ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The appellant was appointed as Voluntary Teacher on tenure basis under the Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme 1991. Respondent No. 4 challenged his appointment on the basis that he was academically more meritorious than the appellant and that the Selection Committee was not justified in awarding him 21 marks in viva voce as against 16 marks to respondent No. 4. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the application of respondent No. 4 and quashed the selection of the appellant. The appellant has put the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 10th December 1992 in issue.

3. The State Administrative Tribunal, in our opinion, fell in complete error in judging the comparative merit of the candidates and finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant as against 16 marks awarded to respondent No. 4. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the field exclusively reserved for the selection committee. The finding that the appellant manipulated his selection is not supported by any material and reasons and is purely a conjectural finding.

4. In Dalpat Abasahe Solunke, etc. etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc.1, while deal