Judgment Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is the resolution of the Governing Body of the respondent college adopted in its meeting held on 5.4.2008 accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of the respondent No. 7 as lecturer (Statistics) in the said college. The selection was held on 19.12.2007 and as per its assessment, while the petitioner secured second position obtaining 42.7 marks out of total 100 marks, the respondent No. 7 secured first position obtaining 43.4 marks in total. Although the petitioner has annexed the comparative statement of the marks secured by different candidates (Annexure-F), but the impugned resolution of the Governing Body has not been placed on record. As will be evident from the comparative statement (Annexure-F), impugned in this proceeding, same was prepared under different heads, such as total academic marks (65 marks), teaching experience (05 marks), knowledge of the subject (15 marks) and interview marks (15) totaling to 100 marks. As regards the knowledge of the subject, it appears that the marks awarded by the experts on the subject was taken together and the average of the same was indicated in the comparative statement. 2. Although the impugned resolution of the Governing Body has not been enclosed to the writ petition, but the same has been enclosed as Annexure-6 in the application registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 1740/2008 filed by the respondent No. 7. By the said resolution, the Governing Body of the college recommended the appointment of the respondent No. 7, she being the first nominee of the Selection Committee. 3. From the pleadings and the arguments advanced, it is found that the whole controversy is in respect of the marks awarded under the head "teaching experience". Under the said head, while the petitioner has been awarded 2 marks out of total 5 marks, the respondent No. 7 has not been awarded any mark, she having had no teaching experience. According to the petitioner, going by the period of experience he had gathered in teaching, taking note of the same, the Selection Committee ought to have awarded 3 marks instead of 2 marks and in that event, he would have scored a march over the respondent No. 7 securing first position in the selection, with the eventual recommendation of the Governing Body for his appointment as lecturer (Statistics) in the respondent college. 4. 4. I have heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and have also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel representing the Governing Body of the college has made his submission, while Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury alongwith Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel has advanced argument on behalf of the respondent No. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record. 5. Responding to the Annexure-C advertisement dated 27.9.2007 for the post of lecturer (Statistics), the eligible candidates offered their candidature, which included the respondent No. 7 and the petitioner. In acceptance of their candidatures, they were called for the interview and thereafter on the basis of the parameters and yardsticks applied for such selection, the Selection Committee recommend the respondent No. 7 as first nominee, while the petitioner was recommended as second nominee. 6. As stipulated in the advertisement, the last date of submission of application was 15 days of publication of the advertisement. Thus, counting the said 15 days period from the date of publication of the advertisement on 27.9.2007, the last date of submission of application came to be 12.10.2007. 7. The petitioner in support of his candidature, amongst others, submitted two experience certificates, one dated 26.7.2007 and the other dated 28.9.2007. While as per the first certificate dated 26.7.2007, he had worked as part-time lecturer in the department of statistics, Nagaon College from 2001 to 2005 (without specifying any particular period), as per the second certificate dated 28.9.2007, he was working in Nagaon G.N.D.G. Commerce College against a non-sanctioned post of lecturer in Statistics since 15.7.2006 regularly. 8. After observing the due formalities, the date of interview was notified as 19.12.2007 and the candidates, whose candidatures have been accepted appeared in the interview including the petitioner and the respondent No. 7. The Selection Committee prepared the impugned comparative statement of marks secured by the candidates, in which and as noted above, while the respondent No. 7 secured total 43.4 marks, the petitioner secured 42.7 marks out of total 100 marks. On the basis of such marks secured by them and the other candidates, the respondent No. 7 was recommended as first nominee, while the petitioner was recommended as second nominee with another Sri Malay Dasgupta as third nominee, who secured 42.1 marks. 9. On the basis of such marks secured by them and the other candidates, the respondent No. 7 was recommended as first nominee, while the petitioner was recommended as second nominee with another Sri Malay Dasgupta as third nominee, who secured 42.1 marks. 9. Going by the marks secured by the candidates, if the petitioner becomes successful in respect of the plea raised in this writ petition that having regard to his teaching experience, he was entitled to 3 marks instead of 2 marks awarded under the head "teaching experience", he would be the first nominee, while the respondent No. 7 would be the second nominee. According to the petitioner, he having worked in the particular college from 2001 to 2005 as a part-time lecturer in the department of statistics, he was entitled to full marks in respect of teaching experience. In this connection, he has also referred to the other certificate dated 28.9.2007 certifying his experience as a lecturer in statistics in another college working against a non- sanctioned post since 15.7.2006 till issuance of the certificate and afterwards. 10. The above plea of the petitioner will have to be understood in the context of the Annexure-E guidelines of the Government of Assam in the Education (Higher) Department, which lays down the marking system on different counts including academic qualification and teaching experience. As per the said guideline, there is maximum 5 marks under the head "teaching experience" with the distribution of the same as "one point for one year" for complete year of the teaching in Government/Deficit college only. According to the petitioner, he having worked as lecturer during the period from 2001 to 2005 and thereafter from 15.7.2006 till the date of submission of the application, he is entitled to atleast 3 marks, if not the entire 5 marks. 11. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 19.5.2008, an interim order was passed providing that while there would be no bar for the Director of Higher Education, Assam to proceed with the matter, but no final order of appointment should be issued without the leave of the Court. The said interim order is still in operation, although the respondent No. 7 filed the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 1740/2008 seeking vacation of the same. 12. The said interim order is still in operation, although the respondent No. 7 filed the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 1740/2008 seeking vacation of the same. 12. As has been brought out in the said application, the academic distinction between the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 is as follows: “Jayanta Borah – Petitioner Education Qualification Examination Passed Board/University Year of Passing Marks Obtained HSLC SEBA 1987 429 = 57.2% HS AHSEC 1989 439 = 44% B.Sc. GU 1993 451 = 50% M.Sc. DU 1996 610 = 61% M.Phil DU 1998 268 = 67% Examination Passed Board/University Years of Passed Marks obtained Examination Passed Board/University Years of Passed Marks obtained HSLC SEBA 1993 68.7% HS AHSEC 1996 58% B.Sc. GU 1999 63% M.Sc. DU 2001 72.5% M.Phil DU 2004 79.5% 13. If we go by the aforesaid academic distinction between the parties, it is evident that the respondent No. 7 is by far a better candidate than the petitioner. However, since we are concerned with only the issue relating to awarding of marks under the head "teaching experience", the same need not be gone into in detail. 14. Referring to the instances cited by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, it is the case of the petitioner that "each completed year" as referred to in the guideline cannot and should not mean working for the whole year, but would mean the academic session, for which a lecturer is engaged in teaching. As per the Annexure-C series experience certificate and joining report etc., in respect of one Sri Uttam Das he was a part-time lecturer in the particular college during 2003-2004 and he had joined on 30.4.2008, but he left the college on 31.7.2008. However, he was provided with 2 marks out of 5 in the particular selection. 15. Apart from the fact that no two cases pertaining to two different selection can be equated on the basis of the plea the petitioner seeks to project, on perusal of the assessment of the Interview Board, it is not discernible as to whether the said particular candidate was awarded 2 out of 5 marks on the basis of his experience only for the period from 30.4.2008 to 31.7.2008. Lest any opinion expressed in this regard would affect the said candidate, no opinion is expressed in this regard. Lest any opinion expressed in this regard would affect the said candidate, no opinion is expressed in this regard. However, the experience of the lecturer from 30.4.2008 to 31.7.2008 was only for three months, while as per the aforesaid guidelines, marks under the head "teaching experience" can be awarded on the basis of one point for one year only for complete year of teaching. 16. As noted above, the particular teaching experience certificate dated 26.7.2007 annexed to the writ petition does not depict any particular period during which, the petitioner was engaged in each year from 2001 to 2005. If we go by the plain language of the certificate, the petitioner was a part-time lecturer of the college from 2001 to 2005. However, the respondent No. 7 in her Misc. Case No. 1740/2008 has brought on record the actual state of affairs. Annexure-8 communication dated 31.5.2008 is by way of furnishing information under the RTI Act. By the said communication, the Principal of the college furnished the intimation that the petitioner had worked as a part-time lecturer in the department of Statistics, Nagaon College for 7 months from July 2001 to January, 2002 in the academic session 2001-2002 and for academic session 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 for 5 months each (from September to December each session). The communication further reveals that such temporary service was terminated each year after the end of the months indicated in the letter and that the service of the petitioner was not continuous. 17. From the above, what is seen is that the petitioner was only a part-time lecturer of the college working for the period from July, 2001 to January, 2002 in the academic session of 2001-2002 and thereafter only for 4 months on each occasion for the academic session 2002-2003 to 2004-2005. As per the requirement of the guideline, marks under the head "teaching experience" is to be awarded on the basis of one point for one year only for complete year of teaching in Government/Deficit colleges only. As per the requirement of the guideline, marks under the head "teaching experience" is to be awarded on the basis of one point for one year only for complete year of teaching in Government/Deficit colleges only. If the kind of plea advanced by the petitioner is to be accepted, which is, irrespective of Whether the petitioner had continued and/or worked for the whole year of the college, he is required to be awarded full marks, he having rendered service for the academic session, there will be no distinction between two lecturers, one having worked throughout the year and the other having worked only for few months in a year and that too as a part-time lecturer. 18. Having regard to the broken periods of service rendered by the petitioner as a lecturer, the Selection Committee consisting of members, experts in the subject, decided to award 2 marks out of 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that there has been any statutory violation of the recruitment rules and that the members of the Selection Committee acted mala fide and/or in colourable exercise of power. On perusal of the comparative statement impugned in this proceeding, it is found that the Selection Committee acted bona fide and consistently with the aforesaid guidelines. The marks awarded to the candidates under different heads do not bear any testimony of any arbitrary exercise of power. 19. The Selection Committee clearly acted on the basis of the guidelines while awarding marks and it so happened that in the course of the selection and awarding marks under different heads, the respondent No. 7 secured 43.4, while the petitioner secured 42.7. It is not for this Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into the mathematics regarding awarding of marks under the head of "teaching experience" adopting the formula as has been projected by the petitioner for the broken periods of his experience in teaching. 20. As will be evident from the certificates produced by the petitioner, while he had full one year of teaching experience from 15.7.2006 working as a lecturer in a non-sanctioned post, he had broken periods of teaching experience during the period from 2001 to 2005, which incidentally was not indicated in the certificate dated 26.7.2007. 21. 20. As will be evident from the certificates produced by the petitioner, while he had full one year of teaching experience from 15.7.2006 working as a lecturer in a non-sanctioned post, he had broken periods of teaching experience during the period from 2001 to 2005, which incidentally was not indicated in the certificate dated 26.7.2007. 21. Much has been emphasized in the Annexure-H communication dated 21.1.2008 of the Director of Higher Education, Assam addressed to the Principal of the respondent College. By the said communication, it was conveyed that since the petitioner had been working in the college more than 5 years as lecturer, he was entitled to get one point each for every complete year of experience. The said communication was on the basis of the certificate dated 26.7.2007 referred to above, which the petitioner had produced along with his testimonials and documents. The Director of Higher Education was not aware of the actual state of affairs regarding teaching experience of the petitioner, which was later on communicated to the respondent No. 7 vide the Annexure-8 letter dated 31.5.2008 annexed to the Misc. Case. As per the said communication, the petitioner had experience of working as a part-time lecturer in the department of Statistics for the broken periods indicated in the said letter, about which discussion has been made above. 22. Above apart, it is not for this Court exercising writ jurisdiction to sit on appeal over the findings of the expert body like the Selection Committee so as to arrive at a different finding. If the decision of the expert body is a plausible one, it is not for the Writ Court to return another finding in the view of the said plausible decision. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Interim order passed on 19.5.2008 shall stand vacated enabling the respondents to go ahead with the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.