(1) DELAY condoned. (2) LEAVE granted. (3) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants seeks permission to delete the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 from the array of parties. Accordingly, the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are deleted from the array of parties. (4) THE order under appeal allowing T.A. 763/96 was passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribnunal on the ground that adverse remarks alleged to have been recorded in the ACR of respondent No. 1 were not communicated to him and those remarks were taken into account to deny the respondent No. 1 the promotion. While the respondent was denied promotion, promotions to his juniors were given. That according to the Tribunal vitiates the selection. (5) IT is now brought to our notice which is not disputed that there were no adverse remarks against the respondent in his ACR as wrongly assumed and therefore, the question of communicating those remarks did not arise. (6) THE rule for promotion was merit-cum- seniority. In the absence of adverse remarks in the ACR of respondent No. 1 merit was considered along with other candidates and due selection was made. The same cannot be faulted with. The question of suitability of a candidate to the promotional post of the Deputy Excise Collector is judged by the Public Service Commission, an expert body in this respect and on consideration of all materials facts, it came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was not suitable for the promotional post. Normally Courts/Tribunal would not substitute its view in the place of expert bodys views unless some illegality has crept in. (7) IN view of what is stated above, the order under appeal cannot be sustained. Accordingly , the order under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.