JUDGMENT R. Gogoi, J. 1. We have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/writ Petitioners and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The Appellants/writ Petitioners who joined as Accounts Clerks in the Tripura Small Industries Corporation Limited (T.S.I.C) which post was later on redesignated as L.D.C. (Accounts) claimed parity of pay with the incumbents holding the post of Upper [HN/PKT] Division Clerk(Accounts) in other Government Corporations. The claims having been negatived by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 6.8.1997 the instant Writ appeal has been filed by the Appellants. 3. As the grievance of the Petitioner-Appellants raised before the learned Single Judge and the relief sought for has already been noted, it will not be necessary to embark upon a detailed recital of the facts of the case. It will be sufficient to put on record that the Petitioners initially joined service as Accounts Clerks in the T.S.I.C. On the basis of the recommendation of the Pay Commission the post of Accounts Clerks in other Government Corporations were re-designated as U.D. Clerk (Accounts) and the scale of pay was revised to Rs. 550-1245/- with effect from 1.1.1982 and further to Rs. 1250-2890/- with effect from 1.1.1986. The posts of Accounts Clerks in T.S.I.C. were, however, not so redesignated and instead the Accounts Clerk working in the T.S.I.C. were re-designated as L.D.C. (Accounts) in the pay scale of Rs. 470-1025/- with effect from 1.1.1982. The aforesaid re-designation and the lower scale of pay granted to the Petitioners was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed. 4. By an order dated 2.11.1995 this Court directed constitution of a Committee constituted by the Secretary (Finance), Secretary (Industry), Government of Tripura and the Managing Director of the T.S.I.C. to go into two questions, namely, whether the educational qualifications for filing up the posts of Accounts Clerks re-designated as L.D.C. (Accounts) in T.S.I.C are the same as those of Accounts Clerk re-designated as U.D.C. (Accounts) in the other Government Corporations and secondly, whether the responsibilities and duties performed by the L.D.C. (Accounts) in the T.S.I.C. are similar to those of U.D.C. (Accounts) in the other Government Corporations. 5. The Committee as constituted by the Court by order dated 2.11.1995 examined the matter and submitted its report, a copy of which has been placed on record. We have perused the said report. 5. The Committee as constituted by the Court by order dated 2.11.1995 examined the matter and submitted its report, a copy of which has been placed on record. We have perused the said report. It appears from the report of the Committee that the Committee on a detail scrutiny of the matter came to the conclusion that the posts of Accounts Clerks in T.S.I.C. were largely filed up by a process of absorption of existing incumbents having different educational qualifications like Higher Secondary, B.A. and B.Com. The two Appellants before us were however found to be commerce graduates. In so far as the post of U.D.C. (Accounts) in the other Government Corporations is concerned, the minimum qualifications prescribed for the said post, as found by the Committee, was graduate in Commerce with 2/3 years of experience. The Committee, therefore, took the view that there was a discernible difference in the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of L.D.C. (Accounts) in the T.S.I.C. and U.D.C. (Accounts) in the other Government Corporations. In so far as the question of responsibilities and duties are concerned, the findings of the inquiry Committee were to the effect that the duties and responsibilities of L.D.C. in the T.S.I.C. were somewhat lower whereas the duties and responsibilities of U.D.C. (Accounts) in the other Government Corporation were higher in nature. The learned Single Judge taking note of the recommendation of the Committee as aforesaid came to the conclusion that claim of equal pay as made by the Appellants are untenable and in view of the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Committee the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 6. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Counsel for the Appellants has very laboriously taken us through the report of the Inquiry Committee, particularly paras 11, 12 and 13, to contend that the duties of two posts enumerated in the said report are largely similar and therefore the conclusion of the Committee that the duties and responsibilities of the L.D.C. (Accounts) in the T.S.I.C. were lower than those of U.D.C. (Accounts) in the other Government Corporations is without any reasonable basis. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the report of the Inquiry Committee would go to show that though there may be some over lapping and similarity in the duties and responsibilities of the two posts, the Committee constituted by experts have found certain differences in the duties and responsibilities of the two categories of posts. The learned Single Judge on a detailed consideration of the matter having concurred with the said findings, we see no good reason to take a different view in the exercise of the power of Judicial Review. 7. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution would not enable the Writ Court to sit in judgment over the decision taken by the experts unless such decision is shown to be arbitrary or actuated by malafides which case has not even pleaded on behalf of the Appellants. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to take the view that the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge does not call fro any interference in appeal and the appeal therefore is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, before parting with the records, we may observe that as the Inquiry Committee found both the writ Appellants to be commerce graduates and therefore at par with the U.D.C. (Accounts) in so far educational qualifications is concerned, the Competent authority may consider the case of the present Petitioners-Appellants sympathetically as and when further demands to that effect are raised. Appeal dismissed