1 st respondent Recruitment Board conducted a written test and interview on 18.02.2024 and 27.06.2024, respectively. The petitioner acquired the highest mark in the written test. But in order to avoid ladies coming to the said post, the interview board has given the least mark to the petitioner. None of the academic credentials or previous experiences of the petitioner were considered. Even though the petitioner answered all the questions asked in the interview, the interview board purposefully granted the least mark to her solely for avoiding a lady being placed in the top rank. 3. On 12.07.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge, it was submitted that identical cases are posted before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters. Therefore, by the order dated 12.07.2024, this writ petition was directed to be listed before the Division Bench, after obtaining the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary orders, the writ petition is listed before the Division Bench on 18.07.2024. 4. On 19.07.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application to amend the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 seeking various interim reliefs. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 were filed on 18.07.2024 and I.A.No.3 of 2024 was filed on 20.07.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2024 on 20.07.2024 seeking an order to amend the writ petition, as stated in that interlocutory application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 seeking various interim reliefs. I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 were filed on 18.07.2024 and I.A.No.3 of 2024 was filed on 20.07.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2024 on 20.07.2024 seeking an order to amend the writ petition, as stated in that interlocutory application. By the order dated 29.07.2024, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 were closed and I.A.No.3 of 2024 was dismissed as not pressed. I.A.No.4 of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to implead the candidates, who are included in Ext.P7 select list, as additional respondents 4 to 14, and to amend the writ petition as stated in that interlocutory application, was allowed. The learned Standing Counsel for Devaswom Recruitment Board took notice for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board for the 3 rd respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to additional respondents 4 to 14. 5. The 4 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated23.08.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(h) documents. Paragraphs6 to 9 of that counter affidavit read thus; “6. It is submitted that this respondent is having vast experience in public relations. The 4 th respondent has worked as a Journalist as Reporter/Sub Editor in Mathrubhumi News Channel and as a Sub Editor in the Information Public Relations Department, Government of Kerala. A true copy of the Certificate of Experience dated 8.12.2022 issued by the Manager-HR & Administration, Mathrubhumi News Channel to the 4 th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(c). The 4 th respondent has also worked as a Sub Editor in the Information Public Relations Department for the period from 1.2.2022 to 31.1.2023 and from 21.3.2023 to 20.1.2024. A true copy of the Certificate of Experience dated 20.1.2024 issued by the Information Officer, Information Public Relations Department to the 4 th respondent for the period 1.2.2022 to 31.2.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(d). A true copy of the Certificate of Experience dated 20.1.2024 issued by the Information Officer, Information Public Relations Department to the 4 th respondent for the period 21.3.2023 to 20.1.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(e). 7. A true copy of the Certificate of Experience dated 20.1.2024 issued by the Information Officer, Information Public Relations Department to the 4 th respondent for the period 21.3.2023 to 20.1.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(e). 7. It is submitted that Exhibits R4(c) to R4(d) are only experience certificates to prove that the 4 th respondent is having vast experience in the field of Journalism and the same is not a part of the essential qualification prescribed in the notification. At the time when the 4 th respondent applied for the post, he was working as a Sub Editor in the Information Public Relations Department and Exhibits R4(d) and R4(e) Certificates are obtained are on 20.1.2024, that is before the interview. 8. It is submitted that the 4 th respondent has secured 67 marks in the written test and he was awarded 7 marks in the interview, taking into consideration the credentials and experience of this respondent. Accordingly, this respondent has secured 74 marks and was placed as rank No.1 in Exhibit P7 ranked list. 9. It is submitted that this respondent was advised on 9.7.2024 and the appointment order was issued by the Devaswom Commissioner to the 4 th respondent on 15.7.2024. A true copy of the Advice Letter dated 9.7.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent to the 4 th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(f). A true copy of the Memo of Appointment ROC.NO.52/12/EST-A dated 15.7.2024 issued by the Devaswom Commissioner-in-charge to the 4 th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(g). The 4 th respondent joined the service on 18.7.2024. A true copy of the Proceedings No. ROC No.9321/24/Est-1 dated 25.7.2024 issued by the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(h).” 6. The learned Standing Counsel for Devaswom Recruitment Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 30.10.2024, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that counter affidavit read thus; “3. The 3 rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board as per letter dated 02.09.2023 reported one vacancy of PRO to 1 st respondent Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (’KDRB’ herein). 1 st respondent issued notification for the PRO post as category No. 11/2023 on 11.10.2023 with last date of notification as 09.11.2023. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that counter affidavit read thus; “3. The 3 rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board as per letter dated 02.09.2023 reported one vacancy of PRO to 1 st respondent Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (’KDRB’ herein). 1 st respondent issued notification for the PRO post as category No. 11/2023 on 11.10.2023 with last date of notification as 09.11.2023. The qualifications for the said post are as follows: (i) Degree from any recognized university (ii) PG diploma in Public Relations/Journalism OR its equivalent qualification. Written test was conducted on 18.02.2024 at Thiruvananthapuram. Short List (No. 07/2024) was published on 09.04.2024 on the basis of the written test. A total of 13 persons are included in the Short List. After publishing the Short List, their certificates were verified on 02.05.2024 and rejected the application of one candidate as he was found not qualified to apply. Interview was held on 27.06.2024 for all the 12 candidates included in the Short List. The interview was conducted by KDRB as per the provisions of Rule 7 of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Rules, 2015. Subject expert and representative of TDB were also there in the Interview Board. Ranked List was published on 02.07.2024 (Exhibit P7 in writ petition) and advice memo was issued to the 1 st rank holder on 09.07.2024. Exhibit P7 ranked list was prepared on the basis of written test and interview by the Board including experts. The interview board give marks to each candidate after assessing the performance of every candidate appeared before them. The marks of the written examination was not be revealed before the interview board. 4. The allegation of the applicant that as she is a lady, the interview board has purposefully given the least mark to her is only her assumption. There is no discrimination from the part of the Board which is clear from the ranked list itself that the second highest mark of ’6’ awarded is to a lady named Aswathy Krishnan P.P along Jishnu Namboothiri P.J. It may be seen that in Ext. P7, the first person in the supplementary rank list of Hindu Scheduled caste, OBC, Hindu Nadar are ladies. Hence the allegation of the petitioner is not legally tenable. There is no gender discrimination on the part of the Interview Board. The Interview Board gave marks to applicant after assessing the performance of the applicant. P7, the first person in the supplementary rank list of Hindu Scheduled caste, OBC, Hindu Nadar are ladies. Hence the allegation of the petitioner is not legally tenable. There is no gender discrimination on the part of the Interview Board. The Interview Board gave marks to applicant after assessing the performance of the applicant. Exhibit P7 is the first ranked list issued by this respondent in the post of PRO of Travancore Devaswom Board. As per Rule 3(2) of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Rules, 2015, the reservation and rotation as provided in Rules 14 to 17 of the Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, shall mutatis mutandis apply. As per Rule 14 of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, the first vacancy shall be filled up from open competition. Hence the allegation of the writ petitioner that she is entitled to get the appointment under reservation category is not legally maintainable.” 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 14.01.2025 on behalf of the 3 rd respondent Board. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus: “4. It is submitted that the Travancore Devaswom Board published Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service Rules, 2022 on 20-06-2022. As per the above Rule, the appointment of Public Relations Officer is by direct recruitment from a select list prepared and approved by the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board. The qualification prescribed for the post of Public Relations Officer is (i) any degree from a recognised University and (ii) P.G Diploma in Public Relations/ Journalism or its equivalent. 5. The Travancore Devaswom Board reported the vacancy of Public Relations Officer to the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board on 02-09-2023. The respondents 1 & 2 conducted a selection process and published Exhibit-P7 rank list on 02.07.2024. The second respondent advised the 4 th respondent, who is the first rank holder for appointment to the post. Accordingly, the Devaswom Commissioner issued appointment order, ROC.NO.52/12/EST-A dated 15-07-2024 to the 4 th respondent. The fourth respondent joined service on 18-07-2024 FN. 6. The petitioner challenges the selection process questioning the award of marks by the interview Board. It is submitted that the marks awarded in an interview will be on the basis of the performance of the candidate in the interview. The fourth respondent joined service on 18-07-2024 FN. 6. The petitioner challenges the selection process questioning the award of marks by the interview Board. It is submitted that the marks awarded in an interview will be on the basis of the performance of the candidate in the interview. Moreover it is the settled legal proposition that reassessment of the merits of individual candidates is legally impermissible in exercise of the power of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. M.V Thimmaiah Vs Union Public Service Commission [ 2008(2) SCC 119 ] & Baidyanath Yadav Vs Aditya Narayan Rov [ 2020(16) SCC 799 ].” 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the 3 rd respondent and also the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent. 9. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P7 select list prepared by the 1 st respondent Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, for recruitment to the post of Public Relations Officer in the 3 rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P7 select list is one prepared by giving a go-by to the merit of the individual candidates. Such a procedure has been adopted only to deny the petitioner, who secured the maximum mark in the written test, appointment as Public Relations Officer in Travancore Devaswom Board. Based on the pleadings on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been discriminated for the reason that she is a lady. According to the learned counsel, the duties and responsibilities of Public Relations Officer require the presence of that officer at Sabarimala Sannidhanam, when Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple remains open during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival seasons. 11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Recruitment Board and the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the additional 4 th respondent would contend that no interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted in the assessment of merit of the individual candidates by the interview board of the Devaswom Recruitment Board, which has culminated in the preparation of Ext.P7 select list. 12. 12. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that the allegation contained in the writ petition that the petitioner being a lady, the interview board purposely gave least mark to her is only her assumption. There is no discrimination from the side of the Recruitment Board, as evident from Ext.P7 select list, in which the petitioner secured the second highest mark, i.e., 6 marks. In addition to that, the first person in the supplementary list for Hindu Scheduled Caste, OBC and Hindu Nadar are lady candidates. The interview board gave marks to the applicant after assessing her performance. Since Ext.P7 select list is the first select list prepared by the Devaswom Recruitment Board for the post of Public Relations Officer in the 3 rd respondent Devaswom Board, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 3(2) of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Rules, 2015, read with Rules 14 to 17 of Part II Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, the first vacancy shall be filled up from open competition. Accordingly, the additional 4 th respondent, who is Rank No.1 in Ext.P7 select list, was advised for appointment as Public Relations Officer in Travancore Devaswom Board. 13. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Recruitment, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the additional 4 th respondent, reassessment of merits of individual candidates is legally impermissible in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of violation of statutory rules, bias, mala fides or arbitrariness in the selection process, as held by the Apex Court in M.V.Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission [ (2008) 2 SCC 119 ] and Baidyanath Yadav v. Aditya Narayan Roy [ (2020) 16 SCC 799 ] . It is not within the domain of this Court, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, except cases in which there are proven allegations of violation of statutory rules, inherent arbitrariness, etc. It is not within the domain of this Court, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, except cases in which there are proven allegations of violation of statutory rules, inherent arbitrariness, etc. In exercise of the power of judicial review, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the selection committee or assume appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the selection committee in the viva voce are excessive or not corresponding to the performance of the respective candidates. 14. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 select list prepared by the 1 st respondent Devaswom Recruitment Board for the post of Public Relations Officer in the 3 rd respondent Devaswom Board. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.