JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection of the respondent No. 5 as Lecturer in Commerce in Karimganj College in the District of Karimganj, Assam. The post involved is the Lecturer in Commerce (Management). According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 is under qualified to hold the post as he does not have M. Com. degree in Management. 2. The petitioner is an M. Com. in Management group which he obtained from Gauhati University. He has also cleared the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET). The Principal of Karimganj College published an advertisement in the issue of Assam Tribune dated 15.3.2008 inviting applications from the qualified candidates, amongst others for the post of Commerce (Management) reserved for OBC/MOBC. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner and others including the respondent No. 5 offered their candidatures. The selection committee recommended the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner respectively in order of merit. Such recommendation was in the selection committee meeting held on 27.5.2008 (Annexure-5). Thereafter the managing committee of the college resolved to appoint the respondent No. 5 being the first nominee vide resolution No. 8 dated 28.5.2008. Since prior approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam was to be obtained as per Rules, the resolution adopted was along with the records to the Director of Higher Education for his prior approval. It appears that the Director of Higher Education by his Annexure-H letter dated 25.6.2008 addressed to the Principal of the college called for the mark sheets from TDC onward in respect of the respondent No. 5. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed on 4.8.2008 challenging the very selection of the respondent No. 5. 3. The writ petition was entertained by order dated 6.8.2008 and an interim order was passed that if in the meantime the Director of Higher Education, Assam had not accorded the approval to the recommendation, of the Governing Body of the college vis--vis the respondent No. 5, same should not be done till the next date fixed. From the materials on record, it appears that the prior approval was accorded by the Director of Higher Education vide his Annexure-R/4 letter dated 5.8.2008. Conditional interim order having been passed on 6.8,2008, prior approval accorded on 5.8.2008 already stood operated. 4. According to the petitioner while he is an M. Com. From the materials on record, it appears that the prior approval was accorded by the Director of Higher Education vide his Annexure-R/4 letter dated 5.8.2008. Conditional interim order having been passed on 6.8,2008, prior approval accorded on 5.8.2008 already stood operated. 4. According to the petitioner while he is an M. Com. in Management from Gauhati University, the respondent No. 5 who has obtained his M. Com. degree from the Assam University, Silchar is not M. Com. in Management, but in Accountancy. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 was not eligible and qualified to apply for the post and accordingly the selection committee could not have recommended him as the first nominee. According to the petitioner upon setting aside and quashing the selection of the respondent No. 5 as the first nominee, he being the second nominee, would become the first nominee, rather the sole nominee and accordingly direction should be issued for his appointment as Lecturer in Commerce (Management). 5. The respondent No. 2, the Director of Higher Education, Assam has filed the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that as per Annexure R/5 letter dated 4.8.2008 addressed to the Principal, Karimganj College by the Head, Department of Commerce, Assam University, Silchar, the allegation that the respondent No. 5 did not have Management group in M. Com. is not correct. In the affidavit, the Director has also annexed Annexure-R/3 letter dated 23.6.2008 addressed to him by the Principal, Karimganj College. In the letter it was indicated that while the petitioner passed HSLC and HS examination in 3rd Division with 43% and 35% marks respectively and B. Com. and M. Com in 2nd Class with 47% and 58% marks, respondent No. 5 passed HSLC and HS in 2nd Division with 48% and 46% and B. Com. and M. Com. with 2nd Class and 1st Class respectively securing 48% and 65% marks. In the letter it was indicated that the respondent No. 5 had secured 1st position in 1st Class in M. Com. and, thus, obtained gold medal. 6. As regards the specialization in M. Com., it was stated in the letter that in the Assam University, Silchar from where the respondent No. 5 obtained his M. Com. degree, there is nothing like specialization in M. Com. and, thus, obtained gold medal. 6. As regards the specialization in M. Com., it was stated in the letter that in the Assam University, Silchar from where the respondent No. 5 obtained his M. Com. degree, there is nothing like specialization in M. Com. In fact, all the subjects relating to Management, Accountancy and Finance, etc., are taught at Post Graduate level and degree is awarded as Master of Commerce (M. Com.) and not as M. Com. in Accountancy or M. Com. in Management, etc. According to the letter, the respondent No. 5 having undergone studies in all the branches of M. Com., he had fulfilled the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement. 7. As per the said letter, the respondent No. 5 had the following Management papers in his M. Com. (a) Principles of Management including Human Resource management and Industrial Relation (b) Principles of Marketing Management (c) Financial Management (d) Management of Small Business (e) Organization Behaviour 8. The aforesaid letter also revealed that all the four papers in Management, i.e., Business Management, Financial Management, Marketing Management and Human Resource Management find place in SLET. According to the letter, the respondent No. 5 had been teaching management subjects for the last 12 years in under graduate level and was also taking classes of UGC sponsored career oriented course for marketing management. Thus, by the said letter the selection of the respondent No. 5 and approval thereof was justified. 9. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner he has reiterated his stand in the writ petition. His stand is that he being M. Com in Management and the respondent No. 5 being not, he should have been preferred over him in the matter of selection and appointment in the post of Lecturer in Commerce (Management). Referring to the mark sheet (4th Semester) of one Shri Debabrata Majumdar in M. Com. course in the Assam University, it is the stand of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 did not have the papers relating to the Management in his M. Com. and, thus, the respondent No. 5 was not eligible to apply for the post and consequently there was no question of his selection for the post. 10. When the matter was herd it was felt necessary to have the assistance of the Assam University from where the respondent No. 3 obtained his Master Degree. and, thus, the respondent No. 5 was not eligible to apply for the post and consequently there was no question of his selection for the post. 10. When the matter was herd it was felt necessary to have the assistance of the Assam University from where the respondent No. 3 obtained his Master Degree. The relevant portion of the order passed on 23.7.09 is quoted below: The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent No. 5 conforms to the requirement of the Annexure 4 advertisement dated 15.3.2008, so far as the same relates to the post of Lecturer in Commerce (Management), while it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 is an M. Com. in the stream of Accountancy but it is the stand of the governing body of the College that as per the course syllabus of the Assam University, the respondent No. 5 is eligible to apply for the said post. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Director of Higher Education, Assam, he has enclosed the Annexure R/5 letter dated 2.8.2008, addressed to the Principal of Karimganj College by the Head of the Department of Commerce, Assam University, in which 16 papers in commerce stream have been indicated. As per the said letter, the respondent No. 5 had 16 papers in his M. Com. course of study. On the other hand, the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit has brought on record the mark sheet of one Shri Debabrata Mazumdar, who also passed M. Com. from Assam University in the same year, i.e., 1996, in which year the respondent No. 5 has passed the said course. Referring to the mark sheet, it is the case of the petitioner that the said Debabrata Mazumdar had specialized course in Management unlike the respondent No. 5, who has specialized course in Accountancy. The above controversy which has a bearing in the issue as to whether the respondent No. 5 could be said to be eligible for the post of Lecturer in Commerce (Management) is required to be resolved for which it is felt necessary to have the assistance of Assam University. Accordingly, the Assam University represented by its Registrar stand impleaded as respondent No. 6, in this proceeding. 11. In response to the aforesaid order, the Registrar Assam University has filed an affidavit dated 16.11.2009. Accordingly, the Assam University represented by its Registrar stand impleaded as respondent No. 6, in this proceeding. 11. In response to the aforesaid order, the Registrar Assam University has filed an affidavit dated 16.11.2009. It has been stated in the affidavit that in the year 1995/1996 when the respondent No. 5 passed M. Com., the syllabus of NEHU, Shillong was operating in Assam University. The whole M. Com. syllabus comprised of 16 papers out of which 2 belonged to any group of specialization, namely Accounting Taxation, Planning, Trade and Transport. Two optional papers from NEHU syllabus (not as specialization) were also offered, namely, Management Accounting and Taxation as 403 and 404 instead of C-412 and C-421 or Human Resource Management and Industrial Relation as 405 and 406 (instead of C-431 and C-432) as optional. In the affidavit, the letter dated 2.8.2008 to which the Director of Higher Education has referred to in his affidavit as Annexure-R/5 has also been referred to as Annexure Z. 12. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply to the said affidavit filed by the University. In the reply affidavit it has been stated that name of the papers which the respondent No. 5 had studied leading to his Master degree belong to Management group which is also known as Human Resource Group. Further case of the petitioner is that since in the meantime, the respondent No. 5 has resigned from the post to which he was appointed pursuant to the purported illegal selection, the resultant vacancy should be offered to him. In fact, during the course of hearing, the first argument was that the respondent No. 5 having resigned from the post, irrespective of the merit of the case of the petitioner, he should be appointed in the post having regard to the fact that he is the second nominee. 13. I have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.H. Ahmed, Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Shyam, Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. N. Choudhury, Learned Standing Counsel, Assam University. I have also perused the materials on record. 14. Learned Counsel for the parties have made their submissions on the basis of the aforesaid materials. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties. 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. N. Choudhury, Learned Standing Counsel, Assam University. I have also perused the materials on record. 14. Learned Counsel for the parties have made their submissions on the basis of the aforesaid materials. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties. The first point to be considered is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to claim appointment on the basis of the fact that in the meantime the respondent has resigned from the post. As noted earlier, by the time the interim order was passed on 6.8.2008 necessary prior approval was already accorded by the Director of Higher Education, Assam towards appointment of the respondent No. 5. He had joined the post and continued to discharge his duties for sometime. However, thereafter he resigned from the post. Although the list contained the name of the petitioner as the second nominee, but the moment the respondent No. 5 was appointed with the prior approval of the Director of Higher Education, the select list got exhausted and thus, there is no question of operating the same from the select list towards appointment of the petitioner. A select list gets expired by two ways - (1) with the expiry of the time limit fixed for the validity of the select list and (2) with the appointment of the person(s) concerned against the vacant post(s). In the instant case, the select list got exhausted since the respondent No. 5 was appointed against the leave vacancy. Thus, there is no question of operating the select list for appointment of the petitioner, after registration tendered by the respondent No. 5. 15. The above aspect of the matter, however, will have to be considered in the context of the challenge being made to the very selection of the respondent No. 5. If the petitioner succeeds in his challenge, it can very well be argued that irrespective of the appointment of the respondent No. 5, the select list cannot be said to have been expired. It will be pertinent to mention there that there is no formal challenge in the writ petition to the prior approval accorded by the Director of Higher Education, Assam to the appointment of the respondent No. 5. 16. It will have to be borne in mind that the petitioner has done his M. Com. It will be pertinent to mention there that there is no formal challenge in the writ petition to the prior approval accorded by the Director of Higher Education, Assam to the appointment of the respondent No. 5. 16. It will have to be borne in mind that the petitioner has done his M. Com. from the Guahati University in Management group which is specifically provided in the University course of studies. The respondent No. 5 has done his M. Com. from Assam University with the subjects indicated in this proceeding which include the papers in Management. As reflected in the letter dated 23.6.2008 addressed to the Director of Higher Education, Assam by the Karimganj College, the respondent No. 5 had the above quoted Management papers in his Master Degree. Further in the SLET also there were four papers in Management vice Business Management, Marketing Management, Financial Management and Human Resource Management. Merely because there is no separate indication of any specialized group, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 5 was ineligible for selection as Lecturer in Commerce (Management). In the said letter, it was indicated that the respondent No, 5 had been teaching Management subjects for the last 12 years in under Graduate level and also taking classes of UGC sponsored career oriented course in Marketing Management. 17. In the instant case, the petitioner passed his M. Com. with the papers in Management. In Assam University though there is no grouping system, but there were papers at the relevant point of time pertaining to Management which the respondent No. 5 had in his M. Com. course. It is not the case that the respondent No. 5 had no Management course in his M. Com. If the Assam University at the relevant point of time did not indicate in its course of studies, the particular papers belonging to specialized group, same by itself cannot lead to the inference that the respondent No. 5 should have obtained M. Com. degree from Gauhati University alone with the Management group and that the M. Com. degree obtained by him from Assam university did not fit in the essential qualification indicated in the advertisement. 18. In the advertisement although the post indicated was Lecturer in Commerce (Management), but there was no indication that the post is meant only for those M. Com. who had the specialization in Management. degree obtained by him from Assam university did not fit in the essential qualification indicated in the advertisement. 18. In the advertisement although the post indicated was Lecturer in Commerce (Management), but there was no indication that the post is meant only for those M. Com. who had the specialization in Management. The post indicated was Lecturer in Commerce (Management) and there was no requirement of specialization in Management and the same did not confine to those M. Com. only who had specialized group in Management If the respondent No. 5, taking into account the course of studies in M. Com. was eligible and suitable for the post of Lecturer in M. Com. (Management), merely because there was no indication of any group-wise course including the Management group in his M. Com. Studies, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 5 was ineligible for the post. He had the papers pertaining to the Management group in his M. Com. studies as well as in SLET. He has also teaching experience in Management subjects for the last 12 years in under graduate level and was also taking classes of UGC sponsored career oriented course in marketing management. Considering the same, if his candidature was accepted, no fault can be attributed to the respondent College. The Assam University has also not stated in its affidavit that the respondent No. 5 was not eligible for the post of Lecturer in Commerce (Management). 19. Needless to say that the particular course of studies may be described in different names by different Universities. Merely because the course undertaken by the petitioner was described as Management group, the petitioner cannot say that he was alone eligible for the post. While in Gauhati University, the particular course is described as Management group, but in Assam University at the relevant point of time there was no such description. However, the contents of the particular group by way of various papers were there in the Assam University and the respondent No. 5 having undertaken the said course and thereafter obtained the M. Com. degree was fully eligible to apply for the particular post. 20. It is for the expert body like selection committee to make the selection on the basis of the available materials. The writ court cannot sit on appeal over the findings of the expert body. degree was fully eligible to apply for the particular post. 20. It is for the expert body like selection committee to make the selection on the basis of the available materials. The writ court cannot sit on appeal over the findings of the expert body. If the expert body like selection committee comprising of eminent personalities from the academic field found the respondent No. 5 eligible and suitable, unless it is shown to be mala fide exercise of power or a power exercised in violation of any statutory rules, the writ court cannot re-appreciate the same exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. There is another aspect of the matter. The case of the petitioner is on a particular probability of his name being recommended as first nominee in place of the respondent No. 5 due to his alleged ineligibility negated above. There was no guarantee on that. If the very candidature of the respondent No, 5 would have been rejected, it would have been open for the authorities to take a different course of action, coupled with the fact that mere inclusion of name in a select list does not give any indefeasible right for appointment. 22. Viewed from the above angle and the respondent No. 5 having already been appointed as Lecturer irrespective of his subsequent resignation from his post, the select list got expired with his appointment and thus, no mandamus can be issued for appointment of the petitioner against the said post on the basis of the same very selection pursuant to which the respondent No. 5 was appointed. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, I did not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed