particularly in respect of distribution of 25 marks which were kept for interview. The record shows that the selection committee consisted of the Collector, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and other members. The record shows that the Committee had decided to give marks if the candidate had experience of work in Government Department or local body. Admittedly, present petitioner was not working in Government Department or local body and she was working in a private institution. Thus, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that she was entitled to get three more marks. The record shows that on the basis of the subject of Degree course she was given additional marks. When the first two candidates had secured more marks than the petitioner in written test, they were given 11.50 and 13 marks respectively in the interview. 18 marks were given to the petitioner in the oral interview. This circumstance is sufficient to show that everything was done fairly by the interview committee and the petitioner got maximum marks in the interview. This Court has carefully gone through the advertisement for ascertaining the eligibility conditions mentioned in the
