ORDER 1. By this writ application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the appointment of respondents 5, 6 and 7 to the post of Professor. 2. The petitioner is Reader in Pharmaceutical Science and working with respondent No.1 since long. She was promoted as Reader in the year 1981. The petitioner claims that she has an excellant academic record and research experience. In pursuance of the advertisement made by the respondent University for appointment to the post of Professor, the petitioner besides respondents 5, 6 and 7 as also other candidates applied for appointment. Ultimately the respondents 5 to 7 were selected and appointed as Professors. The petitioners questions these appointment in the present petition. 3. The ground on which the appointment of respondents 5 to 7 have been questioned is the alleged illegality in constitution of the selection committee. It is contended that for an appointment to the post of Professor, a committee is required to be constituted under section 49 of the M.P. Universities Act, 1973. Section 49 of the Universities Act, which is relevant for the purpose, is being quoted below, section 49 (2) (iii) (iv) :- "49 (l) .... (2) The member of the Committee of Selection shall be - (i) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) One expert in the subject not connected with the University in any manner whatsoever to be nominated by the Academic Council, (iv) Three eminent educationists, not connected with the University in any manner whatsoever, at least two of whom are experts in the subjects, nominated by the Kuladhipati." 4, The grievance of the petitioner is that the committee so required to be constituted has not been constituted which renders the entire selection and appointment of respondents 5 to 7 illegal. 5. It is contended that 3 members of the committee namely Dr. Harikishan Singh, Dr. K.C. Verma and Dr. S.P. Vahi, are connected with the University and in that view of the matter their selection is prohibited by section 49 of the Act. 6. The petitioner asserted as follows in relation to the aforesaid persons: "15. That Dr. Harkishan Singh having Pharmaceutical Chemistry as his field of specialization, was working as Lecturer in the year 1956 to 1963 in the Department of Pharmacy with respondent No.1. At present he is working as Professor at the Punjab University, Chandigarh. 6. The petitioner asserted as follows in relation to the aforesaid persons: "15. That Dr. Harkishan Singh having Pharmaceutical Chemistry as his field of specialization, was working as Lecturer in the year 1956 to 1963 in the Department of Pharmacy with respondent No.1. At present he is working as Professor at the Punjab University, Chandigarh. Thus, he is an ex-employee of the respondent No.1 and thus connected with the respondent No.1. 16. That Dr. K.C. Verma having Pharmacognosy as his field of specialization was also employee of the respondent No. 1 and worked. initially as Lecturer then as a Reader and finally as Professor uptill April 1985. Even at present he is guiding research in the Deptt. Pharm. Scs. of the respondent No.1. Thus he is also deeply connected with the respondent No.1. (17) That Dr. S.P. Vahi having Pharmacognosy as his field of specialization was a paid external examin.er in Pharmacognosy practical of the respondent No.1 for main and the second examinations in 1985-86. Thus, he is also deeply connected with the internal co-examiners in the subject and with the respondent No.1." 7. Section 49 of the Act referred to above contemplates appointment of one expert in the subject not connected with the University in any manner and three eminent educationalists also and they should also not to be connected with University in any manlier. It appears that the legislature in its wisdom thought that the decision by an expert committee connected with the University may cloud its decision, it prohibited the appointment of person who are connected with the University in any manner. However, the question that requires determination is as to whether an expert although once upon a time, being associated with the University in any manner are also disqualified. In the present case according to the petitioner herself one of the member of the committee i.e. Dr. Harikishan Singh, was Lecturer in the University between the period 1956 to 1963 and thereafter at the time of selection he was working as Professor at the Punjab University. The interviews for selection was held on 19.10.1986, thus, the aforesaid Dr. Harikishan Singh cannot be said to be connected with the respondent University in any manner and as such did not suffer any disqualification for being appointed as a member of selection committee. 8. As regard the appointment of Dr. The interviews for selection was held on 19.10.1986, thus, the aforesaid Dr. Harikishan Singh cannot be said to be connected with the respondent University in any manner and as such did not suffer any disqualification for being appointed as a member of selection committee. 8. As regard the appointment of Dr. K.C. Verma, according to the petitioner's own case worked as Professor of the respondent University uptil April 1985 and as such on 19.10.1986 i.e. the date or. which the interview was held he was not connected with the University in any manner, therefore, his appointment as member of the selection committee also can not be faulted. 9. Now I advert to the appointment of Dr. Vahi, who it is stated that was an external examiner in Pharmalogical practical of the examination of 1985-86. The appointment of the aforesaid Dr. Vahi as the external examiner, also does not appear to be on the date when the interview was held and in that view of the matter I am of the view that he was not connected in any manner with the respondent University on the date of interview. By way of abundant caution, I may state that I may not be understood to have held that-working as an external examiner is an act connected with the University as the said question does not arise in the present case. 10. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that none of the members of the selection committee were prohibited for being appointed as such. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the constitution of the selection committee. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner thus fails. 11. Cousnel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner is more suitable candidate than that of the persons who have been selected for appointment. It is well settled that this Court is not a Super Selection Committee and cannot examine the intrinsic merit of each of the candidates called for interview and substitute its opinion for the expert body, to make selection. Judicial review is permissible only in case it is found that the selection body did not consider relevant material or considered irrelevant material or their action is in any way malafide. The Court, it is widely stated, is the expert of experts, it is proper to take note of its limitation. Judicial review is permissible only in case it is found that the selection body did not consider relevant material or considered irrelevant material or their action is in any way malafide. The Court, it is widely stated, is the expert of experts, it is proper to take note of its limitation. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner to bring her case within any of the exception for interference by this Court and for substituting the opinion of the selection committee. 12. There is yet another reason which-should be taken notice of. If the selection committee was not properly constituted, the petitioner should not have appeared before the selection committee. Having appeared before the selection committee the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the selection committee was not properly constituted after the committee has not selected the petitioners. It was not alleged in the petition that the petitioner was not aware of the defects in the selection committee which are stated in the petition at the time of when the petitioner appeared before the selection committee. 13. Both the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, having negatived. I do not find any marit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.