N.S. SINGH, J- In this writ petition, the petitioner, Md. Aser Uddin Mondal, questioned the validity of the selection and appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 Abdul Kuddus Sarkar, on promotion to the post of Headmaster in Baroialga ME Madrassa by contending, inter alia, that the writ petitioner is a senior-most teacher of the said school who had rendered more than 25 years of service and the private respondent is junior to the writ petitioner. Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr Choudhury, learned senior counsel, submitted that the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, -enisled the Court inasmuch as in the related affidavit-in-opposition, he stated that .the writ petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Headmaster as his academic qualification is only matriculation and, apart from that, there was no proper selection process for appointment to the post of Headmaster in terms of the related service rules and promotion was made in defiance of the procedure for promotion to the post of Headmaster ME/MR Madrassa, etc. etc. Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr Choudhury has drawn my attention to the notification .dated 13.8.86 and submitted that the selection for the post of Headmaster of ME and Middle School shall be made strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency and moreover, the minimum qualification for promotion to the post pf Headmaster was is atleast matriculation or HSLC examination pass and this aspect has been ignored by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. It is also argued by Mr Choudhury that there is no advertisement nor held any selection process. Though the petitioner was qualified and eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster his case has been ignored and the authority concerned had lost its sight to the difference between "Gradation List and Select List" while affording promotion to the private respondent to the post of Headmaster. As the promotion of the private respondent to the post of Headmaster has been made wrongly and in defiance of the related circular/notification dated 13.8.86, the appointment of the private respondent to the post of Headmaster deserved to be quashed. 2. As the promotion of the private respondent to the post of Headmaster has been made wrongly and in defiance of the related circular/notification dated 13.8.86, the appointment of the private respondent to the post of Headmaster deserved to be quashed. 2. At the hearing Mr B.J. Talukdar, learned GA, Assam, produced a copy of the Sub-Division wise select list under Dhubri district which was made on 18.2.99 and contended that in terms of the related order dated 18.2.99 as many as 24 candidates for the Sub-Division SS Mancachar and more than 40 candidates in respect of Sub-Division Dhubri and Bilasipara have been selected for promotion to the post of Headmaster by the District Level Selection Committee reconstituted under the related Government order dated 13.8.86 which was duly communicated by the authority to all concerned. I have perused the related office letter dated 11.6.2002 issued by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Assam, containing the said select list for promotion to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress. To secure ends of justice, these documents are hereby formed part of the record and market as "X" series. 3. According to BJ Talukdar, learned GA, Assam, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order pertaining to the promotion of the private resjfchdent to the post of Headmaster. 4. It is true that in terms of the related notification dated 13.8.86, the selection for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of ME/Middle School shall be made strictly on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency. A bare perusal of the Annexure-8 to the writ petition which is the particulars of Assistant Teachers of Hindi/Arabic/ Science Graduate Teachers of Middle Schools would show that the private respondent's name finds place at serial No. 4 and the petitioner's name finds place at serial No. 9 and further it reveals that the private respondent is a trained teacher and had passed the training in the year 1989 and the petitioner is an untrained teacher. 5. Further perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner took the plea that there was no selection of candidates for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress as per rules and procedure. This fact is also supported by Mr Choudhury, learned senior counsel, during the course of the hearing. 5. Further perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner took the plea that there was no selection of candidates for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress as per rules and procedure. This fact is also supported by Mr Choudhury, learned senior counsel, during the course of the hearing. However, there is no whisper in the writ petition about the related order dated 18.2.99 as in the document marked as 'X' for identification by which mainly the Assistant Teachers of ME and ME Madrassa have been selected for promotion to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress by the District Level Selection Committee reconstituted under the related order of the Government. It is well settled that the selection board or selecting authority is the best authority to assess the merits and demerits, efficiency or inefficiency, diligency or in-diligency of the candidates concerned. It is not the Court to judge it. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority on it as the power of judicial review is very limited. The power of judicial review can be exercised only where there is infirmity in decision making process on the part of the selection board. In this regard, a reference can be made to a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunkeetc. etc.-Vs-Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc. AIR 1990 SC 434 , wherein the Apex Court held: "It is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc." 6. In the instant case, the writ petitioner did not question, the validity of the select list, i.e., order dated 18.2.99, as in document marked as "X" for identification wherein the name of private respondent finds place at serial No. 4 which shows that the respondent No. 4 has been duly selected. In the instant case, the writ petitioner did not question, the validity of the select list, i.e., order dated 18.2.99, as in document marked as "X" for identification wherein the name of private respondent finds place at serial No. 4 which shows that the respondent No. 4 has been duly selected. Without questioning the validity of the select list where the name of the private respondent appeared, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the select list as in document marked as "X" for identification as discussed above. This Court has no expertise in the matter pertaining to the assessment of the comparative merits/demerits of the candidates which have been assessed by the selection board or selecting authority. This Court need not go more into depth as suffice is made with the above observations to dismiss the writ petition. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.