(1) AN advertisement dated 6/6/1987 was issued by the Union Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Chief Technical Officer, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Apart from the technical qualifications which were prescribed for the said post, 5 years experience of analysis of organic material, particularly, food product was also prescribed. (2) THE appellant as well as Respondents 1 and 2 and various other persons applied for the post. 14 persons including the appellant and Respondents 1 and 2 were called for the interview. Only 10 appeared in the interview. The Selection Committee consisted of 4 persons: Shri Quazi Muktar Ahmed, Chairman, Dr D.S. Bhatia, Professor in Food Science, Dr B.R. Roy, ex-Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and Mr J.C. Jaisani, DG (P & A) DGHS. Dr B.R. Roy was one of the experts on the Committee. He had retired as the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta in the year 1982, the Central Pood Laboratory being the institution in which the said post was advertised. (3) AFTER the interviews, the Selection Committee selected the appellant for the post of Chief Technical Officer, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The appointment of the appellant was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by Respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal has set aside the appointment of the appellant on the ground (7) that he was closely associated with Dr B.R. Roy and hence Dr Roy was favourably inclined to appoint the appellant; and (2) the appellant did not possess the requisite 5 years experience of analysis of organic materials, particularly, food products. (4) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant as well as 5 other candidates including Respondents 1 and 2 were employees in the Central Pood Laboratory, Calcutta of which Dr B.R. Roy had been the Director until 1982. All these candidates had worked under Dr Roy. In fact 5 other candidates had a longer association with Dr Roy than the appellant. Some of these candidates had also published scientific papers under the guidance of Dr Roy and accordingly, as per the prevalent practice, the name of Dr Roy was also associated with these publications. In several publications of Respondent 2 also the name of Dr Roy was jointly mentioned along with the name of Respondent 2 as in the case of the appellant. In several publications of Respondent 2 also the name of Dr Roy was jointly mentioned along with the name of Respondent 2 as in the case of the appellant. Three of the candidates had also done their Ph.D. under the guidance of Dr B.R. Roy. From the mere fact that the candidates who had worked for several years in various capacities in the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta of which Dr Roy was Director, up to 1982, one cannot infer that he was biased in favour of a particular candidate, namely, the appellant, when several candidates who were employees of that laboratory had applied for the post. (5) THE other ground which has been urged by Respondents 1 and 2 relates to the experience of the appellant in the area of analysis of organic material, particularly, food products. The appellant has stated that throughout his entire career he has been involved in the research and standardisation work relating to food and has numerous publications to his credit which are listed at Annexure 8 in his affidavit. The appellant was directly involved in the analysis of pesticides residual in food products and has also dealt with other aspects of food analysis. Looking to the fact that from 1974 onwards the appellant had worked in the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta, it was for the Expert Committee to evaluate the relevant experience of the appellant in order to ascertain whether from 1974 to 1987 he had at least 5 years experience in the analysis of organic material, particularly, food products. We fail to see on what basis the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the appellant had not dealt with the analysis of organic material or that the appellant was only concerned with pesticides. The appellant has throughout worked in the Central Pood Laboratory and his direct interest has been in analysing in food particles any pesticides residue. It was basically for the experts to determine whether the requisite experience was possessed by the appellant or not. The finding, therefore, of the Tribunal that the appellant did not possess such experience does not appear to be sustainable. In fact from the list of research publications of the appellant it can be seen that these involve analysis of organic matter. The finding, therefore, of the Tribunal that the appellant did not possess such experience does not appear to be sustainable. In fact from the list of research publications of the appellant it can be seen that these involve analysis of organic matter. (6) IN the premises, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the selection of the appellant to the post of Chief Technical Officer. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside. OA No. 1814 of 1987 filed by Respondents 1 and 2 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi is dismissed.