JUDGMENT C.S. Rajan, J. 1. The petitioner in this original petition challenges the appointment of the third respondent as Reader in Environmental Sciences. According to the petitioner she has got superior qualifications and therefore she is the best suited candidate for selection and appointment to the post of Reader in Environmental Sciences. In Para.7 to 10 of the original petition, the petitioner has catalogued her qualifications and other achievements to her credit: "The petitioner is presently a Research Supervisor and Advisor for Ph.D. and Masters level Degrees (M.Sc. and M.Phil). She has supervised the Thesis research of 8 Ph.D. students and 12 Master's students. Seven among her students were awarded degree in M.Sc., six in M.Phil and one in Ph.D." 8. She had worked as the Principal Investigator, Research Schemes for the Committee on science, technology and environment, Government of Kerala (1992), the Department of Environment. Government of India (1993) and Department of Ocean Development, Government of India (1995). She had worked as senior research fellow in a project sponsored by the Department of Environment, Government of India (1984-85). She had also worked as a senior Research Fellow of the State Committee on Science, Technology and Environment, Government of Kerala for a project relating to Water Pollution Monitoring aspects of Ashtamudi Esturine System Kerala (1985-86). She had further worked as a Research Associate in the Department of Ocean Development, Government of India (1986-87). 9. The petitioner had presented papers in various seminars and conferences. She has also prepared various technical reports. She was elected as a honorary Lecturer by the Sri. Rajeev Gandhi Centre for Development of Education, Science and Technology for teaching post graduates for a new course in aquatic life science. 10. The petitioner is a member of various professional organisations like (1) Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (2) Society for Environ mental Toxicology and Chemistry, USA, (3) Society for Tropical Exobiology, Madras, India (4) International Journal of Tropical Ecology (Life Member) India. (5) Central Seed Certificate Board, Ministry of Agriculture, ICAR International, Japan. She has also to her credit various publications in National and International Journals." 2. The third respondent on the other hand has equally contended that she is the best suited candidate for appointment to the above post. In Para.3 of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, she has also detailed her qualifications and achievements to her credit: "3. She has also to her credit various publications in National and International Journals." 2. The third respondent on the other hand has equally contended that she is the best suited candidate for appointment to the above post. In Para.3 of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, she has also detailed her qualifications and achievements to her credit: "3. The selection committee found me to be best suited for the post of Reader considering my academic record, research experience, thirty five research publications including those of International Standards, teaching experience of over fifteen years including fourteen years of post graduate/ research teaching. My achievements as evidenced by my undertaking two research schemes sponsored by the Department of Environment, New Delhi, in the area of Riverain Ecology and the coastal algal resources - their economic utilisation were also considered. The project proposal in the area of coastal heavy metal pollutants submitted by me to the Department of Bio-Technology, New Delhi, through Swaminathan, a reputed research foundation of Madras, my participation in twenty eight seminars/simposia by presentation of my papers and as Chairperson and Special Lecturer were also superior to those of the other eligible candidates. I have also made my mark in educational renovation as is evident by the high grades awarded to the twelve M. Phil and M.Sc. students respectively under my guidance, apart from the six full-time and two part-time Ph.D students doing research under my guidance. That several of the said students achieved high standards in their special sphere of study under my guidance is testimony to their industry and also reflects my contribution and scholarship. A brief resume of my academic particulars is produced herewith marked Ext.R3(a). Since my achievements and accomplishments were admittedly far superior to those of the candidates eligible to be considered for appointment, the selection committee duly constituted under the Kerala University Act and the Statutes recommended me for appointment to the post of Reader in Environmental Sciences." 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4 it has been stated that the selection committee which consisted of among others two experts in the subject interviewed the candidates and recommended the third respondent for appointment and the Syndicate approved the minutes of the selection committee and thus the third respondent was appointed as Reader in Environmental Sciences. In this connection the power of this Court to interfere in the matter of selection by such academic bodies like the Universities has to be looked into. In the ruling reported in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan ( AIR 1990 SC 434 ) the Supreme Court has delineated the sphere of interference of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution in the matter of appointment on the basis of selection made by a committee. The Supreme Court in the above judgment has held as follows: "9. 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 emphasis that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decision of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise 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. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant materials before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction." 4. In a later ruling also reported in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa (1995) 6 SCC 1 ), the Supreme Court cautioned the High Courts while interfering with the selection made by a committee consisting of experts. In a later ruling also reported in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa (1995) 6 SCC 1 ), the Supreme Court cautioned the High Courts while interfering with the selection made by a committee consisting of experts. Therefore it is now clear that the decision of the selection committee can be interfered only on limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved malafide affecting the selection etc. The petitioner in this case has no case that the constitution of the committee or its procedure is vitiated by any material irregularity. There is also no plea of mala fides affecting the selection. The case of the petitioner seems to be that she is more suitable for selection to the above post on the ground that she has superior qualifications. I do not think this court can re-assess the materials which were there before the selection committee in order to upset the selection already made. The contention of the petitioner that she has got superior qualifications and the third respondent who is now selected has only less qualification is not a matter to be decided by this court. As cautioned by the Supreme Court, this Court cannot usurp the powers of the selection committee and decide as to who is the best suited candidate to the post of Reader in Environmental Sciences. Under these circumstances I express my inability to interfere with the selection and appointment of the third respondent in this case. The original petition is devoid of merit and the same dismissed.