JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent/the Registrar, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai-5, pertaining to proceedings No.D1(B)/TE/2005/4263, dated 03.06.2005, in and by which, the 2nd respondent came to be selected as 'Reader' in the Bio-chemistry Department of the University while the candidacy of the petitioner was rejected, to quash the same and consequently, to appoint the petitioner as 'Reader' in the said Department of the R1-University. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made extensive submissions, by exhaustively highlighting certain vital facts which ultimately led to filing of the present writ petition, in the following manner. The petitioner was, in the year 1986, originally appointed as a Technical Officer (UGC) in the Department of Biochemistry, University of Madras, Guindy Campus, Chennai, and, after putting in a lengthy service of 14 years, by way of re-designation, he came to be appointed as a Lecturer on 11.07.2000 and, since then, he has been working as such. While so, the first respondent/University called for Applications for appointment to the post of Reader in the Biochemistry Department of its Guindy Campus, specifying the essential qualification as PH.D. with five years of teaching and/or research and also M.Sc. in Biochemistry with field of specialization in Immunology, Molecular Biology and Bio-informatics. The petitioner, being fully eligible to be appointed as a Reader, applied for the said post along with several other candidates including respondents-2 and 4. In the Advertisement, the University mentioned that the selection procedure would be based on a 100 points scale viz., 15 points for expert evaluation, 5 for additional qualifications, 10 for teaching/research experience beyond 10 years, 20 for research publications made by the candidates both at National and International level & also for publication of books, 10 for the projects conducted and funds generated by each candidate, 15 for the conference/seminars participated by the candidates, 10 for organizational activities and conducting conference & seminar and the remaining 15 points were reserved for performance in the interview. The interview was held on 18.05.2005 and, of the 11 candidates participated, the petitioner alone was the internal candidate working in the very same Department while others were outside candidates having relatively lesser qualification than him in terms of experience and exposure. The interview was held on 18.05.2005 and, of the 11 candidates participated, the petitioner alone was the internal candidate working in the very same Department while others were outside candidates having relatively lesser qualification than him in terms of experience and exposure. The petitioner, having 18 years of rich teaching and research experience in the very same department, is a Specialist in the field of immunology and he had completed one Orientation Programme and two refresher Courses which are essential for the appointment of ‘Reader by Promotion’ as per the U.G.C. Guidelines. He published 55 research papers in both internationally and nationally reputed journals and also produced Ph.D. and M.Phil students. Also, he co-authored three books and, through his research activities and publications, a sum of Rs.45 lakhs has been generated in the respondent-University. He also delivered guest lectures to the Under Graduate and Post Graduate students in Biochemistry in various colleges in Tamil Nadu. Apart from that, he is a recognized Examiner for P.G. and Research degrees in various Universities in the Country. In terms of the above distinctions, the petitioner is entitled for full points prescribed under the first column - Expert Evaluation. As regards additional qualification, the petitioner possesses four additional qualifications which no other participants possessed. He is the only candidate having the longest period of teaching experience amongst the candidates. He has produced 3 Ph.D. & 12 M.Phil Students and he was a co-investigator for 3 Ph.D and 2 M.Phil students. He attended various conferences and seminars both at national and international levels, for which, he is entitled to get the full points. Further, having regard to the fact that he attended 30 National and 2 international seminars, the Selection Committee should have given him full points there-for. On the other hand, he was given only 7 points. Therefore, the allotment of 7 points under the column 'conferences participated is quite arbitrary. At any rate, in the over-all evaluation of all the requirements to meet the 100 points scale, the petitioner is the only candidate possessing more qualification than any other candidate appeared for the interview. While so, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, by way of the impugned proceedings, the first respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as a Reader. At any rate, in the over-all evaluation of all the requirements to meet the 100 points scale, the petitioner is the only candidate possessing more qualification than any other candidate appeared for the interview. While so, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, by way of the impugned proceedings, the first respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as a Reader. The facts remains that the 2nd respondent does not possess any teaching experience and that he is a Post Doctoral Fellow in U.S.A. and he left India in 1997 and till now, he is doing his Post Doctoral Research under the guidance of a Supervisor. Further, the 2nd respondent himself being a student in research, he had no opportunity to produce any Ph.D. or M.phil student. So far as the projects are concerned, the 2nd respondent had no chance to apply for the projects to generate funds since he is permanently residing at U.S.A. and also, he had no chance to organize any conference or seminar since he himself is a student till date. Since permanent faculties of the Department alone can organize seminars and conference, R2 being a permanent resident of the U.S., he did not contribute anything to the development of science and welfare of the students in the R1-University. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above factual aspects themselves would go to show that the petitioner was unjustly and arbitrarily denied the appointment just to favour the 2nd respondent, who did not possess the required qualification for appointment to the post of Reader. 2-A. By referring to Chapter IX of the Statutes of the University, which provides that the selection committee for appointment of reader should consist of (a) Vice Chancellor, (b) an Academician, who is a nominee of the Chancellor, (c) Three Experts in the subject concerned, (d) the Dean of the Faculty and (e) Head of the Department, it is submitted that the Dean of the Faculty, who alone knows the requirements in the particular department and who can identify the right candidate suitable to the faculty, was purposely avoided to see that the right candidate is omitted and the favoured one is selected. 2-B. In the same line, it is further contended that the petitioner is the only candidate possessing higher qualification than any other candidate who attended the interview to meet the 100 points scale prescribed by the University for selection to the post of Reader. Therefore, compared to R-2, obviously, the petitioner is entitled to get more points under each column based on his teaching and research experience, publication of research papers and other curricular activities. If the University strictly adhered to the norms prescribed, they would not have unduly favoured the 2nd respondent so as to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate entitlement to the post. 2-C. By referring to the following tabular column drawn by the petitioner regarding the points awarded to him as well as R-2 & R4, MARKETING PATTERN UNDER VARIOUS HEADS PETITIONER SECOND RESPONDENT FOURTH RESPONDENT points Eligible points points points points Eligible points Col1. Expert Evaluation Awarded Eligible Awarded Awarded 0.0 7.6 0.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 [15] Col.2 Additional 2.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.0 2.0 Qualification [5] Col.3 Teaching/Research 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 experience [5] Col4. M.Phil.,/Ph.D., 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Produced [5] Col5. Research 10.5 10.5 6.5 15.0 5.5 15.0 Publications [15] Col6. Research Projects conducted & Funds 14.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 generated [15] Col.7 Conferences 8.3 7.0 6.5 13.5 7.0 13.0 participated [15] Col8. Organizational 5.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 activities [10] Col9. Interview [15] 0.0 6.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 10.0 Total points 62.4 42.4 36.5 53.5 34.5 52.0 it is argued that the Selection Committee has awarded 7.6 points out of 15 under the column ‘Expert Evaluation’, whereas R-2 and R-4 were awarded 11 and 12 points respectively and it is now known on what basis the said respondents were awarded more points than the petitioner when there is no material at all to show that they excelled the petitioner in respect of the qualification provided under the relevant column. In respect of the column ‘Additional Qualification’ carrying 5 points, the petitioner is entitled for 2 points, R-2 entitled for 0.5 points and the 4th respondent only deserves 'zero', but ironically, the Selection Committee awarded 0.5 points to the petitioner and generously awarded 2 points to the 2nd respondent as well as the 4th respondent. In respect of the column ‘Additional Qualification’ carrying 5 points, the petitioner is entitled for 2 points, R-2 entitled for 0.5 points and the 4th respondent only deserves 'zero', but ironically, the Selection Committee awarded 0.5 points to the petitioner and generously awarded 2 points to the 2nd respondent as well as the 4th respondent. Under the column ‘Teaching/Research Experience’, the petitioner is eligible to get 4 points, but, he was wrongly awarded only 2 points. Similarly, under the head ‘Research Publications’ which, according to the petitioner carry 15 points, he is eligible to get 10.5 points while respondents-2 and 4 deserve only 6.5 and 5.5 respectively; however, arbitrarily, the petitioner was awarded only 10.5 points while respondents-2 and 4 were benevolently granted 15 full points. Similarly, under the head 'Conferences Participated', out of the 15 points, he is eligible for 8.25 while respondents-2 and 4 deserve only 6.5 and 7 points respectively. Again, very unjustly, the petitioner was given 8.25 points while the rival respondents were given 13.5 and 13 points respectively. So pointing out, learned counsel would add that, had the norms prescribed by the University been followed in letter and spirit, the best amongst the meritorious candidates viz., the petitioner, alone would have been given appointment to the post of Reader. But, the selection committee has already decided to unhinge the petitioner so as to favour the 2nd respondent in an utter biased and illegal manner; therefore, the entire selection proceedings should be held to be illegal by allowing the writ petition with a consequential direction to appoint the petitioner as 'Reader' in the Biochemistry Department of the 1st respondent-University. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the University/Respondents-1 & 3 would strongly contend that the allegations made by the petitioner are totally misconceived and baseless. She pointed out that Respondents-2 and 4 were awarded zero points against column No.5 under ‘Teaching/Research Experience’ whereas the petitioner has been awarded 2 points there-for. According to her, if the Selection Committee had arbitrarily exercised the power, they would not have awarded zero points to respondents-2 and 4 while awarding 2 points to the petitioner. She pointed out that Respondents-2 and 4 were awarded zero points against column No.5 under ‘Teaching/Research Experience’ whereas the petitioner has been awarded 2 points there-for. According to her, if the Selection Committee had arbitrarily exercised the power, they would not have awarded zero points to respondents-2 and 4 while awarding 2 points to the petitioner. By highlighting the fact that the petitioner, who was working as Technical Officer, was re-designated as Lecturer on 11.07.2000 and further, the said re-designation order specifically states that the earlier services of the petitioner as Technical Officer would not be taken into consideration, it is much stressed that the petitioner is not legally entitled to derive any advantage for the period of teaching prior to his re-designation. 3-A. In respect of the Selection Process, it is argued that the process was done strictly in accordance with the regulations, but, the petitioner has totally misconstrued the purport of the Regulations to suit his convenience and projected a different picture than what actually it was. Having regard to the format prescribed in the application at Sl. No.14(a), whereby, the candidates are required to furnish the list of publications and various other details mentioned therein, the experts, who possess more than 25 years of experience in the relevant field and holding high position such as Professors, Director of Research etc., could easily ascertain the level from the details furnished and evaluate the quality of the publications submitted along with Bio-Data. Therefore, asking for copies of the re-prints may not become necessary in all cases. Thus, there is no illegality or violations of any sort whatsoever as alleged by the petitioner in this regard. The expert evaluation having been done for all the candidates the day before the interview, the faint averment that the petitioner became aware of such evaluation being a factor for the purpose of selection only after invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, is totally incorrect. Strangely, the petitioner assigns the points for himself as if he is the Selection Committee by completely ignoring the aspect that he has no authority at all to find fault with the selection process and to question as to on what basis the Committee awarded lower points to him and awarded higher points to respondents-2 and 4. Strangely, the petitioner assigns the points for himself as if he is the Selection Committee by completely ignoring the aspect that he has no authority at all to find fault with the selection process and to question as to on what basis the Committee awarded lower points to him and awarded higher points to respondents-2 and 4. Further, the interpretation given by the petitioner and the methodology suggested by him would defeat the very object choosing the more meritorious candidate. It is reiterated that the experts awarded the points based on the Impact Factor and the Citation Index, which alone would reveal the quality of the publications. The 2nd respondent had published many publications in high impact factor journals while the publications of the petitioner were made in journals which do not enjoy high impact factor and Citation Index, therefore, the Selection Committee, by considering the striking quality of the works of the 2nd respondent, awarded higher points to him and, viewed in that perspective, the judgment and decision of the Selection Committee cannot be assailed as arbitrary or incorrect. 3-B. In respect of the points awarded for participation in conferences, it is stated that the Selection Committee consisting of experts, properly ascertained the value of the contribution made by the candidates and, after finding that the work done by the 2nd respondent being unique and distinct from that of others, awarded 13.5 points to him and 7 points to the 4th respondent out of the over-all points of 15. The fixation of maximum points of 5 for international conference adopted by the petitioner in calculating points for himself and respondents-2 and 4 is self serving and would undoubtedly defeat the object sought to be achieved. 3-C. In respect of the contention made by the petitioner that there was no S.C. (Scheduled Caste) Nominee in the Selection committee so as to safeguard the interest of the candidates belonging to SC Community, it is replied that as per G.O. Ms. No.289, dated 09.10.2001, it is mandatory for the University to appoint an SC Nominee in the Selection Committee to safeguard the interest of the candidates belonging to SC Community. Accordingly, the University used to appoint an SC Nominee if the post is exclusively earmarked for SC and also in cases where SC candidates appear for the interview. No.289, dated 09.10.2001, it is mandatory for the University to appoint an SC Nominee in the Selection Committee to safeguard the interest of the candidates belonging to SC Community. Accordingly, the University used to appoint an SC Nominee if the post is exclusively earmarked for SC and also in cases where SC candidates appear for the interview. While so, in the constitution of Selection Committee for recruiting Lecturer for the Department of Polymer Science, which was earmarked for SC, the University appointed Dr.A.Ramu, Professor of Inorganic Chemistry, Madurai Kamaraj University as the SC Nominee. In this case, the allegation of the petitioner that no SC Nominee was available in the Selection Committee is factually incorrect. By way of clarification, it is submitted that the present post in question falling under General Turn Category and there being no participation of any SC/ST candidates in the interview, there was no need for appointing an SC Nominee in the Selection Committee. 3-D. The Expert Committee, in implementing the task entrusted with them to appoint a right candidate as Reader for the Bio-Chemistry Department, concentrated only on the quality of the work as well as the materials produced by the individuals and, in that perspective, the impact factor and the citation index weighed much with the Committee in the case of the right candidate, the 2nd respondent and accordingly, he was selected having regard to the resource and quality he possessed and not on the basis of any personal consideration whatsoever; therefore, it is ultimately pleaded that the baseless and self-assumed allegations of the petitioner have to be just discarded by dismissing the writ petition with costs. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, at the first instance, highlighting the distinct qualification and the incredible research background of the 2nd respondent, stated that the 2nd respondent, after passing his Master's Degree (M.Sc) in Bio-chemistry in 1990 with first class, did the M.Phil in 1991 and Ph.D. in 1996 in the very same Department of Biochemistry at the University of Madras where-at he has been selected for the Reader position. To his credits, he had received several national and international research fellowships. He is the recipient of Birla Smark Kosh Medical Endowment Junior Research Fellowship (1992-1994) as well as Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Senior Research Fellowship, Government of India (1995-97). To his credits, he had received several national and international research fellowships. He is the recipient of Birla Smark Kosh Medical Endowment Junior Research Fellowship (1992-1994) as well as Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Senior Research Fellowship, Government of India (1995-97). He is also a recipient of (a) Post Doctoral Fellowship from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem at Isrel; (b) Special Training Award (STA) from International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon Cedex, France; (c) Japan Society for the promotion of Sciences (JSPS) Post-Doctoral Fellowship for Foreign Researcher, Japan; and (d) Post Doctoral Fellowship from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Apart from that, he is also a member of Prestigious Scientific Societies like American Heart Association, American Physiological Society, International Society on Heart Research and also Society for Free Radical Research. During his eight years of post-doctoral research experience in highly reputed international laboratories, he worked under leading scientists by doing his first post doctoral work with Prof.Esther Shami and Dr.Roni Kohen, Department of Pharmacology at the Hebrew University at Isrel, followed by the second post doctoral work in the laboratory of Dr.Subha Sen, a Pioneer in the field of Cardiac Hypertrophy and Heart Failure at the Molecular Cardiology Department, Cleveland Clinic Foundation of USA, which is ranked several times as a number-one premier Heart Research Institution and the best Hospital in the U.S. His 3rd Post Doctoral work was with Dr.Kailash N.Pandey, a Pioneer in the Field of Natriuretic Peptide Receptors at Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, USA. He also involved in several important research projects which were funded by the National Institute of Health, U.S. Ultimately, he became successful in identifying and characterizing a new protein molecule which has potential role in the development of cardiac hypertrophy and heart failure. Besides that, he made several new findings in his research and contributed significantly in understanding the cardiovascular disease process. He published extensive research data in the ‘Journal of Biological Chemistry', 2005, 13;280(19):19230-42, which is one of the top and highly impact factor journal in the field. That apart, he authored 10 research publications and 17 research articles in peer reviewed journals, which possess high impact factors and had been cited by several researchers throughout the world. He published extensive research data in the ‘Journal of Biological Chemistry', 2005, 13;280(19):19230-42, which is one of the top and highly impact factor journal in the field. That apart, he authored 10 research publications and 17 research articles in peer reviewed journals, which possess high impact factors and had been cited by several researchers throughout the world. He attended 14 international conferences and 2 national conferences and, at several times, his research work was selected for oral presentation in international meetings which had attendees of over 25000 scientists from all over the world. Learned Senior counsel, thus highlighting the distinguished qualification and the distinct factors that elevated the position of the 2nd respondent, would submit that these aspects have been taken into account by the Selection Committee which, in order to take in the best-talented individual to well serve the interests of the Institution, selected the 2nd respondent in the right manner, which cannot be called in question by the petitioner. He would further submit that the allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent did not hold a Faculty Position or has failed to produce a Ph.D. Student cannot even be heard at all since the Advertisement did not even say that it is mandatory that the candidate should hold a Faculty Position or must have produced a Ph.D.Student. By adding that, when the Selection Committee, which is an Expert Body comprising of the Vice Chancellor and seven members finalised as per the norms of the UGC, is apprised of the merits and demerits of every candidate and it has assessed and found the credentials of the 2nd respondent far better than the petitioner, the court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the expert body. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. No one has appeared for the fourth respondent. 6. Considered the rival submissions made on either side. As regards the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is the only candidate having the longest period of teaching experience amongst other candidates who appeared for the interview, it is seen that though it has been averred so by the petitioner in his affidavit, such claim has been emphatically denied by the University in its counter affidavit. In this regard, it is the case of the University based on the service records that the petitioner, who was originally appointed as a Technical Officer in the Department of Bio-Chemistry, was re-designated as Lecturer, by order dated 11.07.2000, only subject to the conditions that, (a) he will be shown against the substantive post of Technical Officer under which he was appointed originally; (b) the re-designation as Lecturer shall be prospective; and (c) He shall qualify for any further promotion with reference to his date of re-designation as Lecturer and his past services will not count for any further advancement in career. Thus, in terms of the re-designation order dated 11.07.2000, at the time of conducting the interview, admittedly, the petitioner was hardly possessing 5 year experience in teaching for the reason, prior to that, he was working as a Technical Officer. Moreover, the writ petitions filed before this Court by the petitioner in W.P. Nos.34243 and 34244 of 2007, questioning the terms and conditions prescribed in the re-designation order with a consequential prayer to restrain the University from filling up the post of Readers and Professors without appointing the petitioner, were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2007 with a clear finding that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought for therein. By conveniently suppressing these facts, the petitioner now projects as if he is having 18 years of teaching experience. It is also pertinent to mention that the University Grants Commission (UGC), by its communication dated 03.02.2009, refused to recognize the re-designation of the Technical Officers as Lecturers and the State Government has also consequently refused to approve the re-designation. That being so, the argument advanced before this Court that the petitioner should have been awarded the highest points on the basis of his longest teaching/research experience cannot be countenanced. 7. As regards the argument that the petitioner is the only candidate having more number of publications numbering 55 and also co-authored three text-books and that the petitioner has a distinguished footing since he attended various seminars and conferences both at National and international levels for which he is entitled to get higher points than respondents-2 and 4, straight away, it must be said that such argument does not carry any substance at all for more than one reason. This Court is apprised well that the Experts, who were given the liberty to examine various vital aspects for selecting the best candidate, awarded the points not just based on the quantity but on quality ie., on the Impact Factor and the Citation Index of the publications. The Experts of the Selection Committee, after accurately ascertaining the quality and value of the contributions, awarded 13.5 points to the 2nd respondent and 7 points to the 4th respondent out of the over-all points of 15. Further, the fixation of maximum points of 5 for International Conference adopted by the petitioner in calculating points for himself cannot be accepted since the evaluation made by the subject experts, who are extraordinary evaluators with reference to the performance records submitted before them, cannot be simply doubted or undervalued. 8. Again, in respect of the points awarded for research publication supplemented by Impact Factor and Citation Index, it is seen that respondents-2 and 4 were awarded 15 points while the petitioner was given only 10.5 points. In this regard, it must be pointed out that the Expert committee, while examining the publications of the petitioner with that of other candidates including respondents-2 and 4, does not seem to have impressed with the the publications of the petitioner as the same did not have the requisite quality in terms of Impact Factor and Citation Index and they appeared only in low quality publications not commensurate with national or international standards. Therefore, though the petitioner's publications were numerous, the subject experts, who enjoy wider knowledge about the Impact Factor of the journals published at international evels, could not prioritise the work of the petitioner, for, what matter with them was the quality, of course, proportionate to the quantity and, in that regard, undoubtedly, the renowned works of the 2nd respondent drew acceptance and recognition. Therefore, the self-assumed grievance of the petitioner in the matter of awarding points does not merit consideration at all. 9. Besides, prior to the commencement of the evaluation process, it is upto the Selection Committee with Vice Chancellor being its Chairman to devise and arrive at the methodology to be adhered to for assigning points which may vary from the marking pattern devised commonly for all the subjects. 9. Besides, prior to the commencement of the evaluation process, it is upto the Selection Committee with Vice Chancellor being its Chairman to devise and arrive at the methodology to be adhered to for assigning points which may vary from the marking pattern devised commonly for all the subjects. Therefore, the procedure adopted by such Expert Committee to assign points for individual candidates cannot be substituted by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Regarding the submission that awarding of points by the Selection Committee has been done arbitrarily, it would be relevant to mention that respondents-2 and 4 have been awarded zero points against Column No.5 under 'Teaching / Research Experience if more than 10 years' while the petitioner was awarded 2 points. Had the allocation of points proceeded arbitrarily as alleged by the petitioner, the Committee could have even avoided awarding of 2 points to the petitioner when zero mark was awarded to respondents-2 and 4. Therefore, the said submission is also not factually tenable. 11. Coming to the issue raised regarding non-compliance of G.O. No.289, dated 09.10.2001, the University reiterated about the strict adherence on its part to the provisions of the said G.O. in all relevant cases wherever the situation warrants appointment of an SC Nominee in the Committee. By citing an illustration viz., in the constitution of Selection Committee for recruiting Lecturer for the Department of Polymer Science, which was earmarked for SC, the University appointed Dr.A.Ramu, Professor of Inorganic Chemistry, Madurai kamaraj University as SC Nominee, however, while finalizing the minutes, the words 'SC Nominee' were put against Dr.P.Gnanasundaram, Professor in Chemistry, Anna University, inadvertently, whereupon, UGC required a clarification on the same and the typographical error that had crept in the minutes was apprised to UGC, learned counsel appearing for the University, in an endeavour to undo the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the contingency of appointing an SC Nominee would arise only where the post in question is earmarked for SC or if there are any SC candidate appearing for the interview under General Turn (GT) as per G.O. Ms. No.289, dated 09.10.2001; whereas, in the present case, no SC/ST candidate appeared for the interview and therefore, no SC Nominee was appointed in the Selection Committee. No.289, dated 09.10.2001; whereas, in the present case, no SC/ST candidate appeared for the interview and therefore, no SC Nominee was appointed in the Selection Committee. Therefore, the submission is as vague as it is, in the light of the factual position as elaborated above. 12. The other submission that the petitioner's request to the University to furnish him with the documents containing points awarded to the candidates was purposely not considered, thereby, the colourable exercise of power on the part of the University is clearly apparent, cannot be given much credence in view of the admitted fact that though initially, the University declined to furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner, by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the petitioner procured the relevant papers. It must also be pointed out that, if the documents relating to award of points in fact suggest any malpractice or violation of mandatory requirement, the present submission would definitely weigh with this court, but, on the contrary, as discussed above in depth, none of the allegations attributed by the petitioner as against the University as well as the Expert Committee turned out to be genuine to decide otherwise. 13. Ultimately, it is relevant to highlight again here, the Expert committee, headed by the Vice Chancellor of the University and 7 members nominated in terms of the UGC Norms, awarded points to the individuals only based on their record performance and expertise in the field and, in that course, the overwhelming achievement and the lofty performance of the 2nd respondent at international level impressed them much to declare him an outstanding candidate for the post of Reader with the intention that ultimately, the students of the University would derive the best utility. Of course, the petitioner may be right in his own thinking that he is the best performer deserving appointment to the post of Reader. Of course, the petitioner may be right in his own thinking that he is the best performer deserving appointment to the post of Reader. But, the self-assumption of the petitioner that he is possessing the longest experience of 18 years turned to be only a presumption in the light of the admitted fact that, as on the date of application and interview, he not even completed 5 years of teaching experience as his re-designation as Lecturer from the post of Technical Officer came into effect prospectively from the year 2000 and further, such re-designation also hinges with a question mark due to the rejection for re- designation proposal by the UGC as well as the Government. On the contrary, the 2nd respondent, with his acclaimed career skills as reflected from his performance record, commenced and continued the job through academic medium and not via technical medium as in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the laborious endeavour of this Court to favourably appreciate the case of the petitioner and to accept his claim could not fructify as the scales tilt only in favour of the 2nd respondent, whose aligned career standard and performance records were well examined and assessed by the Expert Committee, which had no other option in terms of merit except to select the 2nd respondent, and such decision can never be interfered with by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too, in the given factual scenario and the settled legal position as declared by the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in alike matters. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in B.C.Mylarappa v. R.Venkatasubbiah (2009 (2) MLJ 196 (SC)) for the proposition that it is not for the High Court to interfere with the Selection made by the Expert Committee of the University. The relevant passage from the decision is quoted below:- “25. In National Institute of Mental Health & amp; Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC 481], this Court considered in detail the role of an expert body in deciding the candidature for selection to a particular post. The relevant passage from the decision is quoted below:- “25. In National Institute of Mental Health & amp; Neuro Sciences vs. Dr.K.Kalyana Raman & Ors. [1992 Supp (2) SCC 481], this Court considered in detail the role of an expert body in deciding the candidature for selection to a particular post. While doing so, this Court at Para 7 at P. 484 of the said decision observed as follows: In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. The High Court seems to be in error in stating that the Selection Committee ought to have given some reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as against the other candidate. The selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the required eligibility. There is no rule or regulation brought to our notice requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons. In the absence of any such legal requirement the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. The High Court in support of its reasoning has, however, referred to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lai Capoor. That decision proceeded on a statutory requirement. Regulation 5(5) which was considered in that case required the Selection Committee to record its reasons for superseding a senior member in the State Civil service. The decision in Capoor case was rendered on 26 September, 1973. In June, 1977, Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting the requirement of recording reasons for the supersession of senior officers of the State Civil services. The Capoor case cannot, therefore, be construed as an authority for the proposition that there should be reason formulation for administrative decision. Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R. S. Dass v. Union of India in which Capoor case was also distinguished.” 14. This principle has been stated by this Court in R. S. Dass v. Union of India in which Capoor case was also distinguished.” 14. In the same line, in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S.Mahajan ( AIR 1990 SC 434 ), the Apex Court reiterated that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize 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. 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 etc. To quote the relevant portion, “9. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize 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. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction. 15. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction. 15. Again, the Apex Court, by relying on the above referred decisions in B.C.Mylarappa and other cases, reiterated the settled legal position in its recent decision reported in 2010 (8) SCC 372 (Basavaiah (DR.) v. DR.H.L.Ramesh) by observing as follows:- “We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has ignored the consistent legal position. They were expected to abide by the discipline of the precedents of the courts.” 16. Bearing in mind the settled legal position that, in the given facts and circumstances which only justify the decision of the University taken in the paramount interest of the institution for maintaining the scholastic calibre of the students through the best-talented faculty, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge the decisions of academic bodies/expert committees. 17. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the petitioner has not made out a valid ground or put forth a sustainable point to persuade this Court even to slightly shrug at the decision of the Expert Panel taken in the overall interest of the institution as well as the aspiring scholars/students while wrapping up the responsible job of selecting the best amongst the best. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed, however, there will be no order as to costs.