JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection and the consequential appointment of opp. party No. 3 as Assistant Professor, Forestry, under the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (in short, "OUAT") and seeks for a further direction to opp. party No. 2, the Vice-Chancellor of OUAT, to appoint the petitioner in the said post. 2. An advertisement was issued by OUAT for one post of Lecturer/ Junior Scientist, Forestry. In the advertisement it was indicated that the details of qualifications, specialisations, experience and other requirements in respect of each post will be supplied along with the application form. The information sheet which was supplied along with the application form has been annexed as Annexure-3. In column-7 of Annexure-3, it was indicated as against the qualifications required that the candidate should be 2nd Class B.Sc. (Forestry) and 2nd Class M.Sc. (Forestry). In the note appended, it was indicated : "The requirement at Bachelors and Masters degree in the discipline is relaxable for the existing teachers of OUAT who have five years of experience in teaching/research/extension education under OUAT System." It is alleged in the writ petition and not disputed that opp. party No. 3 who was selected at the interview and subsequently appointed did his graduation and master's degree in Botany. It is asserted by the petitioner that opp. party No. 3 was not eligible, as he was not having five years of experience in teaching/research/extension education under OUAT system and it is further asserted that the authorities had no power under the advertisement to relax eligibility criteria except as indicated in the advertisement or in the informaiton sheet. It is further contended that among the three candidates who had appeared, the petitioner had the most bright academic career and he should have been selected. 3. Opp. parties 1 and 2 who are respectively the OUAT represented through the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor of OUAT appeared along with opp. party No. 3, whose selection is sought to be impugned through the same lawyer, but the counter affidavit was purportedly filed on behalf of opp. parties 1 and 2 only. It has been asserted in the counter affidavit that opp. party No. 3, had experience as a research scholar in Regional Plant Resource Centre for a period of more than three years since 1987 as evident from the Certificate issued on 19.12.1990. parties 1 and 2 only. It has been asserted in the counter affidavit that opp. party No. 3, had experience as a research scholar in Regional Plant Resource Centre for a period of more than three years since 1987 as evident from the Certificate issued on 19.12.1990. It is further submitted that opp. party No. 3 was appointed as a Lecturer in Plant Science in the Department of Forestry under the OUAT and had joined in the said post on 13.3.1991 and continued to hold the said post till the date of application. In short, it is submitted that opp. party No. 3 had three years and three months of research experience in the field of Forestry and four years and eight months of teaching experience in Forestry under OUAT till 15.11.1995 and he further continued as a Lecturer till 17.7.1997 on which date he joined in the post advertised for. It has been further indicated that the Selection Committee which consisted of experts had found opp. party No. 3 most suitable and the selection by an experts' Committee should not be set at naught. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that petitioner had the brightest academic career and was most suitable for the post and should have been selected in preference to opp. party No. 3 does not merit any serious consideration, as the question as to which of the candidates is more suitable, is a matter which has to be left to the discretion of the Selection Committee consisting of experts. The Court cannot sit in appeal over such matters relating to relative merit of a candidate. However, the question as to whether a candidate was not eligible at the time of selection and as such the consequential appointment is illegal, is a matter which merits consideration. 5. In the present case, the main question hinges upon the eligibility of opp. party No. 3. Admittedly, opp. party No. 3 was not a graduate in Forestry nor did he hold a master's degree in Forestry. He was a graduate in Botany and master of science in Botany. However, it is contended that he was eligible to be considered as he fulfilled the criteria fixed in the note contained in Annexure-3 as such requirement indicated in column-7 of the information sheet was relaxable under the note. He was a graduate in Botany and master of science in Botany. However, it is contended that he was eligible to be considered as he fulfilled the criteria fixed in the note contained in Annexure-3 as such requirement indicated in column-7 of the information sheet was relaxable under the note. The note which has already been extracted earlier indicates that the requirement relating to bachelor's and master's degree in the discipline is relaxable for the existing teachers of OUAT who have five years of experience in teaching/ research/extension education under OUAT system. Admittedly, opp. party No. 3 had not completed five years of experience in teaching under OUAT. It has been submitted that since opp. party No. 3 had experience of research under Regional Plant Resource Centre, as evident from Annexure- A/l for a period of more than three years, his teaching experience as a Lecturer in OUAT and his research experience under Regional Plant Resource Centre, Bhubaneswar, taken together made him eligible for the post. Annexure-A/1 which has been relied upon by opp. parties 1 and 2 does not intrinsically indicate that the research which was undertaken by opp. party No. 3 under Regional Plant Resource Centre, Bhubaneswar, was "under OUAT system". No other materials have been produced to indicate that the aforesaid research experience was "under OUAT system". In the counter affidavit filed by opp. parties 1 and 2 also, it is not categorically stated that the research experience as indicated in Annexure-A/1 was "under OUAT system". After the matter was heard at length, the counsel for opp. parties was given opportunity to produce further materials to indicate that the research work undertaken by opp. party No. 3 earlier to his appointment as a Lecturer under OUAt was "under OUAT system". The learned counsel for opp. party No. 2 has produced the file dealing with the applications of the various candidates. The papers contained in the said file do not indicate anywhere that the research experience undertaken by opp. party No. 3 under Regional Plant Resource Centre was "under OUAT system". However, subsequent note-sheets which have been initiated on the basis of correspondence show that "the research work in Forestry done in R.P.R.C. is similar to that carried out in Forestry Department under OUAT system". The note dated 17.7.1998 records as follows : The above note clarifies the matter clearly. The research work carried out by Dr. However, subsequent note-sheets which have been initiated on the basis of correspondence show that "the research work in Forestry done in R.P.R.C. is similar to that carried out in Forestry Department under OUAT system". The note dated 17.7.1998 records as follows : The above note clarifies the matter clearly. The research work carried out by Dr. A.K.Sahu in forestry at R.P.R.C. is of similar nature as done at the Deptt. of Forestry, OUAT, Bhubaneswar." Apart from the fact that the aforesaid notes produced for perusal of this Court have all been initiated after the matter was heard in part, there is no clear indication in those notes that the research work undertaken was "under OUAT system". The intention under the note appended to Annexure-3 is clear as University wanted to relax the eligibility criteria in cases of existing teachers of OUAT who have five years of experience in teaching/research/extension education under OUAT system. The research work undertaken by opp. party No. 3 in R.P.R.C. even prior to his appointment as a teacher under OUAT in the year 1991 can by no stretch of imagination be characterised as experience in research "under OUAT system". Whether such research work undertaken was similar to the OUAT system is another matter and the mere ipse dixit in the note-sheet of the University prepared during pendency of the writ application after the case was heard in part may not be sufficient. Even assuming that such experience was similar, opp. party No. 3 could not have been considered to be eligible as such research experience was not "under OUAT system". The intention was not to relax the eligibility criteria in respect of any teacher under any University or any person undertaking research work under any other system. The intention under the note in Annexure-3 was to relax the eligibility criteria in respect of existing teachers who have five years of experience in teaching/research/extension education under OUAT system. It is thus clear that opp. party No. 3 was not eligible to be considered and as such his subsequent appointment on the basis of the said selection is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for opp. parties, however, submitted that in the meantime, opp. party No. 3 has become eligible as he had more than five years of experience as a teacher under the OUAT. 6. The learned counsel for opp. parties, however, submitted that in the meantime, opp. party No. 3 has become eligible as he had more than five years of experience as a teacher under the OUAT. The subsequent acquisition of the required eligibility qualification after the selection and after joining the post cannot cure the initial illegality in the matter of selection. It may be that if a fresh selection is held on the basis of fresh advertisement, the very same opp. party No. 3 may be found to be eligible as well as suitable, but that is a matter which has to be decided by the appropriate selection committee. In such view of the matter, the appointment of opp. party No. 3 has to be quashed. 7. The next question is as to whether a direction can be issued for appointing the petitioner in the said post. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner on this score is wholly untenable. Even the petitioner was not selected as second candidate in the selection process. Since the selection was vitiated, it is necessary that a fresh selection has to be held after issuing fresh advertisement. It would be open to the petitioner and opp. party No. 3 to apply if any fresh advertisement is issued if they are otherwise eligible. It is made clear that until the post is filled up after fresh selection in accordance with advertisement to be issued, opp. party No. 3 shall continue to hold the post presently held by him. 8. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Necessary steps be taken by the University within a period of six months to fill up the post by issuing fresh advertisement. Susanta Chatterjee, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed