R. C. LAHOTI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Dr. Ira Pandit and the respondent No. 4 Dr. Tista Bagchi are competing as pirants to the post of Reader in Linguistics in University of Delhi. The respondent No. 4 having been selected, the petitioner approached this court just on the eve of the respondent No. 4 being delivered with letter of appointment. ( 2 ) ON 12. 3. 1993 the University of Delhi notified an advertisement inviting applications inter alia for the post of Reader in Linguistic. Consistently with the University Calendar the academic and other qualifications needed to apply for the post of Reader were:- "good academic record with atleast Second Class Masters Degree in the relevnt subject with a Doctoral Degree or equivalent published work. Evidence of being actively engaged (i) in Research or (ii) Innovation in Teaching Methods or (iii) Production of Teaching Materials. 5 years experience of teaching of Under-Graduate/postgraduate classes and/or Post Doctoral Research work with evidence of published work. " (Emphasis supplied ). ( 3 ) THE petitioner does not dispute the respondent No. 4 being possessed of all the requisit educational qualifications. In fact the learned counsel for the petitioner termed the academic achievement of the respondent No. 4 as impeccable . The core of controversy clusters around the question - if the experience possessed by respondent No. 4 satisfies the requirement of five years experience of teaching of under graduate/post graduate classes, within the meaning of the phrase as occuring in eligibility qualifications. That is the frontal and rather singular attack on impugned selection of respondent No. 4. ( 4 ) THE challenge having been thrown, the respondents have brought on record a certificate dated 16. 10. 1993issued by Associate Professor/chairperson Com- mittee on Southern Asian Studies, the University of Chicago, in proof of the requisite experience having been possessed by the respondent No 4. It will be useful to reproduce the contents of the certificates verbatim inasmuch as that only will enable determination of the question posed before the court. The certificate reads as under:- "for the past five years-from the autumn of 1988 through the spring of 1993-Dr. Tista Bagchi was my Course Assistant. She was then, of course, not Dr. Bagchi but Ms. Bagchi. I teach the Bengali language (also known as Bangla) at our university and am chairman of our Committee on Southern Asian Studies. Dr. The certificate reads as under:- "for the past five years-from the autumn of 1988 through the spring of 1993-Dr. Tista Bagchi was my Course Assistant. She was then, of course, not Dr. Bagchi but Ms. Bagchi. I teach the Bengali language (also known as Bangla) at our university and am chairman of our Committee on Southern Asian Studies. Dr. Bagchi served as my assistant in all levels of instruction, from the introductory course throughthe fourth-year level. Furthermore, I made use of her as a consultant when I needed an expert opinion on some aspect of the language. Her duties as Course Assistant consisted of conducting classes in. spoken Bengali on her own and of co-teaching with me in the classroom the advanced level reading courses. I found her knowledge of the structure of Bengali thorough. Her explanation of grammatical points were clear, concise and persuasive. Not only I but also my students were impressed with her skills as a language teacher. They consistently gave her excellent marks in their evaluations of the courses. During the spring of 1991, I took a leave of absence from the university. For that term. Dr. Bagchi, on my recommendation, was appointed a Lecturer in our department and took over my teaching responsibilities for Bengali at all levels. Again, the evaluations of her performance during that period were extremely positive. She is clearly very competent as a classroom teacher. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that to seek appointment as Reader in Linguistics, it goes without saying that the experience of five years contemplated by the advertisement and the university calendar must be of teaching in linguistics; every and any experience, such as of teaching in Bengali language for the matter of that, would not suffice. ( 6 ) AS the advertisement does not specifically mention the nature of experience or the subject or mode of acquiring the same, we may refer to the relevant provisions of the university calendar and find out if they render any aid or assistance in solving the problem posed. The relevant provisions are contained in Ordinance XXIV entitled - Qualifications of University Teachers (Appointed and Recognised ). The relevant Ordinance is to be found commencing at page 401 of calendar Vol. I published by University of Delhi in the year 1988. The relevant provisions are contained in Ordinance XXIV entitled - Qualifications of University Teachers (Appointed and Recognised ). The relevant Ordinance is to be found commencing at page 401 of calendar Vol. I published by University of Delhi in the year 1988. Without burdening this judgement by reproducing all the provisions as to qualifications running over several pages we may notice salient features only. The abovesaid main title of the Ordinance is followed by a sub-title:- Faculties of Art, Science, Social Sciences, Education, Mathematical Sciences, Law and Management studies. ( 7 ) THE Ordinance then proceeds to provide for the qualifications expected of the Readers. Out of the several faculties referred to in the sub-title there is a provision for "readers (other then those in Library Science, Social Work and Chinese and Japaneese (languages ). Thereunder it is stated:- "good academic record with atleast second class Master s degree in relevant subject with a doctoral degree or equivalent published. Evidence of being actively engated in (i) research, or (ii) innovation in teaching methods or (iii) production of teaching materials. Five years experience of teaching in under-graduate/post-graduate classes and/or post doctoral Research work with evidence of published work. "note :- Second Class would mean atleast 50% marks in the subject or equivalent grade. " This petitioner is to be considered in this General category. This is a general provision intended to cover Readers of all Faculties other than in the three disciplines specifically mentioned. The Ordinance thereafter proceeds to provide for Readers in the three Faculties specifically mentioned. The provisions summed up in a tabulated form to facilitate an easy reference are as under:- ( 8 ) THE framers of the University Calendar could have very well provided for five years experience of teaching in a subject relevant to the faculty; while dealing with the readers generally (other than the three faculties) but they have not done so. While providing for experiences in the Faculties relevant to Library Science or Social Work the framers of the Calendar have taken care to specify the teaching experience to be of that subject only. ( 9 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that though not specifically provided we should go by the assumption, and accept what the learned counsel called a common sense principle that the experience must naturally be an experience in that subject alone. ( 9 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that though not specifically provided we should go by the assumption, and accept what the learned counsel called a common sense principle that the experience must naturally be an experience in that subject alone. However, we are not impressed. Had it been the intention of the framers of the Calendar to insist on the teaching experience necessarily in that faculty alone, nothing had prevented them from expressing so and making their intention known by using express words to that effect just as they have chosen to do in cases of Readers in Library Science and in Social Work. It appears that the framers of the Calendar have treated Linguistics and the two foreign languages on pedagtal different from other subjects. For Readers generally, having provided for (i) Good academic raecordwith at least second class Master s degree in a relevant subject (ii) a doctoral degree or equivalent published work (iii) active engagement in r. escarch/ innovation inteaching methods/production of teaching materials-as qualifications, the framers thought that five years experience of teaching, not necessarily in Linguistics, would do. Let it be noted that in the provision in a relevant subject qualify Master s degree, but similar words the framers have not used to qualify five years experience . To accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner we p73 shall have to red raft the provision inserting the provision of five years experience of teaching in under-graduate/post-graduate classes of the relevant faculty while the language as used falls short of the words "of the relevant faculty". It is well established canon of interpretation that we can iron out the creases but we cannot supply the material of which the texture is woven. Our effort at supplying the words so as to read the provision in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner shall have to witness substitution of our wisdon for those of the experts in the field of education who have drafted the University Calendar, which we are afraid, we cannot do. Our effort at supplying the words so as to read the provision in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner shall have to witness substitution of our wisdon for those of the experts in the field of education who have drafted the University Calendar, which we are afraid, we cannot do. ( 10 ) IT may also be noticed that the Selection Commitee which interviewed the candidates, including the petitioner and respondent No. 4, consisted of academicians and educational experts of outstanding eminence as under:- ( 11 ) THESE experts had satisfied themselves of the respondent No. 4 fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria including the experience qualification basing their satisfaction on the certificate dated 16th October, 1993 quoted hereinabove and which was before them. It would be indeed treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture in reviewing the decision of the educational experts like an appellate authority. ( 12 ) IN National Institute of Mental Health and. Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and Others AIR 1992 SC 1806 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have sounded a note of caution while dealing with such matters by laying down the law in the following terms:- "when the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the subject for selection and they were men of high status and also of unquestionable impartiality, the Court should be slow to interfere with their opinion. " ( 13 ) ASSUMING it may be possible to take two views of the nature of experience contemplated by the relevant provision of university, we need remind ourselves of the law laid down by their Lordships in Dr. Uma Kant Vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain and Others AIR 1991 SC 2272 . :- "it is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities. " ( 14 ) IN Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. Dr. B. S. Mahajan AIR 1990 SC 434 their Lordships held :- "the Committee consisted of experts. and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant materials before it. " ( 14 ) IN Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. Dr. B. S. Mahajan AIR 1990 SC 434 their Lordships held :- "the Committee consisted of experts. and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant materials before it. Therefore setting aside the selection on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates, as assessed by the Court while sitting in appeal over selection so made would not be permissible. " ( 15 ) IN J. Ranga Swhmy Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others AIR 1990 SC 535 their Lordships held that it was not for the Judge to decide or direct what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for a post unless there is something rendering the requirement prima facie preposterous. ( 16 ) TO sum up, the confidence reposed in a body of experts, persons of high status and unquestioned competence, is not to questioned lightly. Courts should be cautious in, and possibly avoid, assuming rule of experts. If it is not the field of law, the interpretation placed or the view taken by experts or body of experts should be allowed to prevail, by giving benefit of doubt too, if need be. ( 17 ) IN our opinion in so far as the Faculty of Linguistics was concerned having prescribed for the academic qualifications it appears that in the opinion of educational experts a teaching experience of five years, not necessarily in the department of Linguistics, would make a candidate eligible for seeking appointment to the post of Reader. By way of illustration we may just reproduce the academic achievements of respondent No. 4 as mentioned by her in the application and which are not in dispute. They are as under:- ( 18 ) THE experience stated by the respondent No. 4 in her application is :- ( 19 ) FROM the certificate dated 16. 10. 1993 issued by the university of Chicago it cannot besaid that the respondent No. 4 had made any false or over statement in staling the experience which she possessed. ( 20 ) THE respondent No. 4 has in addition given detailsof her education and work experience as under:- ( 21 ) THIS is in addition to her several courses taken in allied subjects and several papers prepared. ( 20 ) THE respondent No. 4 has in addition given detailsof her education and work experience as under:- ( 21 ) THIS is in addition to her several courses taken in allied subjects and several papers prepared. ( 22 ) IN allfairness to the learned counsel for the petitioner we may also deal with the ancilliary attacks which he has made on the selection of Respondnt No. 4 by reference to document annexure P-1 which is a photo copy of internal notings of the University. The learned counselfor the petitioner has pointed out that the Head of the Department of the Linguistics was of the opinion that the certificate dated 16. 10. 1993 furnished by the respondent No. 3 did not satisfy the experience requirement but his opinion was over-ruled by someone in the office. He also submitted that the certificate did not demonstrate the respondent No. 4 having fulfilled five years p73 experience requirement on the date of her making the application. Both the contentions need a short and summary disposal. Whatever be the internal notings, neither the Selection Committee was boundby it nor are we so bound. The Selection Committee was to form its own opinion on the eligibility of the candidates and we have found their opinion not liable to interference. The requirement is of five years experience and these five years in case of educational institutions cannot be calculated with mathematical precision and accuracy. It is common knowledge that the academic sessions of the educational institutions do not necessarily run or coincide with the common calendars. There are holidays and vacations during the year and whatever working days are available are counted as an year. The year, in the context, has to be liberally interpreted and calculated. ( 23 ) linguistics is a scientific study of languages. In the backdrop of the meritorious academic record and work experience of the respondent No. 4, her teaching experience though not in Linguistics, considered fulfilling the eligibility criteria by the Selection Committee, cannot be branded preposterous. The petitioner was teaching Language, if not linguistics, and thus p73 gaining teaching experience. ( 24 ) FOR the forgoing reasons we are of the opinion the selection of the respondent No. 4 on the post of Reader in Linguistics is neither vitiated nor is liable to be interferred with. There is no merit in the petition. It is dismissed.