a selection committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene. 29. The detailed explanation by the experts being rather technical, we do not propose to burden this judgment with the same, but the learned senior counsel/counsel opposing the MPPSC, who also heard the experts, did not bring to our notice any lacuna in the process adopted or the formula applied, whereby injustice was done to any candidate or any arbitrariness crept in. We, therefore, hold that the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations cannot be found fault with. 30. We may also note that Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 patently harmed the interests of the reservation category candidates, as even meritorious candidates from such categories, who had not availed any reservation