Judgment : Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Respondent-University issued an advertisement No.07/2008 dated 6.8.2008, whereby applications were invited for filling up forty six posts of Assistant Scientist/Assistant Professor/Assistant Extension Specialist/Equivalent in the UGC pay sale of Rs.8000-13500 on or before 6.9.2008. Petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 5 submitted their applications for considering their candidature for the posts in question vide Annexures P-17, P-27, P-28 and P-30. Screening Committee was constituted by the respondent-University to adjudge the eligibility of all the candidates. Petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 5 were found eligible as per Annexures P-25 and P-26 by the Screening Committee. Petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 5 were interviewed on 8.10.2009 and 9.11.2009. Selection Committee recommended names of respondents No. 3 to 5 for appointment. They were issued appointment letters on 5.4.2010 vide Annexures P-22, P-23 and P-24. They joined their duties on 5.4.2010 itself. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondents No. 3 to 5 were ineligible for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor as per advertisement No.07/2008 dated 6.8.2008. According to the petitioner, respondents No. 3 to 5 did not possess requisite essential qualifications in the discipline/specialization of Entomology and Apiculture. Case of the petitioner is also that respondents No. 3 to 5 have not qualified their NET examination in the discipline/specialization against which the applications were called for by the respondent-University. 3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate and Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Advocate, have vehemently argued that respondents No. 3 to 5 were duly eligible and qualified as per advertisement No.07/2008, dated 6.8.2008. They then contended that the petitioner was supposed to possess Ph.D. in the concerned subject. They also argued that there are seven fields of specialization in the subject of Entomology and Apiculture, i.e. Fruit Entomology, Vegetable and Floriculture Entomology, Biological Control, Forest Entomology, Forest Entomology, Toxicology, Nematology and Apiculture. Their contention is that respondents No. 3 to 5 have obtained their Ph.D. degree in the subject of Entomology and Apiculture and have also qualified NET in the subject concerned. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 5. The minimum qualification for filling up the post of Assistant Professor is Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject, relaxable to Master’s Degree with consistently good academic record i.e. 55% marks at Master level. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 5. The minimum qualification for filling up the post of Assistant Professor is Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject, relaxable to Master’s Degree with consistently good academic record i.e. 55% marks at Master level. However, the candidate should have qualified National Eligibility Test (in the particular discipline/subject) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC/ICAR. 6. Petitioner has passed M.Sc., in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 1999 and obtained Ph.D. degree in the year 2003. Respondent No.3 passed M.Sc. in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 1999. Her major subject was Entomology and Apiculture and minor subject was Bio-Chemistry. The title of her research topic for M.Sc. was “Studies on binding of isomers of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) with locust haemolymph protein.” She obtained Ph.d. degree in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 2002. Her major subject in Ph.D. was Entomology and Apiculture and minor subject was Bio-Chemistry and Plant Pathology. Her research topic was “Studies on toxicity of some chemicals to European red mite, Panoychus ulmi (Koch) infesting apple.” She passed NET conducted by ASRB (ICAR) in Agricultural Entomology in the year 2001. Respondent No.4 passed M.Sc. in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 2003. His major subject was Entomology and Apiculture and minor subjects were Vegetable Crops, Mycology and Plant Pathology. The title of his research topic for M.Sc. was “Eco friendly approach of nematode management in tomato (Lycopersicon esculantum Mill)”. He obtained Ph.D. degree in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 2007. His major subject in Ph.D. was Entomology and Apiculture and minor subjects were Mycology and Microbiology. His research topic was “Faunistic studies on cultivated edible mushrooms and bio-management of their nematode pests.” He passed NET conducted by ASRB (ICAR) in Nematology (Agriculture) in the year 2005. Thus, the NET passed by respondent No.4 was in the subject to Entomology and Apiculture. Respondent No.5 passed her M.Sc. in Entomology from H.P. Krishi Vishvavidalya, Palampur in the year 1998. Her major subject was Entomology and minor subject was Plant Pathology. The title of her research topic for M.Sc. was “Bioactivity of some plant extracts Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata F.” She obtained Ph.D. degree in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 2002. Her major subject in Ph.D. was Entomology and Apiculture and minor subject was Plant Pathology and Plant Physiology. Her major subject was Entomology and minor subject was Plant Pathology. The title of her research topic for M.Sc. was “Bioactivity of some plant extracts Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata F.” She obtained Ph.D. degree in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 2002. Her major subject in Ph.D. was Entomology and Apiculture and minor subject was Plant Pathology and Plant Physiology. Her research topic was “Studies of mites” (Acarina) of fruit crops in Himachal Pradesh.” She passed NET conducted by ASRB (ICAR) in Agricultural Entomology in the year 2003. 7. Respondent-University has constituted a Screening Committee as per statute 4.5(1)(b) to see whether the candidates, who have submitted their applications pursuant to advertisement dated 6.8.2008, were fully eligible and qualified. The Screening Committee found the petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 to 5 eligible. The Screening Committee consisted of experts of the respondent-University including Professors and Head of Department of Entomology and Apiculture, Dean, College of Horticulture and Director of Research, Professor and Head, Department of Forest Plant Protection, Dean, College of Horticulture and Dean, College of Forestry. Recommendations of the Screening Committee were approved by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University. Petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 have appeared before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee has found respondents No.3 to 5 suitable for appointment to the posts in question on the basis of their performance. The Selection Committee has followed the prescribed procedure to adjudge the suitability of candidates on the basis of their academic qualifications, experience, publication and papers etc. They have been issued appointment letters on 5.4.2010 and they joined their duties. Petition has been filed on 7.4.2011. The petitioner ought to have filed the petition immediately after selection and appointment of respondents No. 3 to 5. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the present petition, whereby appointment of respondents No. 3 to 5 has been assailed by the petitioner. 8. There is fallacy in the arguments of Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned Advocate that respondents No. 3 to 5 were not qualified as per advertisement dated 6.8.2008. The subject as per advertisement dated 6.8.2008 at Sr. No.5 is Entomology and Apiculture, whereby two posts of Entomology and Apiculture, one post of Forest Plant Protection (Entomology Discipline) and one post of RHRS, Sharbo (Entomology discipline) were to be filled up. The subject as per advertisement dated 6.8.2008 at Sr. No.5 is Entomology and Apiculture, whereby two posts of Entomology and Apiculture, one post of Forest Plant Protection (Entomology Discipline) and one post of RHRS, Sharbo (Entomology discipline) were to be filled up. The candidates were required to possess Ph.D. in the concerned subject and not in a particular discipline. Entomology and Apiculture is major subject and has seven fields of specialization, as noticed hereinabove. 9. Respondent No.3 obtained Ph.D. in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 2002, respondent No.4 in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 2007 and respondent No.5 in Entomology and Apiculture in the year 2002. Respondents No. 3 and 5 have qualified their NET in the concerned subject conducted by ASRB (ICAR). Petitioner has also obtained Ph.D. degree in Entomology and Apiculture and passed NET in the concerned subject conducted by ASRB (ICAR). Respondents No. 3 to 5 were duly qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. 10. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and others, 1992 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 481 have held that the Courts would be slow to interfere with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee comprising of experts having high status and unquestionable impartiality. Their Lordships have held as under:- “7. We will first consider the second point. 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 Lal Capoor, (1974) 1 SCR 797 : ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ). That decision proceeded on a statutory requirement. The High Court in support of its reasoning has, however, referred to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1974) 1 SCR 797 : ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ). 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 formulated 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, 1986 (Suppl) SCC 617 at p. 633 : ( AIR 1987 SC 593 at pp. 603-604) in which Capoor case ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ) was also distinguished. 8. As to the first point we may state at the outset that giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from, the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. But there is nothing on record to suggest that the Selection Committee did anything to the contrary. The High Court however, observed, that Dr. Kalyana Raman did not receive a fair and reasonable consideration by the Selection Committee. The inference in this regard has been drawn by the High Court from the statement of objections dated 18 February, 1980 filed on behalf of the Selection Committee. It appears that the Selection Committee took the stand that Dr. Kalyana Raman did not satisfy the minimum requirement of experience and was not eligible for selection. The inference in this regard has been drawn by the High Court from the statement of objections dated 18 February, 1980 filed on behalf of the Selection Committee. It appears that the Selection Committee took the stand that Dr. Kalyana Raman did not satisfy the minimum requirement of experience and was not eligible for selection. The High Court went on to state that it was some what extraordinary for the Selection Committee after calling him for the 'interview and selecting him for the post by placing him second, should have stated that he did not satisfy the minimum qualifications prescribed for eligibility. According to the High Court the stand taken by the Selection Committee raises serious doubts as to whether the deliberations of the Selection Committee were such as to inspire confidence and re-assurance as to the related equality and justness of an effective consideration of this case. It is true that selection of the petitioner and the stand taken by the Selection Committee before the High Court that he was not eligible at all are. indeed. antithetical and cannot coexist. But the fact remains that the case of Dr. Kalyana Raman was considered and he was placed second in the panel of names. It is not shown that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical or the Selection Committee did not act fairly towards Dr. Kalyana Raman. The fact that he was placed second in the panel, itself indicates that there was proper consideration of his case and he has been treated fairly. It should not be lost sight of that the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the subject for selection. They were men of high status and also of unquestionable impartiality. The Court should be slow to interfere with their opinion.” 11. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Chancellor and another vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar and others, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 169 have held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts. Their Lordships have held as under:- “9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily, be interfered with by the courts. Bijayananda Kar and others, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 169 have held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts. Their Lordships have held as under:- “9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily, be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the concerned selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the subject relevant to the selection. In the present case Dr. Kar in his representation before Chancellor specifically raised the issue that Dr. Mohapatra did not possess the specialisation in the "Philosophical Analysis of Values" as one of the qualifications. The representation was rejected by the Chancellor. We have no doubt that the Chancellor must have looked into the question of eligibility of Dr. Mohapatra and got the same examined from the experts before rejecting the representation of Dr. Kar.” 12. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Berhampur University and another vs. Dr. Sailabala Padhi, (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 53 have held that it is for the expert to go into the merit and competence of the candidates. Their Lordships have held as under:- “9. In the light of these factual and legal situation, the question that arises for consideration is; whether the High Court would be justified in directing appointment of the respondent? It is seen that, admittedly, the respondent possessed Master's degree in Botany with specialisation on the subject of Algology. Even among her article published in various journals we come across, only two articles are on Environmental Science but the experience referred therein relates to other subjects. Obvious, therefore, the Expert Body was to select a candidate for Professor in Environmental Science from amongst the candidate by adjudging whether a candidate is fit for appointment as Professor. It is true that the Syndicate through it justified that if respondent should have the qualifications in one of the subjects namely; Master's degree in Botany, she would be preferred as a candidate since Environmental Science shall be started as inter-disciplinary course of Botany/Zoology and for that purpose the Professor/Reader should be from the Botany and Zoology streams. It is true that the Syndicate through it justified that if respondent should have the qualifications in one of the subjects namely; Master's degree in Botany, she would be preferred as a candidate since Environmental Science shall be started as inter-disciplinary course of Botany/Zoology and for that purpose the Professor/Reader should be from the Botany and Zoology streams. Under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 21, the order of the Chancellor shall be final and that therefore, the opinion expressed by the Sub-Committee of the Syndicate loses its sanctity. In the selection of Professor/Reader or any other teacher with specified qualifications, it is for the Expert Body to go into the merit and competency of the candidates for selection to the posts advertised for. No doubt, in the advertisement, 'Environmental Science' was not specifically mentioned but it is not in dispute that Botany and Zoology being the integral part of Environmental Science, necessarily the Syndicate is enjoined to select candidates having the needed qualification and experience for the post of Professor in Environment Science with Master's degree in Botany, Zoology or Environmental Science. Thus, it could be seen that the authority was competent to evaluate the merit of the candidate and the Expert Body came to its own conclusion that the candidate securing 44 marks out of 90 should be passed for appointment to the post. The Chancellor having had the advantage of the Report of the Expert Body, obviously was not inclined to agree with the Sub-Committee of the Syndicate to appoint the respondent as Professor and accordingly, he has given direction in accordance with the rules for re-advertisement of the post of Professor in Environmental Science. The High Court was, therefore, manifestly in error in directing the appointment of the respondent. The re-advertisement is accordingly in accordance with the rules. Ms. Indira Jaising has prayed that since the respondent has been appointed, she may be allowed to continue in the post of Professor, Environmental Science. Having noted that the Expert Body has not selected her, we cannot give any positive direction for her continuance till the post of Professor in Environment Science is made.” 13. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldip Chand vs. State of H.P. and others, (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 60 have held that judicial reassessment of the comparative merit of the candidates is not permissible. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldip Chand vs. State of H.P. and others, (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 60 have held that judicial reassessment of the comparative merit of the candidates is not permissible. Their Lordships have held as under:- “3. The State Administrative Tribunal, in our opinion, fell in complete error in judging the comparative merit of the candidates and finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant as against 16 marks awarded to respondent No. 4. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in entering into the field exclusively reserved for the Selection Committee. The finding that the appellant 'manipulated' his selection is not supported by any material and reasons and is purely a conjectural finding. 5. In the instant case the selection of the appellant was quashed by the Tribunal by finding fault with the award of 21 marks in viva voce to the appellant without assigning any reasons. The selection of the appellant was not quashed on any other ground. The order of the Tribunal under the circumstances cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th December, 1992 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on the other issues involved in the case on merits in accordance with law and after hearing the parties. No costs.” 14. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Devi and another vs. State of H.P. and others, (1997) Supreme Court Cases 575 have held that the judicial reassessment of the comparative merit and suitability of the candidates is not permissible. Their Lordships have held as under:- “4. In the instant case, as would be seen from the perusal of the impugned order, the selection of the appellants has been quashed by the Tribunal by itself scrutinising the comparative merits of the candidates and fitness for the post as if the Tribunal was sitting as an appellate authority over the Selection Committee. The selection of the candidates was not quashed on any other ground. The Tribunal fell in error in arrogating to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and consider the fitness and suitability for appointment. That was the function of the Selection Committee. The selection of the candidates was not quashed on any other ground. The Tribunal fell in error in arrogating to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and consider the fitness and suitability for appointment. That was the function of the Selection Committee. The observations of this Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke's case ( AIR 1990 SC 434 (supra) are squarely attracted to the facts of the present case. The order of the Tribunal under the circumstances cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th December, 1992 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on other points in accordance with the law after hearing the parties.” 15. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudershan Singh vs. Harinder Mohan Sharma and others, (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 47 have held that whether a candidate fulfilled the qualification required for the job is basically for consideration of the expert body. Their Lordships have held as under:- “3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant Sudershan Singh, the appellant was fully qualified answering the qualifications laid in the circular. It is submitted that he had rather better qualification and had accomplished higher courses which also included the course in computer programming. In this connection he has drawn our attention to Annexures Rl/3 and Rl/4, to indicate the course that he has undergone and the certificate issued in respect thereof. So far as the question of experience in scientific programming is concerned, his case is that he had gained/acquired sufficient experience in that field while working in the organisation itself. His case is that he has been working in the organisation since 1987, initially as data entry operator and later on, since 1992, as computer operator. It is also indicated that in connection with the experience gained, the organisation has also issued a certificate to him. We feel that the question as to whether the appellant Sudershan Singh fulfilled the required qualification for the job or not was a question basically for consideration of the Expert Committee which held the selection. Learned counsel appearing for the Bhakra Beas Management Board submits that the Selection Committee had selected the appellant Sudershan Singh on being satisfied that he possessed the required qualification. Learned counsel appearing for the Bhakra Beas Management Board submits that the Selection Committee had selected the appellant Sudershan Singh on being satisfied that he possessed the required qualification. That being the position, there was hardly any occasion for the Court to have recorded any other finding or substitute its own opinion about the qualification possessed by the appellant Sudershan Singh.” 16. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Manjul vs. Chairman, UPSC and others, (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 42 have held that the statutory authority framing rules is entitled to lay down the qualifications and only the authority concerned can take a decision in the matter. The court would normally be governed by opinion of experts. While exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/32, High Court/Supreme Court would not ordinarily direct employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. Their Lordships have held as under:- “23. The qualifications for recruitment to a post are laid down in terms of the statutory rules. The Fourth Respondent raised a contention before the Tribunal that several persons named in Ground 'G' of the writ petition had occupied the very post in the Archaeological Department, although they were experts in Epigraphy. 25. The statutory authority is entitled to frame statutory rules laying down terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned who can take ultimate decision therefor.” 17. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission and others vs. Kamini and others (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 519 have held that the Court ordinarily would not interfere with the opinion of expert committee as regards qualification and eligibility of candidates/students. Their Lordships have held as under:- “8. Again, it is well settled that in the field of education, a Court of Law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite qualifications should better be left to educational institutions [vide University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SCR 576 : AIR 1965 SC 591]. This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite qualifications should better be left to educational institutions [vide University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SCR 576 : AIR 1965 SC 591]. This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee. The Expert Committee considered the matter and observed that a person can be said to be Honours in the subject if at the Graduate level, he/she studies such subject as the principal subject having eight papers and not a subsidiary, optional or side subject having two papers. Such a decision, in our judgment, cannot be termed arbitrary or otherwise objectionable. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was, therefore, right in dismissing the petition relying upon the Report of the Committee and in upholding the objection of the Commission. The Division Bench was in error in ignoring the well considered report of the Expert Committee and in setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, observed that the 'litmus test' was the admission granted to the first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. According to the Division Bench, if the first respondent did not possess Bachelor of Science Degree with Zoology, the Institute would not have admitted her to the said course. The Division Bench observed that not only the first respondent was admitted to the said course, she had passed it with "flying colours". In our opinion, the Division Bench was not right in applying 'litmus test' of admission of the first respondent by Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. The controversy before the Court was whether the first respondent was eligible for the post of District Fisheries Officer, Class II. The correct test, therefore, was not admission by Mumbai Institution. If the requirement was of Honours in B.Sc. with Zoology and if the first respondent had cleared B.Sc. Honours with Chemistry, it could not be said that she was eligible to the post having requisite educational qualifications. By not treating her eligible, therefore, the Commission had not committed any illegality.” 18. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 171 have held that a candidate, having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, is estopped from challenging the selection criterion. By not treating her eligible, therefore, the Commission had not committed any illegality.” 18. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 171 have held that a candidate, having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, is estopped from challenging the selection criterion. Their Lordships have held as under:- “7. It is not disputed that the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as B.P.E. or graduate with diploma in physical education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.” 19. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another, (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 284 have held that it is not appropriate for the Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts who were of the view that the Political Science and Public Administration are interrelated and interchangeable subjects. Their Lordships have held as under:- “25. In our opinion, in the present case, the Anusanga principle of Mimansa should be utilized and the expression `relevant subject' should also be inserted in the qualification for the post of Reader after the words "at the Master's degree level". Hence, we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia in this respect. However, we agree with Mr.Patwalia that since academic experts have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline, it is not right for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts. 29. Hence, we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia in this respect. However, we agree with Mr.Patwalia that since academic experts have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline, it is not right for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts. 29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from the UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa, the UGC wrote a letter dated 5.3.1992 to the Registrar M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subject of Political Science and Public Administration are inter-changeable and inter-related, and a candidate who possesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. Thus, this is the view of the UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view. 31. We agree with Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel, that it is not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts who are of the view that Political Science and Public Administration are interrelated and inter-changeable subjects, and hence a candidate who possesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. We are told that a large number of persons having qualifications in the inter-changeable/inter-related subjects have been appointed Readers/Professors/Lecturers and are continuing as such in various colleges and universities in the State.” 20. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions(Colleges), Chandigarh vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie and others, (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 645 have held that the Courts can neither prescribe qualifications nor entrench upon power of the authority concerned so long as qualifications prescribed are reasonably relevant and have a rational nexus with functions and duties attached to post and are not violative of any provision of Constitution. Their Lordships have held as under:- “21. The Tribunal and High Court also committed an error in holding that the appellant could not prescribe the qualifications of Ph.D. for the post of principal merely because earlier the said educational qualification was not prescribed or insisted. Their Lordships have held as under:- “21. The Tribunal and High Court also committed an error in holding that the appellant could not prescribe the qualifications of Ph.D. for the post of principal merely because earlier the said educational qualification was not prescribed or insisted. The Recruitment Rules were made in consultation with UPSC, to give effect to the UGC guidelines which prescribed Ph.D. degree as the eligibility qualification for direct recruitment of Principals. In fact, even the 1976 Punjab Rules prescribed Ph.D. degree as a qualification. In several States, Ph.D. is a requirement for direct recruitment to the post of a college Principal. When the said qualification is not unrelated to the duties and functions of the post of Principal and is reasonably relevant to maintain the high standards of education, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the provision of the said requirement as an eligibility requirement. 22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. Courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the concerned authority so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of Constitution, statute and Rules. [See J. Rangaswamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh - 1990 (1) SCC 288 and P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General - 2003 (2) SCC 632]. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or Statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of Ph.D. is unreasonable. 23. The Tribunal and the High Court have held that in the years 1989 and 1991, the Tribunal had accepted the earlier administrative instructions dated 20.8.1987 which required the UT cadre employees to be considered for the post has to be followed. The fact that at that time Ph.D. degree was not insisted upon, does not mean that for all times to come, Ph.D. degree could not be insisted. Ph.D. degree was made a qualification because UGC guidelines required it for direct recruitment post and the UPSC approved the same. The fact that at that time Ph.D. degree was not insisted upon, does not mean that for all times to come, Ph.D. degree could not be insisted. Ph.D. degree was made a qualification because UGC guidelines required it for direct recruitment post and the UPSC approved the same. Therefore, merely because on some earlier occasions, the posts of Principal were filled by UT cadre lecturers without Ph.D. degree, it cannot be argued that the Ph.D. degree cannot be prescribed subsequently. 24. The Tribunal and High Court were not justified in holding that 1976 Punjab Rules were not applicable on the ground that no material had been placed to show that they were followed while appointing a principal in the past. The fact that the appellant had issued a notification dated 13.1.1992 adopting the corresponding Punjab Rules governing the conditions of service of its employees, is not disputed. Therefore when appellant acted in accordance with the said directions, it is not necessary to consider whether there were any occasion between 1992 to 2001 to invoke the said rules or whether they were in fact invoked. The notification dated 13.1.1992 could not have been brushed aside in the manner done by the Tribunal and the High Court.” 21. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned Advocate, has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure P-39 and Annexure P-40, whereby post in Agricultural Acarology were advertised. These posts were on project basis. It is for the University the manner in which the posts in question are to be filled up. The eligibility of the petitioner has been adjudged by the duly constituted Screening Committee and their suitability has been adjudged by the duly constituted Selection Committee strictly as per the University Act and statutes framed thereunder. Normally, the court will not sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee comprised of nominees of the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the University, ICAR, Dean, College of Horticulture, Professor and Head, Department of E.A.P. and Vice-Chancellor. No mala fide has been alleged against the members of the Screening Committee and Selection Committee. As noticed above, the petitioner submitted his candidatures for the post in question in pursuance to the advertisement No.07/2008 dated 6.8.2008. He participated in the interview along with respondents No. 3 to 5 knowing selection criteria, that too without any protest. No mala fide has been alleged against the members of the Screening Committee and Selection Committee. As noticed above, the petitioner submitted his candidatures for the post in question in pursuance to the advertisement No.07/2008 dated 6.8.2008. He participated in the interview along with respondents No. 3 to 5 knowing selection criteria, that too without any protest. He was also found eligible at par with respondents No. 3 to 5. The Screening Committee has made the recommendations and only thereafter, they had appeared before the duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner ought to have challenged the recommendations of the Screening Committee before the date of interview. Respondents No. 3 to 5 have joined their duties on 5.4.2010. He is estopped to challenge the selection of respondents No. 3 to 5. 22. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others vs. Shakuntala Shukla and others, (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 127 have held that the estoppel by conduct is not applicable but the remedy against the selection process stands barred. Their Lordships have held as under:- “32. In conclusion, this Court recorded that the issue of estoppel by conduct can only be said to be available in the event of there being a precise and unambiguous representation and it is on that score a further question arises as to whether there was any unequivocal assurance prompting the assured to alter his position or status -the situation, however, presently does not warrant such a conclusion and we are thus not in a position to lend concurrence to the contention of Dr. Dhawan pertaining the doctrine of estoppel by conduct. It is to be noticed at this juncture that while the doctrine of estoppel by conduct may not have any application but that does not bar a contention as regards the right to challenge an appointment upon due participation at the interview/selection. It is a remedy which stands barred and it is in this perspective in Om Prakash Shukia (Om Prakash Shukia v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukia & Ors. [1986 Supp. SCC 285] a three judge bench of this Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a Petition challenging the said examination would not arise. 34. [1986 Supp. SCC 285] a three judge bench of this Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a Petition challenging the said examination would not arise. 34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not 'palatable' to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” 23. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 171 have held that a candidate, having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, is estopped from challenging the selection criterion. Their Lordships have held as under:- “7. It is not disputed that the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as B.P.E. or graduate with diploma in physical education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules. 9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners-respondents herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.” 24. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and others, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 576 have held that the petition filed on behalf of the candidate, who has invoked jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission, is not maintainable. Their Lordships have held as under:- “16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J. & K. (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (2007) 11 SCC 522 , Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008) 4 SCC 171 , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and KA. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and others (supra).” 25. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand and others, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 150 have held that when appellant participated in the interview knowing selection criteria that too without any protest at any stage, he cannot turn back to state that procedure adopted for selection was wrong and without jurisdiction. Their Lordships have held as under: “24. When the list of successful candidates in the written examination was published in such notification itself, it was also made clear that the knowledge of the candidates with regard to basic knowledge of computer operation would be tested at the time of interview for which knowledge of Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation would be essential. In the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time of calling him for interview, the aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process. In the call letter also which was sent to the appellant at the time of calling him for interview, the aforesaid criteria was reiterated and spelt out. Therefore, no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process. All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were also fully aware that they must possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellant also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction.” 26. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.