1. Caveat is discharged. 2. The short question raised in this Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules is whether an Appellate Authority could assume the jurisdiction of Appellate Court by re-appreciating the marks in viva voce conducted by a legally constituted Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. 3. The question has arisen in the background facts which reveal that there is a Anganwari Centre located in Bonapora of Village Gundipora. The selection process of engaging Anganwari Worker for the aforesaid centre culminated in the selection of one Nayeema Mir which was challenged before the Appellate Authority by another candidate Mst. Wazira Akhtar-appellant. The Deputy Commissioner, exercising the power of Appellate Authority, accepted the appeal vide order dated 04.07.2011. The view expressed by the Deputy Commissioner-Appellate Authority reads as sunder:- "As per norms laid down for selection of AWC, 85 points are earmarked for basic academic merit i.e. marks obtained in Matric on pro-rata basis and 15 points have been earmarked for the interview. The respondent no. 2 submitted that the respondent no. 3 being a matriculate, got 37.50 points out of 85 points earmarked for basic qualification and secured 10 points in viva-voce, therefore her total tally comes to 47.50 out of 100 points. On the other hand the appellant also being a matriculate, got 38.56 points for her academic merit and could secure only 7 points in viva-voce, therefore, her total points work out to 45.56 in the overall merit of the said habitation she stands at 3rd position. While weighing up the contentions of the appellant viz-a-viz the report furnished by the respondent no. 2, this court feels that the appellant is not satisfied with the interview process. She alleges respondent no. 3 who has lower academic merit than her has been favoured on extraneous considerations & fair deal has not been given to her (appellant) in the viva-voce. Under the circumstances & facts explained above, the selection of respondent no. 3 as Anganwadi Worker is hereby quashed and the appellant is recommended for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for the newly established Anganwadi Centre at Bonapora, Gundipora Puiwama. However, CDPO Kakapora can engage the respondent no. 3 as Helper, if she is other eligible under norms." 4. Under the circumstances & facts explained above, the selection of respondent no. 3 as Anganwadi Worker is hereby quashed and the appellant is recommended for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for the newly established Anganwadi Centre at Bonapora, Gundipora Puiwama. However, CDPO Kakapora can engage the respondent no. 3 as Helper, if she is other eligible under norms." 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the selected candidate Nayeema Mir filed SWP No. 1431 of 2011 relatable to the instant appeal. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 14.05.2012 held that the prerogative to award marks is vested in the legally constituted Selection Committee and no one can sit as an Appellate Authority over the marks awarded by such a Committee. The Selection Committee earmarked 85 points for basic qualification and 15 marks for viva-voce. The petitioner- respondent was awarded 37.50 marks out of 85 points for matriculation and 10 marks out of 15 marks for viva-voce. Thus she secured 47.50 marks whereas the non-selected candidate-appellant secured 38.56 marks for matriculation and 7 points out of 15 for viva-voce. She ended up securing 45.56 marks which is lesser than the marks secured by writ petitioner-respondent. However, on the basis of assumed fact of biased, the Deputy Commissioner-Appellate Authority recalled the conclusion that the writ petitioner- respondent, who had lesser marks in academics, was favoured by the selection committee in the interview and in this manner she has been brought within the zone of consideration by awarding her higher points. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 6. It is well settled that no court would sit as a court of appeal over the recommendation of the selection committee for the reason that Courts are not expert in specialized area of assessing a candidate for their suitability to man a job. In that regard, reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan (1990) 1 SCC 305 and M.V. Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others (2008) 2 SCC 119 . In that regard, reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan (1990) 1 SCC 305 and M.V. Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others (2008) 2 SCC 119 . In para 12 of the judgment in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:- "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." (Emphasis added) 7. It is thus, evident that the Deputy Commissioner-Appellate Authority committed grave error of law by setting aside the recommendation of the Selection Committee in respect of the writ petitioner-respondent, namely Nayeema Mir. The aforesaid error has been rightly corrected by the learned Single Judge. The view expressed by the learned Single Judge is fully supported by the views of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the subject. 8. The appeal is wholly without merit and same is accordingly dismissed.