Dr. B. P. Saraf, J.-The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether on interpretation of section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter ''the Act", it is obligatory on the part of the Court to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the contract from amongst the category of persons named in the agreement or it can appoint an Arbitrator of its choice. 2. The appellant National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. hereinafter the Corporation is a Government of India undertaking. The respondent is a private limited company it carries on business of Civil Engineering Contract Works. It entered into an agreement with the Corporation for construction of Gauhati Medical College Hospital (shuttering works) at Dispur. Due to various circumstances, the actual work could not commence and dispute arose between the parties in regard to the condition of contract. There was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties which read as follows :- "Clause 20.-In the event of any dispute arising out of any of the conditions of this contract the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an Engineer of the Corporation (not below the rank of a Resident Engineer) whose decision shall be final and binding on both the parties." 3. In terms of the said clause, the Chairman cum-Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation appointed its Resident Engineer, Sri A.K. Maiti as a sole arbitrator. The respondent-contractor filed an appli­cation in the Court under section 6 read with sub-section 4 of section 20 of the Arbitration Act objecting to the appointment on the ground that the Arbitrator appointed in terms of clause 20 of the contract by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director being Resident Engineer subordinate to the Regional Manager as well as to other high officials in the Corporation there was apprehension of not getting fair and impartial justice and accordingly, prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator from outside the influence of the Corporation. However, in the meantime, Mr. Maiti resigned as he left for Libiya. 1 he Corporation, therefore, wanted to appoint another Arbitrator in terms of clause 20 of the contract agreement. 4. However, in the meantime, Mr. Maiti resigned as he left for Libiya. 1 he Corporation, therefore, wanted to appoint another Arbitrator in terms of clause 20 of the contract agreement. 4. The learned Assistant District Judge by his order dated 29.2.80 directed the Corporation to file the agreement before the Court and observed that if the parties failed to appoint Arbitrator in conformity with the contract agreement appropriate order would be passed as per provisions of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act by appointing an impartial Arbitrator. Therefore, by the impugned order dated 2.4.81, the learned Assistant District Judge appointed Sri N. K. Choudhury, retired District and Sessions Judge, Gauhati as sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties arising out of the contract. 5. The present appeal has been filed challenging, inter alia, the order of the Court in so far as it purports to appoint a person from outside the category of persons named in the arbitration clause in the contract. In other words, the submission on behalf of the Corporation in short is that while appointing Arbitrator under section 20 of the Act, the Court has to give effect to the arbitration clause in the agreement and appoint a person from amongst the category or class of persons named in the arbitration clause. It is prayed that the impugned order appointing Sri N. K. Choudhury, retired District and Sessions Judge as a sole Arbitrator who does not fall in the category of persons named in the arbitration clause should be set aside. It was, however, stated at the Bar that the Arbitrator appointed by the Court namely, Sri N. K. Choudhury died years' back and, as such, the impugned appointment order has automatically become infructuous and the matter has to be remanded to the learned Assistant District Judge for fresh appointment of an Arbitrator. We are satisfied that in view of the factual position stated above, the case has to be remanded to the Court of learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati for fresh appointment of an Arbitrator. 6. Mr. S. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before remanding the matter, the Court should decide the question of law which is very relevant for Court below while appointing a new Arbitrator. We find the submission of Mr. Sen justified. 6. Mr. S. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before remanding the matter, the Court should decide the question of law which is very relevant for Court below while appointing a new Arbitrator. We find the submission of Mr. Sen justified. The sole point for determination of which the appeal was filed was whether the Court appointing an Arbitrator in exercise of power under section 20 of the Act has to act in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement and appoint a person only from amongst the category of persons named therein. The Court below earlier appo­inted a person who was not one falling in the named category of persons. In our opinion, therefore, it is just and proper that we should decide the important question of law which is very relevant for the purpose of deciding the real dispute between the parties in the present appeal in regard to appointment of an Arbitrator. 7. The facts of the case as stated above are in a very narrow campass. The arbitration clause quoted earlier clearly provides that in the event of any dispute arising out of any of the conditions of this contract, the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an engineer of the Corporation (not below the rank of Resident Engineer) whose decision shall be binding on both the parties, A dispute having arisen out of the contract, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation appointed Sri A. K. Maiti. Resident Engineer of said Corporation as sole Arbitrator. The respondent-contractor objected to the appointment on the ground that the Resident Engineer being subordinate to the Regional Manager as well as other high officials of the Corporation, there was apprehension that the respondent-contractor might not get any fair and impartial justice from them and it was claimed that some person other than the one named in the arbitration clause should be appointed as Arbitrator. Accordingly, a petition was filed before the Court of learned Assistant District Judge who appointed a person other than the person named in the arbitration clause as a sole Arbitrator. The said order has been challenged before us in the v present appeal. The point for determination is whether such an action is legal and justified. 8. Accordingly, a petition was filed before the Court of learned Assistant District Judge who appointed a person other than the person named in the arbitration clause as a sole Arbitrator. The said order has been challenged before us in the v present appeal. The point for determination is whether such an action is legal and justified. 8. There is no dispute between the parties that there is an arbitration clause in the contract entered into between the parties which clearly provides for reference of disputes to the sole arbitration of "an engineer of the Corporation" '(hot below the rank of Resident Engineer)", it "also provides that the decision of such an Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. This arbitration clause was known to the parties when they .entered into contract. It was known to them at the time of entering into the contract that the engineers of the Corporation of the rank of Resident Engineer are subordinate to the Regional Manager or other high officials of the Corporation. Knowing this fact fully well, the parties signed the contract. Under such circumstances in our opinion the contractor, being one of the parties to the contract cannot be permitted to object to the appointment of a Resident Engineer of the Corporation only on the ground that he being an employee of the Corporation and subordinate to the higher officials of the Corporation' might not be impartial in this decision. There is no allegation not to speak of material to justify any apprehension in the mind of the respondent-contractor regarding the named Arbitrator. The apprehen­sion is imaginary. As observed in International Airports Authority of India vs. K. D. Bali, 1988 (2) S C C 360, there must be a real likelihood of bias. Vague suspicion of whimsical, capricious and unreasonable people are not the standard to regulate the vision of the Court. It is the apprehension of an average honest man that must be taken note of. In this country in numerous contracts with the Government clauses requiring Superintending Engineer or some official of the Government to be the Arbitrator are there. It cannot be said that the Superintending Engineer, as such, cannot be entrusted with the work of arbitration and an apprehension, simplicitor in the mind of the contractor without any tangible ground, cannot be a ground against appointment of such a person as arbitrator. 9. It cannot be said that the Superintending Engineer, as such, cannot be entrusted with the work of arbitration and an apprehension, simplicitor in the mind of the contractor without any tangible ground, cannot be a ground against appointment of such a person as arbitrator. 9. In Secretary to the Government, Transport Department vs. Manaswamy Mudalier, 1988 (Supp) SCC 651, it was observed by the Supreme Court that unless there was allegation against the named Arbitrator either against his honesty or capacity or malafide or interest in the subject matter or reasonable apprehension of bias, a named Arbitrator cannot and should not be removed in exercise of discretion vested in the Court under section 5 of the Arbitration Act. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court apply with equal force to appointment of Arbitrators by the Courts. In the aforesaid decision, it was further observed "The reasonable apprehension must be based on cogent materials". On the facts of the aforesaid case, the Supreme Jourt while reminding the case back to the Judge, City Court, directed that the Court should ask the Government to appoint the Super­intending Engineer to be an Arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement. 10. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent' referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Sanyal (1979) 3 SCC 631 in support of his submission that under section 20 t'4) of the Act, the Court is not bound to appoint an Arbitrator who has been named in the contract. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision. We are the opinion that the aforesaid decision does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.* In that case under clause 20 of-the agreement, the President of India was to appoint an Arbitrator. The point for consideration was that if no Arbitrator is appointed by the parties and the parties do not agree upon the Arbitrator, whether the Court can proceed to appoint an Arbitrator of its choice. Under such circumstances, it was held that it can do so. It was, however, observed that while doing so, it is reasonable that the Court should consider the feasibility of appointing an Arbitrator according to the terms of the contract. Under such circumstances, it was held that it can do so. It was, however, observed that while doing so, it is reasonable that the Court should consider the feasibility of appointing an Arbitrator according to the terms of the contract. Under the facts and circumstances of the case before it, the Supreme Court in fact asked the President to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the agreement. The aforesaid decision does not apply to the facts of the instant case. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that under section 20 of the Act, the Court should give due regard to the terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement and as far as practicable and feasible to appoint an Arbitrator, if any, named therein. In the instant case, under the terms of clause 20 of the agreement "an engineer of the Corporation" (not below the rank of Resident Engineer)" should be appointed as sole Arbitrator of the dispute. The contention of the contractor that the Resident Engineer of the Corporation cannot be entrusted with the work of arbitration simply because there is apprehension in the mind of the contractor that he being an employee of the Corporation might not be impartial without any tangible ground is not tenable. Mere apprehension of bias cannot be a ground of disqualifying a person otherwise eligible for appointment as an Arbitrator. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Assistant District Judge should appoint an Arbitrator in, terms of the arbitration clause from amongst the engineers of the Corporation not below the rank of Resident Engineer. It is only in the event of non-feasibility of appointing any such person as Arbitrator, that the Court shall be empowered to appointment of some other person of its choice. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 2. 4. 81 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati for expeditious disposal, in accordance with the observations and directions given above. J.M.Srivastava, J.-I agree.