JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner, who is an Associate Professor of Soil Sciences and Water Management in the respondent-University, has, in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/22"? of the Constitution of India, prayed for quashing the decision taken by the Board of Management, on the recommendation of the selection committee, approving the appointment of two incumbents for the post of Chief Scientist (Agronomy/Soil Science) and Chief Scientist (Spal Science/Agronomy with specialisation in Water Management). 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent-University issued an advertisement for filling up, amongst others, the post of Chief Scientist (Agronomy/Soil Science) and Chief Scientist (Soil Science/ Agronomy) with specialisation in Water Management (briefly the latter post is to be called as the post in question). The essential qualification for both the posts in question was, amongst others. Ph. D. degree or equivalent in the subject with consistently good academic record. Petitioner was one of the candidates for both the posts. He was interviewed by the selection committee but was not recommended for being appointed by it. Instead it recommended the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Chief Scientist (Soil Science/Agronomy with Specialisation in Water Management) and the recommendation so made was approved by the Board of Management Respondent No. 4, as such, was appointed against the said post. The other candidate, who was appointed against the post of Chief Scientist (Agronomy/Soil Sciences) has not been arraigned as party by the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. The challenge made by the petitioner is three-fold. Firstly, that the composition of the selection committee was not proper. The contention of the petitioner is that statute 4 6 of the respondent-University which provides for the composition of selection committee requires that three subject specialists, amongst others, should be from outside the University. Two out of the same are to be nominated by the Chancellor whereas the third by the Vice-Chancellor. According to the petitioner, Dr. Ranjodh Singh, one of the members of the selection committee, as subject specialist, was not from outside of the University, inasmuch he was a member of the Academic Council, which is an authority of the University as laid down in section 9 (ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya Act (briefly the Act) and as such was not qualified as a member of the selection committee. 4. 4. Secondly, that the two members of the committee, namely, Dr. M.S. Bajwa and Dr. J. S Grewal, though were from outside the University but were subject specialists in Soil Fertility and Chemistry and not in Water Management. Thirdly, that the selection of Dr. C. L. Acharya, respondent No 4, was bad as he was not having the requisite qualification for the post against which he was appointed. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 has done his Ph. D. in Agricultural Physics whereas the requirement for the post in question was that of Ph. D. degree in the subject of Soil Science/Agronomy with specialisation in Water Management. 5. Respondents, to whom the notice of the writ petition was issued, contested the writ petition Respondents Nos 1 and 2 filed the reply on the affidavit of the Registrar of the University justifying the appointment of respondent No. 4 having the requisite qualification and maintained that there was no violation of the rules or that the selection committee was not properly constituted. Respondent No 4 also filed his separate reply Learned Counsel for the parties were heard by us We have given thorough consideration to their submissions but we are unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the reasons to be stated hereinafter. 6. The challenge made by the petitioner with regard to the composition of the selection committee cannot be taken note of in view of his having failed to implead the concerned person, who was appointed against the post of Chief Scientist (Agronomy/Soil Science) which post was filled up on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, which was constituted amongst others by Dr. Ranjodh Singh one of its members, in the writ petition as necessary party According to the petitioner Dr Ranjodh Singh, a Senior Soil Scientist of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, being a member of the Academic Council of the respondent-University should not have been considered as subject specialist from outside the University. Ranjodh Singh one of its members, in the writ petition as necessary party According to the petitioner Dr Ranjodh Singh, a Senior Soil Scientist of Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana, being a member of the Academic Council of the respondent-University should not have been considered as subject specialist from outside the University. The reply of the respondent University to this is that he was a regular employee of the Punjab Agriculture University and was thus not in its employment and merely because being a scientist from outside the University he was nominated to the Academic Council, he cannot be said to be a person from the University as the Academic Council, has nothing to do with the selection of the candidates for various posts. Be it stated that Dr. Ranjodh Singh was not one of the members of the Selection Committee which recommended respondent No. 4 for appointment Since the person likely to be affected, that is, Chief Scientist (Agronomy/Soil Science) has not been joined as a necessary party by the petitioner in the writ petition, he cannot be heard further to agitate the matter in the petition and in this view of the matter we are not inclined to go much deeper into the matter in so far as this aspect of the case is concerned. 7. The next grievance of the petitioner, as stated above, is that the two members constituting the Selection Committee were not subject specialists in Water Management. From the record we find that both these persons were specialists in their respective subjects. Dr. J. S. Grewal was head in the division of crop and Soil Sciences in Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla and Dr M. S Bajwa was Professor of Soils, Department of Soils, Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana. Both of them are stated to be having great experience and achievements to their credits Dr. Grewal, who is Head of Division of Crop and Soil Sciences in CPRI is also working in managing various fields of Soil Sciences and Agronomy, which includes Water Management. No further material has been brought to our notice on behalf of the petitioner to repudiate the stand taken by ^he respondents and in view of all this we are of the opinion that the two experts were subject specialists and were fully qualified to be members of the Selection Committee. 8. No further material has been brought to our notice on behalf of the petitioner to repudiate the stand taken by ^he respondents and in view of all this we are of the opinion that the two experts were subject specialists and were fully qualified to be members of the Selection Committee. 8. The last and main stress of the arguments of the petitioner was that respondent No. 4 was not having the requisite qualification for the post in question and that his Ph- D. degree was in Agricultural Physics from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, which is altogether a different subject than that of Soil Science and Agronomy with specialisation in Water Management. This stand of the petitioner has been controverted by the respondents. This Court on June 9, 1987, before the admission of the writ petition, on the request of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University permitted it to place on record a supplementary affidavit to satisfy the Court that respondent No. 4 possessed the requisite qualification for admission to the post in question. The said affidavit dated July 10, 1987, sworn by the Registrar was placed on record and according to the same the University had addressed communications to three experts alongwith the requisite material, which included the titles of Ph. D. thesis of respondent No. 4 and the courses which he had offered during his Ph. D programme. These experts were asked to opine as to whether a candidate who had done his Ph. D. thesis in "Factors affecting thermal properties of soils and water movement under thermal gradients" and who had offered various courses, details of which were contained in the communication could be said to be having the requisite qualification for the post, that is, specialisation of Soil Science/Agronomy and Water Management or specialisation of Soil Physics/soil water conservation and management. On the basis of the information received from the experts, the aforesaid affidavit was filed stating that respondent No 4 was duly qualified for the post in question and was rightly selected by the Selection Committee Annexures R-IX to R-XI are the copies of the communications and Annexures R-VII to R-IV are the opinions of the experts. Incidently, it may be mentioned that out of the three experts, two were from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the Institute from where respondent No. 4 had done his Ph. Incidently, it may be mentioned that out of the three experts, two were from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the Institute from where respondent No. 4 had done his Ph. D. After the filing of this affidavit, the petitioner again challenged, with details, the opinion of the experts by asserting that Agricultural Physics, in which respondent No. 4 had done his Ph. D-, is only soil Physics which includes study of soil moisture relating to crop protection, whereas, Agronomy and Soil Science are altogether different subjects. In support of his submission, the petitioner placed on record extracts from the calendar (1975-76) of the Post-Graduate School of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. With the help of the learned Counsel for the parties, we went through various details contained in the documents and we find from document Annexure R-4/3 that respondent No. 4 while doing his Ph. D. programme had undergone and studied the following courses;—- (a) Soil and Water Conservation and Soil Reclamation. (b) Soil Geology. (c) Physical Chemistry of Soils. (d) Principles and Practices of Irrigation and Drainage. (e) Nuclear Physics. (f) Ionic Migration through Soils. (g) Soil Hydrology. 9. On the strength of the materials placed by the petitioner, his contention is that the subjects offered for study by respondent No 4 in Ph. D. were not the same or equivalent as required for the post in question, whereas the case of the respondents is that the courses offered by him were sufficient to qualify him to hold the post in question. Not only the members of the Selection Committee but the Board of Management as well as the three experts were of the view that he possessed the requisite qualification desired for the post in question. 10. The question which requires consideration is whether this Court is justified in going through various minute details to find as to whether respondent No. 4 possessed or did not possess the requisite qualification for the post in question at the relevant time, especially, in the absence of any allegation of their being an element of bias or mala fides. In our opinion, it will not be proper for this Court to go into such details while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. In our opinion, it will not be proper for this Court to go into such details while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. In The University of Mysore v. C D. Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 13 of the report, observed as under— Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments . following on them, are challenged before Courts, normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board ; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be..................In dealing with complaints made by citizens in regard to appointments made by academic bodies, like the Universities, such an approach would not be reasonable or appropriate. In fact, in issuing the writ, the High Court has made certain observations which show that the High Court applied tests which would legitimately be applied in the case of writs of certiorari......,...........What the High Court should have considered is whether the appointment made by the Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard to the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations on which the Chancellor has acted......" 11. While examining a similar question in State of Bihar and others v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee and others, (1975) 3 SCC 602, the Supreme Court was of the view that the Court should not evaluate comparative merits of the contesting candidates. It said in para 21 of its report as under:— "......once the right to appoint belonged to Government the Court could not usurp it merely because it would have chosen a different person as better qualified or given a finer gloss or different construction to the regulation or on the score of a set formula that relevant circumstances had been excluded, irrelevant factors had influenced and such like grounds familarly invented by parties to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. True, no speaking order need be made while appointing a Government servant. True, no speaking order need be made while appointing a Government servant. Speaking in platitudinous terms propositions may deserve serious reflection. The administration should not be thwarted in the usual course of making appointments because somehow it displeases judicial relish or the Court does not agree with its estimate of the relative worth of the candidates Is there violation of a Fundamental Right, illegality or akin error of law which vitiates the appointment ? The overlooking of alleged superlative abilities claimed by Dr. Mukherjee is not of judicial concern but of public resentment and individual injustice, if wrongly discarded by an appointing authority -in the absence of proof of bad faith or oblique exercise or other error of law. Nor is the corrective judicial review but an appeal to other democratic processes which hold sanctions against misdoings of any administration and its minions. The Court is net to evaluate comparatively but to adjudicate on legal flaws." 12. The Selection Committee constituted of experts in the academic field. Atleast three of its members were specialists in the concerned subjects, who were from outside the University. In the absence of any plea of bias or mala fides, it cannot be presumed that they acted irrationally or that they did not consider the fact that the candidate selected was not having the requisite qualification. Not only this, the matter, thereafter, was examined by three experts, who had also opined that respondent No. 4 possessed the requisite qualification. This Court in exercise of the jurisdiction will not be justified in sitting in appeal over the decision of Selection Committee and to embark upon the enquiry of equivalent of qualification which is a highly technical subject. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others v. Dr. This Court in exercise of the jurisdiction will not be justified in sitting in appeal over the decision of Selection Committee and to embark upon the enquiry of equivalent of qualification which is a highly technical subject. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others v. Dr. B. S. Mahajan and others, (1990) 1 SCC 305, the apex Court has sounded a word of caution, by observing in para 12 of its report as under :— "It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject The Court has no such expertise......" 13. The contention of the petitioner is that the experts while giving their opinion that respondent No. 4 possessed the requisite qualification, they have not given the reasons therefor and, therefore, be is unable to pin-point the short comings in their opinion. We may state that this court is not the proper forum to adjudicate and decide the questions relating to equivalence of qualification and to find out whether the subjects offered by a candidate in Ph D. programme for studies included those subjects which were required for the post in question The Court is only required to see that there should be no contravention of the rules, ordinances, statutes of the University while making the appointment and the constitution of the Selection Committee should be proper We do not find any infraction of any rule, statute or ordinance. The Selection Committee as well as the experts in the field have opined and expressed their view by saying that respondent No. 4 had the desired qualification and in the absence of mala fides or bias against those experts, we decline to interfere in the matter. The Selection Committee as well as the experts in the field have opined and expressed their view by saying that respondent No. 4 had the desired qualification and in the absence of mala fides or bias against those experts, we decline to interfere in the matter. In saying so, we are supported by the observations of the Supreme Court in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Palntal and others, (1990) 2 SCC 746, wherein it has been held that : "It is not unimportant to point out that in matters of appointment in the academic field the court generally does not interfere..........this court observed that the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts When appointments are based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor has acted......" 14. In the result, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.