KAN SINGH, J.—This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Dr.K.L. Manaria for an appropriate writ, direction or order. He has sought a two-fold relief: (1) for ousting Shri R.C. Sharma, respondent No. 3, from the post of Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Police Forensic Science Laboratory on the ground that he was not qualified to hold the post, and (2) for a direction against the respondent State to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director. 2. On 25-8 69, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, issued advertisement No.7 inviting applications, inter alia, for the post of an Assistant Director ( Chemical Section ) for the Directorate of Police Forensic Science Laboratory. The qualifications prescribed were: (a) M.Sc. II Division in Chemistry (b) should have 2-3 years research experience. Pay: 700-40-1100-50-1200. Age on 14-10-1969: Mini-mum 16 years and maximum 35 years. (16 seem to be a mistake for some other figure regarding age, because it is not understandable that a person of 16 would be a M.Sc. in the II Division with a Research experience of 2-3 years, but what was the minimum age in the advertisement is immaterial). 3. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 as also some others had applied for the post. The Commission interviewed the candidates and eventually the Government in pursuance of its recommendations appointed respondent No. 3 as Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Police Forensic Science Laboratory on 3-10-1970. The petitioner avers that whereas he was eligible for the post the nan-petitioner was not, as he was not having any research experience or at any rate research experience of 2 to 3 years as required by the advertisement. The petitioner further took the position that in the first instance respondent No. 3 was not called for interview, but on account of some influence which was made to operate on the Public Service Commission, the latter was persuaded to invite him for interview. Even so the petitioner claims that his name was recommended at No. 2. The petitioner goes on to say that the Government had appointed the respondent No. 3 even though he was not qualif-ed and had turned down the petitioners case even though he was qualified. 4. The writ petition has been opposed both by the State and respondent No. 3 Shri R.C. Sharma. The petitioner goes on to say that the Government had appointed the respondent No. 3 even though he was not qualif-ed and had turned down the petitioners case even though he was qualified. 4. The writ petition has been opposed both by the State and respondent No. 3 Shri R.C. Sharma. It is denied that respondent No. 3 was not qualified to be appointed to the post or that the petitioner had been recommended by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment as claimed by him. It is further stated that this interview was conducted by the Public Service Commission which comprised the Chairman and three of its members as also Shri Vishnu Datt Sharma, Home Commissioner and Secretary to the Government. Further the Commission was assisted by two experts in the subject namely, one Professor R.C. Kapoor, Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry, University of Jodhpur and the other Dr. V.S. Murti, Professor of Chemistry, Delhi University. The State in its reply further submits that the respondent No. 3 was holding the post of Assistant Director, Chemical Section, in the Directorate of Police Forensic Science Laboratory since 2-12-67 on temporary basis. Respondent No. 3 had further worked for a period of 6 years as Archaeological Chemist. The duties of an Archaeological Chemist, according to the State, were to carry out research and experiments in chemical analysis, restoration and preservation of objects de art of archaeological interest. Further, according to the State, respondent No. 3 had received training under the Archaeological Chemist for India at Dehradun and was awarded a certificate on its completion. Then the Director of Archaeology and Museums had appreciated his services and awarded him a testimonial. When the post of an Assistant Director (Chemical Section), Police Forensic Laboratory, was created the Government appointed respondent No. 3 on the post as they found that he possessed the academic qualifications and the required experience for the post. Since 2-12-67, the reply of the Government goes on, the respondent had been performing the duties of the post. The Government had to extend the period of temporary appointment of the respondent and accordingly had sought the concurrence of the Commission and the Commission gave its concurrence for a specified period. Since 2-12-67, the reply of the Government goes on, the respondent had been performing the duties of the post. The Government had to extend the period of temporary appointment of the respondent and accordingly had sought the concurrence of the Commission and the Commission gave its concurrence for a specified period. As the Commission could not select arid make recommendations for appointment of any suitable person, the Commission, according to the State, who had before them the academic qualifications and the experience required for the post had examined the academic qualifications and experience possessed by respondent No. 3 at the time of giving their concurrence. The State further maintained that the respondent No. 3 has been performing the duties of Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Directorate of Police Forensic Science Laboratory, and had gained research experience in the particular branch of Chemical Examination and Analysis. The State denied that the petitioners name was recommended by the Public Service Commission. According to them, the Public Service Commission recommended only one name and that was of respondent No. 3 and he was accordingly appointed. Then as regards the interview held by the Commission in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the State submits that once again the Commission had scrutinised the academic qualifications and experience of respondent No. 3 and were satisfied that he was eligible for the post. Then it was stated that the Commission had before them the certificate that was issued to respondent No. 3 by Dr. Satya Prakash, Director of Archaeology and Museums and apart from this the Commission had made enquiries from respondent No. 3 and had further examined the nature of his duties as the Archaeological Chemist with reference to the duties the per-formed as Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Directorate of Police Forensic Science Laboratory, and it was on such satisfaction which was arrived at with the assistance of two experts in the subject that the Commission had found the respondent qualified and had eventually recommended his name for appointment. 5. Respondent No. 3 in his reply falls in line with the State and further submits that during the interview the Commission enquired from the respondent about his research experience. He was questioned by the experts and on such questioning the Chairman expressed that the Commission had looked into his qualifications and eligibility and were satisfied about it. 5. Respondent No. 3 in his reply falls in line with the State and further submits that during the interview the Commission enquired from the respondent about his research experience. He was questioned by the experts and on such questioning the Chairman expressed that the Commission had looked into his qualifications and eligibility and were satisfied about it. The respondent No. 3 further states that the Home Commissioner, who was also present, informed the Commission about the excellent work done by respondent No. 3 during the preceding 2-1/2 years. 6. The case came up for hearing earlier before Singhal J. and in pursuance of an order passed by him on 6-9-73 the respondent No. 3 had submitted a detailed affidavit enumerating the various jobs done by him which, according to him, were in the nature of research work. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that what the petitioner had done in the Archaeological Department cannot be characterised by accepted cannons to be a research work so as to qualify him for the post and further, according to the learned counsel, there was nothing to show that the research work had been done for 2 to 3 years. Learned counsel referred me to various dictionaries and books on the subject of Chemistry and Industrial Research for showing as to what is conveyed by the word "research". Learned counsel argued that the respondents had not stated that any papers were placed by respondent No. 3 before the Public Service Commission at the time of interview beyond Dr. Satya Prakashs certificate and that apart whatever material he has now placed before the Court either in the shape of an affidavit or the published material will hardly make out any case of research. 8. I may briefly refer to the various dictionaries and other books to which my attention was invited by learned counsel on either side. 9. The word "Research" according to Websters Third New International Dictionary page-1930 means: careful or diligent search: a close searching: studious inquiry or examination critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation having for its aim the discovery of new facts and their correct interpretation, the revision of accepted conclusions, theories or laws in the light of newly discovered facts, or the practical applications of such new or revised conclusions, theories or laws. 10. 10. In the Oxford English Dictionary the word "Research" has been defined to mean: A search or investigation directed to the discovery of some fact by careful consideration or study of a subject; a course of critical or scientific inquiry. 11. In the Words and Phrases Vol. 37, by West Publishing Company, the word "Research" has been defined as: the endeavur to discover, to develop, and to verify knowledge and as careful or critical inquiry or examination in seeking facts or principles, and does not usually involve or result in invention. 12. In the Words and Phrases by Butterworths, 1970 Edition at page 19, the connotation of the phrase "Scientific Research" is given as research and development in any of the sciences (including the social sciences) or in technology (Science and Technology Act 1965). The term "Scientific research" means any activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge. 13. In the Encyclopedia of Chemistry by Reinhold Publishing Corporation the term "Research" has been stated to be as follows:— "Research. This embraces a wide field. New products are dependent on chemical analysis for their existence, especially so in these days of rapidly multiplying new drugs, new types of metals for automotive products and anti-corrosive use, materials for building and the many products that are raising our standard of living. All are based on research backed up by analysis. Special laboratories are often set apart for research in methods of analysis. This work may not always show immediate results in terms of economical operation, but will almost invariably do so in the long run. Laboratories of a national character such as the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research in Pittsburgh, Pa, have been established for fundamental research in basic industries" Then learned counsel referred me to a number of passages from the Theory and Practice of Industrial Research by Hertz at pages 6, 11, 80, 167, 276 and 285. I need not reproduce all the passages and thereby encumber this judgment. I may, however, reproduce the passage at page-6 and, to my mind that brings out the essentials of what is research: "Research has been defined above as the application of human intelligence in a systematic manner to a problem whose solution is not immediately known. I need not reproduce all the passages and thereby encumber this judgment. I may, however, reproduce the passage at page-6 and, to my mind that brings out the essentials of what is research: "Research has been defined above as the application of human intelligence in a systematic manner to a problem whose solution is not immediately known. Such action may lead to an increase in the body of organized knowledge, but this is not a necessary adjunct to the definition. The observation and recording of data may advance science by the accumulation of informati-on, but unless utilized to solve certain types of problems (to be defined) they are not research. In general, the method of pure observation and recording alone has not been seriously followed by physical scientists. The importance of the problem concept in studying the pattern of research is treated in detail below. Science is not necessarily dependent on research, but practically considered, the largest part of knowledge accretions has been obtained through activity falling within this definition. The exploration of unknown problem areas is what scientists generally recognize as research." Learned counsel further read over to me a long passage from Advanced Organic Chemistry by Jerry March. What it conveyed is that all discoveries made in the laboratory must be published somewhere if the information is to be made generally available. A new experimental result which is not published might as well not have been obtained, insofar as it benefits the entire chemical world. 14. The question whether a particular candidate has or has not the requisite research experience is a question of fact. It is primarily for the Public Service Commission and the appointing authority to see whether a particular candidate does or does not possess the required research experience in the subject. The conclusion reached by the Public Service Commission or the appointing authority for that matter would not be final, but a Court will not normally go behind such a determination or satisfaction of the Public Service Commission or the appointing authority for that matter, unless it finds that there was no basis for the Public Service Commission or the appointing authority for that matter for holding that a particular candidate possessed the required qualification. If a certain conclusion is outrageous or is such that it cannot be reached by a rational person then it will undoubtedly be open to the Court to examine the credentials of the person to hold a particular post. Therefore, the first question to which one has to address himself is whether there was any basis for the Public Service Commission to hold that respondent No. 3 fulfilled the requirements of the advertisement regarding the research experience. The parties are on common ground that there was amongst others a certificate by Dr. Satya Prakash before the Commission the relevant portion of which I may read: It is Annexure-1. In the opening words Dr. Satya Prakash writes that the respondent Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma was an Archaeological Chemist in his department for over six years. After putting down the attitudes of respondent No. 3 Dr. Satya Prakash wrote: "Shri Sharma was sent for training to Dehradun to learn new techniques of chemical analysis, cleaning, and preservation and benefited considerably from that training. He has, during his stay in the department for six years, carried researches in both analytical and preservation fields and is, thus, by qualifications and experience suited to hold any job connected with research in analytical field of chemical branch, With the present background of research in analytical field, he is bound to succeed in life." It cannot be said that what Dr. Satya Prakash had stated in the above certificate was not germane to the consideration of the qualifications of respondent No. 3 for the post for which he was to be interviewed by the Commission. I ought to make it clear that Annexure-1 bears the date 19.9 67, that is, long before the question of advertisement or Shri R.C. Sharmas interview had arisen. This was a matter which could properly be considered by the Commission for seeing whether Shri R.C. Sharma was fulfilling the qualification regarding research exprience or not. Then both the Governments affidavits and the one submitted by respondent No. 3 Shri R.C. Sharma show that the expert members had made enquires from Shri R.C. Sharma about his qualifications. This is believable as naturally the Commission will be enquiring about a person appearing for interview both for seeing his eligibility as well as suitability for the post. Then both the Governments affidavits and the one submitted by respondent No. 3 Shri R.C. Sharma show that the expert members had made enquires from Shri R.C. Sharma about his qualifications. This is believable as naturally the Commission will be enquiring about a person appearing for interview both for seeing his eligibility as well as suitability for the post. The two experts were Professors of University and were, therefore, qualified to judge the kind of research that Shri Sharma may have done. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Dr.Satya Prakash was in no position to have judged the so called research work done by respondent No. 3. I find myself unable to accept this sweeping observation. Dr. Satya Prakash was the Director of Archaeology and Museums and in that capacity could be expected to know what an Archaeological Chemist has to do or the person under him was doing in his Department for that matter. 15. Then I was referred to a short note published by Shri R.C. Sharma in the Researcher, an Official Journal published by the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of Rajasthan, jaipur. It recapitulates what Shri Sharma has done about the painting of a wooden window panel which was acquired from the Amber palace. He had also published two illustrations with it, one of the article before it was chemically treated, and the other after it was so treated. The other publications to which my attention was invited by learned counsel for the respondent were, in my view, not of much use as they were in the nature of more or less, administrations reports regarding the work done by Shri Sharma in the Archaeological Department. 16. Be that as it may, I find myself unable to hold that there was no basis for the Public Service Commission for coming to the conclusion that Shri R.C. Sharma did possess the requisite research experience. Further there is no reason to think in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State that Dr. Manaria, the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Director. 17. In view of what I have said above, I do not find any force in the writ petition which I hereby dismiss, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.