Judgment 1. The writ petitioner-appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.11.1998, passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ application filed by him challenging the appointment of respondents no. 6 to 8 to the posts of Producer in the State Institute of Educational Technology, an autonomous body (hereinafter referred to as the SIET) on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification as per term of the advertisement, has been dismissed. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the SIET was set up in the year 1984-85 by the Central Government, along with other such Institutes in the State of Bihar with other States. It was funded by the Central Government and later on the State Government made the Institute as autonomous by resolution dated 14.1.1994 and, thereafter, it has been registered as a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act and is governed by its bylaws. On 25.11.1995 the Executive Committee of the SIET decided to fill up the post of Producer and other posts and, accordingly, constituted a Selection Committee consisting of the following persons including the experts :- (i) Chairman of the Executive Chairman Body/Government Body (Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education,Govt. of Bihar). (ii) Director, S.C.E.R.T. Member (iii) Joint Director, C.I.E.T, New DelhiTechnical Member (iv) Subject Expert nominated by the Human Resources & Development Deptt. Member (v) One Officer or person as may be nominated by the Human Resources & Development Department. Member (vi) Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna Member (vii)Director, SIET, Patna Member 3. An advertisement was issued on 9.5.1996 for appointment to the post of Producer. Qualifications, according to the advertisement for the post of Producer, were as follows :- (1) Graduate from a recognised University (2) Degree or diploma in direction from a recognised Institute and one year experience in Educational Film Making Or Five years experience of Film Making/T.V. programme production from a recognised Institute. 4 The writ petitioner-appellant and others including respondents no. 6 to 8 applied for the said post and mode of selection was on the basis of interview. The candidates for the post of Producer were interviewed on 20.9.1996. Twenty seven candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee including the appellant, respondents no. 6 to 8 and others. 4 The writ petitioner-appellant and others including respondents no. 6 to 8 applied for the said post and mode of selection was on the basis of interview. The candidates for the post of Producer were interviewed on 20.9.1996. Twenty seven candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee including the appellant, respondents no. 6 to 8 and others. The Selection Committee, after taking interview of the candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview as well as on examination of their works in the T.V. Programmes produced and exhibited, awarded marks. Out of the seven posts, four posts were for general category, one post each for S.C., ST. and extremely Backward class categories. No. candidate of ST. category appeared before the Selection Committee and no candidate in the O.B.C. category was found suitable and, accordingly, the names of four persons in general category, including respondents no. 6 to 8 and one in the S.C. category were recommended. The appellants position was 10th in the merit list. A copy of the minutes of the Selection Committee has been annexed as Annexure B/1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the SIET. The appointment letters were issued on 26.9.1996 and in pursuance of that, respondents no. 6 to 8 and others had joined in September, 1996, and since then they are working. 5. The case of the appellant is that he passed M.A. examination from the Patna University in 1985. Thereafter, he took course in Introduction to Television Production from Notre Dame Communication Centre, Patna. In January, 1988, the Subordinate Selection Board issued an advertisement for appointment to Class-Ill post in SIET, including the post of Production Assistant (Investigator). The appellant applied, selected and, was, accordingly, appointed as Production Assistant on 11.10.1988 and, thus, he possessed five years experience of Film making/T.V. Programme production from a recognised Institute for appointment to the post of Producer and, accordingly, applied in terms of the advertisement but he was not selected. His further case is that respondents no. 6 to 8 did not possess the requisite qualification as they did not have the five years experience of Film making/ TV. Programme production from a recognised Institute. Respondent no. 6 has filed certificate of experience of five years from Tanmaya Audio Visuals, which is not a recognised Institute. Respondent no. His further case is that respondents no. 6 to 8 did not possess the requisite qualification as they did not have the five years experience of Film making/ TV. Programme production from a recognised Institute. Respondent no. 6 has filed certificate of experience of five years from Tanmaya Audio Visuals, which is not a recognised Institute. Respondent no. 7 did not submit any certificate of five years experience from any recognised Institute and he has filed only some contract papers with Samachar Bharti for acting in serial "Aas Pass" being produced by M/S Samachar Bharti. This apart, he submitted a certificate of experience on 12.9.1997, which is subsequent to the date of his appointment. Respondent no. 8 is working in the SIET as a Wardrobe Assistant and he submitted a certificate that he has been working with the Producers and helping in the E.T.V. Film Production as Production Assistant, but as a matter of fact he worked as Helper to the Producer in view of the assignment of such work by office order dated 28.6.1989. As he was a Helper only and not a Producer, his experience cannot be counted in terms of the advertisement. 6. Respondents no. 4 and 6 to 8 have filed separate counter affidavits, but their assertions being the same, their cases are reproduced at one place. Their assertion is that they possess the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement and the Selection Committee consisting of experts considered their qualifications, interviewed them and found them suitable and as such assertion of the appellant is unfounded. Respondent no. 6 pased M.A. in Hindi from the Magadh University. He also passed M.A. in Economics from the Magadh University. He also did Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Media with Radio and Television as his special paper. He worked as Casual Programme Announcer in All India Radio, Patna, from 1981-1988. He has five years experience of Film Production as Production Assistant. He has worked as news Reader with Doordarshan, Patna, from the date of inspection i.e. from 1990 to 1995. He has also worked as an Assistant Director with Tanmaya Audio Visuals for a period of five years from 1990-95. Tanmaya Audio Visuals is a duly registered Institute with Doordarshan and also recognised by the Government of lndia/State of Bihar, UNICEF, HUDCO, DDA Leprosy Mission of India. Further case of respondent no. He has also worked as an Assistant Director with Tanmaya Audio Visuals for a period of five years from 1990-95. Tanmaya Audio Visuals is a duly registered Institute with Doordarshan and also recognised by the Government of lndia/State of Bihar, UNICEF, HUDCO, DDA Leprosy Mission of India. Further case of respondent no. 6 is that he has also been empanelled as Producer of the State Institute of Educational Technology before his appointment. He fulfils the criteria laid down in the advertisement. The case of respondent no. 7 is that he passed B.Sc. from Bhagalpur in 1981. He produced five educational T.V. Programmes of SIET, Patna, during the year 1995 itself, out of which one film consisting of three episodes named "Resham Ki Kahani was telecast on national network. This programme produced by him was nominated for the National Children Film Festival held at Ahmedabed in the month of October, 1996, which is a distinction in itself. He has been associated as Assistant Director/ Production Assistant with recognised Institution/Organisations/Production Companies during various years and he has given details of the same in the counter affidavit, which are as follows :- (i) "Lesser known Tribes of India" a Doordarshan Commissioned serial (7 episodes) directed by Shri Brijendra Rehi of M/s Darpan Video India, New Delhi in the years 1988 and 1999. (ii) "Pathrai Ankhon Ke Sapne" a Doordarshan Commissioned Telefilm directed / produced by Shri Brijendra Rehi during the year 1990 and 1991. (iii) Different productions directed/produced by Shri Prasoon Sinha of M/S Panji Films International during 1994. (iv) "Lone Ke Pankh" a serial under production for Doordarshan during 1996 which was directed/produced by Shri Girish Ranjan of a film company named and styled as " Chitrankan". He had also a contract with M/s Sanchar Bharti, wherein he had agreed to work in a serial "Aas Pass", which is yet another distinction in the field of T.V. making/Film Production. The institutes, where he worked, are all recognised Institutes. He could not file certificate at the time of filing the application because the certificates were lying in Delhi, where he was working previously. However, a complete bio-data was filed. Necessary certificates were filed at the time of interview for scrutiny and after examination of the original certificates, he was permitted to appear at the interview and, thereafter, he was selected. 7. The case of respondent no. However, a complete bio-data was filed. Necessary certificates were filed at the time of interview for scrutiny and after examination of the original certificates, he was permitted to appear at the interview and, thereafter, he was selected. 7. The case of respondent no. 8 is that he was initially appointed as a Wardrobe Assistant in the SIET in the year 1988. He passed Post-Graduate examination in Public Administration and Bachelor or Journalism and Mass Media with special paper Radio and T.V. much before the advertisement of the post in question. He was assigned duty of Production Assistant and Script Writer in addition to his own work and subsequently he was assigned the duty of Producer in 1995-96 and in support of the said fact, he filed certificates as Annexures X series to his counter-affidavit. He has been certified by the producer of the SIET that he has written E.T.V. Scripts besides assisting in the production of the Film/E.T.V. Programmes, which were telecast from Doordarshan Kendra under educational programme for children. He has also been assisting in editing work etc. since 1988. Thus, he was assigned the work of assisting the Producer in production of Film/E.T.V. Programme in addition to his own work as would appear from order dated 26.8.1989, a copy of which was filed as Annexure Y/3 to the counter-affidavit. Thus, he has requisite experience in terms of the advertisement. 8. The appellant filed a reply to the counter affidavits of respondents no. 6 to 8 and reiterated the same very facts. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondents no. 6 to 8 did not possess requisite qualification from recognised Institutes and as such they did not fulfil the requirement of the advertisement. In this connection, in appeal, the appellant filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the fact that in the year 1993, steps were taken to make appointment to the post of Deputy Production Officer and the Secretary of the Bihar Public Service Commission sought for an information from the Director of the SIET with regard to experience from the recognised Institute and the SIET informed about the requisite qualification for the post of Deputy Production Officer and also given the list of recognised Institutes from where the experience is required by the SIET. He further submitted that as the Institutes from where respondents no. He further submitted that as the Institutes from where respondents no. 6 to 6 claimed to have gained experience, are not included in the list of Institutes, submitted by the SIET with regard to the appointment to the post of Deputy Production Officer, they cannot be said to have gained experience from the recognised Institutes. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that respondents no. 6 to 8 possess requisite qualification and the expert body considered the documents filed by them and found that they fulfilled the requisite criteria regarding experience. This Court in the writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the decision of the expert body. They further said that the recognised Institute in the advertisement does not mean an Institute recognised by the Government, on the other hand, it means the training from the establishment, which is engaged in the Film making/T.V. programme production by its very nature as a commercial activity, which can be taken by the Governmental agency like Doordarshan and if the training is taken from the private agency, or a reputed private body, then the same will also be treated to be a recognised body. It was further submitted that the document relied upon by the appellant at the appellate stage cannot be looked into specially when that was in regard to appointment to other posts in pursuance of other advertisement. It was further submitted that since 1996, respondents no. 6 to 8 after appointment are working and they are associated with the production and in such a case even it is accepted for the argument sake that they had no requisite experience, they have acquired requisite experience by now. The appellant has also no case as even the Institute from where the appellant claims to have acquired experience is also not recognised one and as such he cannot claim benefit of experience gained by him and as such he was not eligible for the post. 11. Admitted fact is that the appellant has not alleged any bias or mala fide against the members of the Committee. It is also admitted that the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the field and the mode of selection was on the basis of interview. The Committee considered all the documents filed by the respondents no. 11. Admitted fact is that the appellant has not alleged any bias or mala fide against the members of the Committee. It is also admitted that the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the field and the mode of selection was on the basis of interview. The Committee considered all the documents filed by the respondents no. 6 to 8 and found that they possessed the requisite experience in terms of the advertisement and, accordingly, recommended for the appointment. According to the terms of the advertisement, the appellant and respondents no. 6 to 8 claim to have fulfilled the criteria of five years experience of Film making/T.V. programme production from a recognised institute. There is nothing in the advertisement to show even a word as to what is the meaning of the recognised Institute. The expert body, which interviewed the candidates, was also not of the view that the recognised Institute means an Institute recognised by the Government. It treated the same as an Institute generally recognised for imparting experience of Film making and TV. programme production and considered the documents filed by each of the respondents and found that they fulfilled the requisite experience in terms of the advertisement. The Committee appears to have treated the recognised Institute as an Institute actually in existence and publicly known and on that basis examined the experience of respondents no. 6 to 8, who, as stated above, have gained experience from the Institutes, which are publicly known including Doordarshan etc. When the expert body, dealing with the matter, found that the respondents no., 6 to 8 have requisite experience, then there is no reason to take a different view in the matter, specially when the advertisement in clear terms did not show that the recognised Institute means the Institute recognised by the Government of India. Thus, the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant with regard to the same is rejected. 12. The documents, which have been appended with the counter-affidavit and which have been considered by the Committee clearly show that respondents no. 6 to 8 have requisite experience. Though respondent no. 8 was appointed in the SIET itself as Wardrobe Assistant but various documents appended with his counter affidavit show that he was associated with the Film making/T.V. programme production and the expert body has accepted the same. 6 to 8 have requisite experience. Though respondent no. 8 was appointed in the SIET itself as Wardrobe Assistant but various documents appended with his counter affidavit show that he was associated with the Film making/T.V. programme production and the expert body has accepted the same. If there is no allegation of mala fide and bias against the members of the Committee and the selection has been made by the expert body then the Court will be slow to interfere in such matters. 13. In the case of Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1088 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Apex Court held in paragraph 16 that the assignment of marks in the oral interview is the domain of the Expert Committee and if no allegation of bias or mala fide is made against the members of the Interview Committee, the Court cannot interfere only on the basis of mere suspicion having no factual basis. Thus, in view of the settled law that if a technical or expert body has gone into the matter and found that the candidate possessed requisite qualification and has made selection and in absence of the allegation of mala fide or bias, the Court should not interfere with the selection process. 14. So far as the document relied upon by the appellant at the stage of appeal that the recognised institute means an Institute recognised by the Government or some statutory body is concerned, that cannot be of any help in this case for the simple reason that that was with regard to the case of an appointment to another post on the basis of another advertisement, more so when the terms of the said advertisement is not before this Court. 15. Admitted fact is that the respondents no. 6 to 8 are working since 1996 in the Institute and associated with the production and as such they have more than five years experience even after appointment in the matter of Film making and T.V. Production Programme and as such on equitable grounds no case for interference with the selection process is made out. 6 to 8 are working since 1996 in the Institute and associated with the production and as such they have more than five years experience even after appointment in the matter of Film making and T.V. Production Programme and as such on equitable grounds no case for interference with the selection process is made out. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Budbl Nath Chaudhary vs. Abhai Kumar, reported in (2001) 3 S.C.C. 328 , wherein the Apex Court held that if there was lack of experience at the time of recruitment but in the meantime the candidate has acquired the requisite experience on the post, then the appointment pursuant to that selection need not be disturbed. 16. There is another reason not to interfere in the matter. As the appellant, admittedly, appeared before the Selection Committee, participated in the same and now having not been selected, cannot be allowed to challenge the mode of selection. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Madan Lal (supra) wherein at paragraph no. 9 it has been held that if a candidate has taken chance and appeared at the oral interview and declared unsuccessful at the interview, he cannot challenge the interview test as unfair. 17. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.