Judgment K.J. Shetty, C.J. 1. IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the validity of the selection of respondent no. 4 fur the post of the principal of Baba Barua Das Mahavidyalaya, Paruiya Ashram Faizabad. 2. THE selection was made by a statutory Commission. THE Commission was constituted under the provisions of U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (shortly called the Act). THE Commission consisted of eminent academicians including some experts in certain disciplines. There were in all six posts of principals for being filled up. THE petitioner and respondent No. 4 were among the candidates for consideration by the Commission. The petitioner possessed minimum qualification prescribed for the post of the Principal, but not respondent No. 4. The Commission, however, relaxed the minimum qualification of respondent No. 4, on the ground that he has to his credit very high standard of research work. 3. ON the comparative assessment of the qualifications and the experience of candidates a merit list was prepared by the Commission. In that list the petitioner has been ranked at serial No. 21, and respondent No. 4 at serial No. 3. Since there were only six posts to be filled up quite naturally, the respondent No. 4 was selected and posted, but not the petitioner. 4. BEFORE us, counsel for the petitioner urged three contentions ; first relates to the method adopted by the Commission for relaxation of the minimum qualification ; second relates to the power of relaxation exercised by the Commission and the third one we will presently set out. The first two contentions urged, should not detain us any longer. We have already considered the validity, of these contentions in Writ Petition No. 6057 of 1986, The Committee of Management v. State of U.P., 1987 AWC 248 which has been disposed of yesterday by a Bench of which one of us was a member (Hon'ble K. J. Setty C.J.). There it was observed that the Commission has got power to relax the minimum qualification prescribed for the post irrespective of the fact whether the candidate has asked for such relaxation or not. That case also pertains to the selection of respondent No. 4, and the decision therein, therefore, binds us. 5. WHAT remains to be considered in this petition is the third contention. That case also pertains to the selection of respondent No. 4, and the decision therein, therefore, binds us. 5. WHAT remains to be considered in this petition is the third contention. It was urged that there was no research paper submitted by the respondent no. 4 for scrutiny by the Commission and without examining the research work of the candidates, the Commission could have not relaxed the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of principal. This contention again does not merit a serious consideration. There is no factual foundation in the pleadings in regard to this contention. However, we have perused the proceedings of the Commission. We have no reason to believe that the Commission without scrutiny of the research work of candidates has relaxed the minimum qualification to be possessed by any candidates. The procedure adopted by the Commission for considering the merits of candidates will have to be presumed to be in accordance with law in the absence of acceptable proof to the contrary. The Commission, as we have stated consisted of high academicians. The Court must have regard to their status, experience and method of assessing the merits of candidates. The Commission had the benefit of experience and assistance of experts too. The decision of such a Commission should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Court in exercise of Writ Petition. 6. BEFORE parting with the case, we may just refer to the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was said that the Commission had not the benefit of an expert's opinion in dealing with the comparative merits of candidates. Here again we have perused the proceeding of the Commission. The records reveal to the contrary. The Commission was associated with three experts and all the three experts have concurred with the selection of respondent No. 4. The learned counsel after looking into the record has very fairly did not press this contention. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. 7. COUNSEL made a request for certificate for leave to appeal to Supreme Court. We are of the opinion that the case does not involve a substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Certificate prayed for is, therefore, refused. Petition dismissed.