JUDGMENT : Nivedita P. Mehta, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents, calling for the records of the oral interview and afterperusal of the same, to quash and set aside the result of the oral interview dated 08.04.2024 and to hold the same afresh in terms of law and the guidelines as laid down in this regard. The petitioner has further sought to stay the implementation of the final result and the appointment of the selected candidates, i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6 to the post of'Public Health Dentist' in the Directorate ofHealth Services. 3. In brief the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is qualified as a Bachelor of Dental Surgery, and has work experience of20 years and 4 months in her field of work. The petitioner, besides her work experience, is also a Chess player, having participated in the 41sr and 44th National Women Challenger Chess Championships held in the year 2014. 4. The petitioner applied for the post of 'Public Health Dentist' in response to an advertisement dated 13.10.2023 published by respondent no.2 on their official website, inviting applications for the 3 vacant posts of the aforementioned title in the office of respondent no.4. Out of the 3 posts, 2 posts were unreserved and 1 was reserved for OBC candidates with the pay scale of 15,600-39, 100+5, 400/- (pre-revised) (as per revised pay matrix level 10) for persons not exceeding 45 years of age. The educational and other qualifications required for eligibility for the said posts were: (i) A degree qualification included in Part I or Part II of the Schedule to the Dentist Act 1948 (16 of 1948); (ii) Knowledge of Konakni; (iii) Desirable knowledge of Marathi. The last date of filling of an application for the said posts was 27.10.2023. 5. A Computer-Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) was conducted on 18.02.2024. The final result of the test was uploaded on 26.02.2024 on the official website of respondent no.2, wherein the petitioner was placed at the 9th position in the General Category. Ten candidates of the General Category, including the petitioner, were called for oral interview, which was scheduled on 08.04.2024. 6. 5. A Computer-Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) was conducted on 18.02.2024. The final result of the test was uploaded on 26.02.2024 on the official website of respondent no.2, wherein the petitioner was placed at the 9th position in the General Category. Ten candidates of the General Category, including the petitioner, were called for oral interview, which was scheduled on 08.04.2024. 6. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.10.2023, the selection committee came to be constituted for conducting interviews for the post. The panel consisted of 3 persons from the dental field, besides the Chairman of respondent no.2, a qualified person to test knowledge of Konkani, besides two other persons. 7. On 08.04.2024, the result of the oral interview was uploaded, but the petitioner did not find her name in the list of candidates selected for the said posts. It is the contention of the petitioner that persons who had far less experience than that of the petitioner were chosen. The petitioner, dissatisfied by the result of the oral interview and suspecting the mode and method in which the oral interview was conducted, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the office of respondent no.2 on 15.04.2024. By this application, the petitioner sought information as regards the marks of the oral interview before andafter totalling marks given for publications, marks given for experience, marks given for representing the State of Goa at the National Chess Championship. 8. Respondent no.2 replied vide communication dated 06.05.2024 informing the petitioner that the information sought by her cannot be given as the same would impede the due process of recruitment to the post of Public Health Dentist. Aggrieved by this reply, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, Goa of the office of respondent no.2. This appeal was disposed of vide order dated 25.06.2024 stating therein that now that the recruitment process of the post is completed, no intervention of the appellate authority is warranted and the petitioner is entitled to receive the information sought by her. Subsequently, on 28.06.2024, the petitioner was provided the final list of oral interviews, which shows a marking on "consensus". However, it failed to provide the information as sought, which indicates that the basic essentials of an oral interview were either not followed or deliberately suppressed. 9. Subsequently, on 28.06.2024, the petitioner was provided the final list of oral interviews, which shows a marking on "consensus". However, it failed to provide the information as sought, which indicates that the basic essentials of an oral interview were either not followed or deliberately suppressed. 9. According to the petitioner, no proper procedure was followed while conducting the oral interview and the same has been tampered with and attuned to favour certain candidates. Being aggrieved by the manner of conduct of the oral interview for the post of 'Public Health Dentist' in the Directorate of Health Services held on 08.04.2024, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 10. Mr J.A. Lobo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, advanced the following arguments: 10.1. The process and method of oral interview adopted by respondent no.2 is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The result is entirely non-speaking which does not assign any reasonable reasoning for assessing the candidates for the purpose of arriving at the final grade which is awarded. 10.2. The respondent no.2 has not disclosed a specific criteria based on which the candidates in the oral interview were to be assessed. 10.3. It is a requirement for a wholesome assessment on different heads to have members belonging to a diverse set of expertise on the panel, while evaluating a particular candidate. This requirement has been completely ignored. 10.4. The impugned result of the oral interview is arbitrary and illegal, as the petitioner, in spite of being the most experienced candidate, was not selected. Further, the result of the oral interview is not indicative of the application of mind and also has no criteria whatsoever in grading the candidate. An oral interview is to assess the candidate's various aspects, which would include his/her work experience in the said field for which they are being considered. 10.5. The reply received by the petitioner to the application under the Right to Information Act showed a marking of the word "consensus" indicating that the procedure of selection was malicious and illegal. 10.6. The delay in furnishing the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act is indicative of the malicious procedure that has been followed by the selection committee. 10.7. In support of the petitioner's contentions, reliance has been placed on the rulings in State of Assam and Ors. 10.6. The delay in furnishing the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act is indicative of the malicious procedure that has been followed by the selection committee. 10.7. In support of the petitioner's contentions, reliance has been placed on the rulings in State of Assam and Ors. vs. Arabinda Rabha and Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 523 and Minor A. Peeriakaruppan Sobha Joseph vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 1971 (1) SCC 38 . 11. Per Contra, respondent no.2 by way of an affidavit-in-reply as well as by the arguments advanced orally by Mr. Somnath Karpe, the learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.2 sought to make the following submissions: 11.1. The selection committee, composed of members who are experts in their respective domains, have duly considered all the candidates for the posts and has subsequently recommended those who are fit for the post. 11.2. The petitioner, by way of the instant Writ Petition, is calling upon this court to sit in appeal of the decision taken by the selection committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates, which may not be allowed. 11.3. There is no illegality or any patent, material irregularity in the procedure followed by the selection committee. The Selection Committee selected and subsequently made their recommendations based on the material placed for their consideration after testing the candidates on a variety of metrics such as proficiency in the requisite languages, academic qualification and performance, work experience, personality, aptitude and general knowledge. The recommendations of the selection committee were made in accordance with law. 11.4. The claim of the petitioner that she has the most experience in the field relative to the other candidates was duly considered and marks were allotted accordingly. 11.5. It is vehemently opposed that respondent no.2 conducted the oral interview in a manner that would favour certain candidates over others. The panel proceeding to evaluate candidates on the consensus of the members does not render the method adopted by them, violative of the settled principles based on which the evaluation of candidates has to be made. 11.6. The selection of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the consensus of the members of the interview panel is in no way arbitrary or illegal. 11.6. The selection of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the consensus of the members of the interview panel is in no way arbitrary or illegal. The conclusion of the selection process was only arrived at, based on the performance and the merit assessed during the oral interview by a committee of experts in their respective domains. The candidates that were ultimately selected were candidates who qualified as per the Recruitment Rules and scored the highest marks in the oral interview. 12. Mr. Lotlikar, the senior counsel on behalf of respondent no.S, and Mr Sawant, the learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 6 made the following submissions. An affidavit in reply was also placed on record by respondent no. 6, the contents of which are elucidated hereinbelow: 12.1. The instant Writ Petition is frivolous, misconceived and not maintainable in law. 12.2. The recruitment process has already concluded, after which an offer letter was extended by respondent no. 3 vide memorandum dated 11.06.2024 and that upon acceptance of the offer letter on 21.06.2024, respondent no.6 has been appointed and has taken charge of duties at the Sub-District Hospital, Ponda. 12.3. The petitioner relies heavily on her work experience under theNational Health Mission (NHM) as a favourable considerationfor her appointment, however the posting order of theNational Health Mission (NHM) specifically provides that appointment shall be governed by terms and conditions that limit the petitioner's claim to absorption in the State Government Service based on such experience. Regardless of such stipulation, respondent no.6 possesses an experience of more than 1 year with the National Health Mission. 12.4. That both respondents no. 5 and 6 possess all the requisite qualifications for selection including proficiency in Konkani, educational qualifications and work experience, therefore, the appointment is based on merit. 13. This court, vide order dated 18.03.2025, had asked the learned counsel for respondent no.2 to produce minutes maintained by the Selection Committee dated 08.04.2025. Pursuant to the said order, minutes maintained by the Selection Committee dated 08.04.2025 were placed before us in a sealed envelope. In the aforesaid documents, it was noted that the panel constituted for interviewing the candidates had collectively signed the consolidated statement, i.e. the Chairman as well as the members and the 4 advisors. The consolidated sheet of the marks allotted to the candidates was also enclosed. In the aforesaid documents, it was noted that the panel constituted for interviewing the candidates had collectively signed the consolidated statement, i.e. the Chairman as well as the members and the 4 advisors. The consolidated sheet of the marks allotted to the candidates was also enclosed. We directed respondent no.2 to produce the marks allotted to individuals by each member of the panel. 14. In response, learned counsel for respondent no.2, along with the sealed envelope containing the records of the selection process, filed an additional affidavit which was taken on record wherein it was specifically submitted that during the course of the interview, each member of the Selection Committee assessed the candidates independently and upon the conclusion of the assessment, each member allotted marks to each of the candidates. The marks allotted by each member of the Selection Committee to the respective candidates were added up and an average/mean was drawn up by the members of the Selection Committee and the same came to be transcribed in Form 3B, which was duly signed by all the Selection Committee members. The preparation of the Form 3B concluded promptly after the interview and it was signed by all the members of the Selection Committee, thereby attesting to the veracity and correctness of the marks reflected in Form 3B. 15. The aforementioned affidavit further discloses that in all the interviews held by respondent no.2, once Form 3B is prepared considering the mean/average of the marks allotted by the members ofthe Selection Committee, the individual mark list of each member of the Selection Committee is not retained. The final allotment of marks is prepared in terms of Form 3B after considering the mean/average of marks allotted by each of the respective expert committee members. Moreover, the suitability of all the candidates was considered by theSelection Committee, which recommended those candidates who were found most suitable for the post. 16. Having heard the learned counsels on behalf of the respective parties and after perusing the material placed on record, the contention that emerges for our consideration is whether each individual member of the selection committee ought to have allotted marks separately, which would later be consolidated into a consolidated mark sheet on the consensus of the members of the committee. Consequently, whether non-retention of the marks individually as granted by each member of the committee would render the selection process vitiated. 17. Consequently, whether non-retention of the marks individually as granted by each member of the committee would render the selection process vitiated. 17. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. vs. State of jammu and Kashmir and Ors., (2023) 17 SCC 147 It was argued that upon a reading of the aforementioned ruling, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that there is no such requirement. In this light, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 that the marks were individually allotted by the members and thereafter a mean is computed, which is in the form of a consolidated sheet. 18. The law pertaining to when the decision of a selection committee can be subject to judicial interference in writ jurisdiction is well-settled. It is only when an allegation of malaflde or colourabledecision making on the part of the selection committee is levelled, or when the decision of the selection committee is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary that the exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. It has been propounded in various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Courts should generally avoid stepping in the shoes of the selection committee, unless there is a proven allegation of malfeasance or contravention of statutory rules, Courts are discouraged from sitting in appeal over the decisions of a selection committee. The process and considerations that arise in relation to the selection process for any post are likely to be determined based on the specific requirements of the post and therefore, the subjective criteria to be employed in this regard are best left to the wisdom of the committee. Even though the department transcribed only the essential qualification, vesting discretion in the Selection Committee to fix the criteria over and above the minimum stipulated qualification in the advertisement. When a committee composed of experts scrutinises the merits and demerits of the candidates, it would be erroneous on our part to sit in appeal over the decision of the expert committee. 19. The petitioner has taken a position that the selection committee has acted maliciously and has designed the process of the oral interview in such a way that it may be leveraged to favour certain candidates over others. 19. The petitioner has taken a position that the selection committee has acted maliciously and has designed the process of the oral interview in such a way that it may be leveraged to favour certain candidates over others. The onus to substantiate an argument of malice, favoritism, bias or colourable decision making lies on the party making such asubmission. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling of Tajvir Singh Sodhi & ors. (supra) opined as extracted hereunder: "21.4... That the burden of establishing mala fides is heavily on the person who alleges it and the allegations of mala fides are more than often easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a bigh order of credibility." 20. Whereas, to the contrary, the prevailing position of law dictates that there is a presumption in favour of the selection committee, particularly when the committee is a body composed of eminent persons and experts, that such a committee acts fairly without oblique motive. It suffices to say that a selection committee as an autonomous body, bears in mind all the relevant considerations when making a decision. Therefore, to make a submission to the effect that the selection committee has acted with impropriety would cast a burden upon the party making such a submission to satisfactorily impress upon the mind of the court that there, in fact, has been such a transgression. It is our view that the petitioner has failed to discharge this burden. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that there has been a deficiency or wrongdoing on the part of the selection committee. 21. In the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled in a substantially similar issue and framed the question as has been extracted hereunder for convenience: "41. In the present case, the entire selection of the appellants has been quashed by the High Court primarily on the ground ofnon-availability of individual award rolls or marksbeets awarding marks individually. Whether such an irregularity would vitiate the entire selection process and set it at naught is the next aspect of the matter that requires consideration." After deliberating upon the evolution of the law concerning this question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the question as framed in the negative and opined as extracted hereunder: "51. Whether such an irregularity would vitiate the entire selection process and set it at naught is the next aspect of the matter that requires consideration." After deliberating upon the evolution of the law concerning this question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the question as framed in the negative and opined as extracted hereunder: "51. In light of the pertinent selection procedure that was followed, we are unable to hold that the same was mechanical or casual or suffered from irregularities which were so grave or arbitrary in nature so as to justify quashing the entire selection process. Further, we are unable to trace the requirement of individual rolls being signed and verified by the members of the Selection Board, to any statute or rule. Therefore, we cannot sustain the finding of the High Court that the entire selection process was vitiated by such irregularity. The High Court was not justified in quashing and setting aside the entire selection process, more so when sixty-four candidates including the appellants bad been serving on the said post for over a decade. Reliance in chis regard may be placed on Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai [Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., (2007) 8 SCC 644 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 980], wherein it was held that merely because the records could not be produced since they were lost and not available, the appointment could not be cancelled." 22. Bearing in mind the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the instant Writ Petition, we are of the view that it would not be open for this Court to go into detail and to scrutinise the decision taken by the Selection Committee because the committee has properly taken into account, all aspects that may be relevant while considering the candidature of the applicants. 23. Insofar as the two judgments relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, we find that both are distinguishable on facts and the ratio propounded therein is distinct from the legal position that is attracted in the instant Writ Petition. The ruling in Arabinda Rabba and ors. (supra) and A. Peeriakaruppan Sobba Joseph (supra) hold little relevance with regards to the issue at hand. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the ratio propounded in the two rulings does not hold much force. 24. The ruling in Arabinda Rabba and ors. (supra) and A. Peeriakaruppan Sobba Joseph (supra) hold little relevance with regards to the issue at hand. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the ratio propounded in the two rulings does not hold much force. 24. It is well within the exclusive domain of the expert Selection Committee to decide why and the quantum of marks that should be assigned to a candidate and this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the assessment made by the Committee. Hence, we do not find it to be a fit case to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and the questions framed hereinabove are answered in the negative. 25. Rule is discharged.