M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS case illustrates the quandary Into which this Court is sometimes thrown in this age of scientific specialization and super-specialization. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned advertisement dated 17. 9. 1999 issued by the Principal of S. N. Medical College, Agra Annexure-12 to the writ petition and to quash the appointment order dated 30. 10. 1999 in favour of respondent No. 5 on the post of demonstrator in the Department of Biochemistry in the Medical College. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Is that the respondent No. 5 Is not qualified for the post to which she has been appointed. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the advertisement, copy of which is Annexure-12 to the petition, the minimum qualification for the post of Demonstrator in Biochemistry Department is M. Sc. in Medical biochemistry or M. B. B. S. It is urged that the respondent No. 5 does not possess any of these qualifications and hence was not qualified for the appointment. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that in the selection which was held, the respondent No. 5, Dr. Archana singh. was recommended at serial No. 1 while the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 as stated in paragraph 15 to the writ petition. Since the respondent No. 5 was found the most suited candidate, she was given appointment. ( 6 ) THE respondent No. 5 has admittedly got Ph. D. in Biochemistry as is evident from annexure-C. A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. She has also done M. Sc. in Biochemistry as is evident from Annexure-C. A. 3 to the counter-affidavit. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the petitioner also does not have M. Sc. in Medical Biochemistry. The m. Sc. degree which has been annexed as part of Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that the petitioner is M. Sc. in Biochemistry and not M. Sc. in Medical Biochemistry. However, she claims to have Ph. D. in Bio-Medical Biochemistry. ( 8 ) IN this scientific age of specialization and super-specialization, this Court is reluctant to interfere in such highly specialized and technical matters. in Biochemistry and not M. Sc. in Medical Biochemistry. However, she claims to have Ph. D. in Bio-Medical Biochemistry. ( 8 ) IN this scientific age of specialization and super-specialization, this Court is reluctant to interfere in such highly specialized and technical matters. If a very strict view is taken, both petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 5 would be disqualified because none of them hold M. Sc. in medical Biochemistry, rather both hold M. Sc. in Biochemistry. The Ph. D. of the petitioner is also not in Medical Biochemistry but in Bio-Medical Biochemistry, which may be different from medical Biochemistry. In fact the degree of Ph. D. of the petitioner shows that It was obtained in connection with a thesis relating to administering certain ocimum sanctum (Tulsi) to Albino rabbits. Thus it was pertaining to animals rather than human beings. There may be a difference between Medical Biochemistry and Bio-Medical Biochemistry, but this Court is not equipped to decide such highly technical and sophisticated matters. In this age of specialization and super-specialization, the Judges must show restraint and to some extent bow down to the opinion of experts, unless it is wholly arbitrary or illegal. ( 9 ) IN our opinion, the Selection Committee has treated both the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 5 as possessing the minimum qualification, and it is not possible for this Court to take a different view since we are not experts in the speciality in question. The members of selection Committee are experts and senior persons in their field and are holding high posts, and it is not possible for this Court to sit in appeal over the Judgment of these experts. ( 10 ) IN view of this matter, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the constitution. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. .