JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No.4996/2013. 2. On 18.10.2012, the Dibrugarh University published an advertisement for filling up the post of Assistant Professor in Law at Centre for Juridical Studies. The eligibility for the post was LL.M degree with 55% marks; NET or Ph.D in Law; Special Labour Law/Criminal Law/Business Law. In response to the advertisement, the appellant and Respondent No.5 along with two other candidates applied for the post. 3. The appellant has LL.M degree with specialization in Business Law to his credit. He has also passed National Eligibility Test for lecturer-ship in Law. He has even been serving since more than 4 years as Lecturer in the same Centre, but on contract basis. On the other hand, Respondent No.5 also has LL.M degree with Special Paper in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law and has passed National Eligibility Test in Criminology. 4. On 19.7.2013 all four candidates including the appellant and respondent No.5 were interviewed by the Selection Committee consisting of experts in the subjects. 5. The Selection Committee, after making comparative assessment of the suitability of candidates, found Respondent No.5 to be more meritorious than other candidates. Accordingly, the Selection Committee in its recommendation dated 19.7.2013 placed Respondent No.5 above the appellant, who was placed in second position. And acting upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Executive Council appointed Respondent No.5 as Assistant Professor in the Centre for Juridical Studies. 6. Aggrieved with the selection and appointment of Respondent No.5, the appellant made a complaint to the University, but it did not yield any tangible result. He, therefore, filed WP(C) No.4996/2013 on the ground that Respondent No.5 was not eligible for the post and hence her appointment is illegal. The main submission of the appellant was that since Respondent No.5 is NET in Criminology and not in Law, she could not have been considered for the post. Also according to the appellant, NET in Criminology cannot be equated with NET in law because as per the syllabus of the University Grants Commission both are different and distinct subjects with separate Codes, namely, 68 for the former and 58 for the latter. 7. The learned counsel for the University strongly defended the selection and appointment of Respondent No.5. Also according to the appellant, NET in Criminology cannot be equated with NET in law because as per the syllabus of the University Grants Commission both are different and distinct subjects with separate Codes, namely, 68 for the former and 58 for the latter. 7. The learned counsel for the University strongly defended the selection and appointment of Respondent No.5. Interestingly the University Grants Commission did not take any definite stand and left it to the University to constitute the qualification in question as it may think fit. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 adopted the arguments made on behalf of the University. 8. The learned Single Judge after hearing the respective counsel for the parties and also examining the record held that candidate for the post must have the qualification of National Eligibility Test in Law. This finding has not been questioned either by the appellant or the respondents and rightly so. The learned Single Judge then also held that “Criminology” is one of the optional Law subjects for undergoing National Eligibility Course and is one of the disciplines of law even though it is somewhat a specialized one. On this finding, the learned Single Judge opined that the view taken by the Selection Committee that Respondent No.5 having National Eligibility Test in “Criminology” is equally eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Juridical Studies is a possible view and by the impugned order dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 9. Before us also, the learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same arguments which were advanced before the learned Single Judge. And we after hearing him find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein he has dealt with the issue regarding eligibility of respondent No.5 and her recommendation by the Selection Committee reads as under:- “As already noticed, the respondent No.5 has NET in Criminology whereas the petitioner has NET in Business Law. Considering the fact that the respondent No.5 has specialization in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law and has obtained NET in Criminology and not in History or Geography, etc. Considering the fact that the respondent No.5 has specialization in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law and has obtained NET in Criminology and not in History or Geography, etc. which has nothing to do with law disciplines, I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Selection Committee that the respondent No.5 having NET in Criminology is equally eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Juridical Studies is a possible view. The law is now well-settled that where there are two possible views on any matter, this court cannot substitute its view for the view of the Selection Committee on the ground the view taken by the court could be a better view. It is also a well-settled proposition of law that in academic matters, a court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a candidate possesses requisite qualifications, should better be left to the educational institutions. This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee – the Selection Committee in the instant case. When the Selection Committee considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the respondent No.5, who possesses LL.M in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law, NET in Criminology and specialization in Criminal Law and Constitutional Law is a better candidate than the petitioner, who has LL.M in Business Law, NET in Law and specialization in Business Law, such conclusion cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as perverse or arbitrary. As already noticed, such view is a possible view and not an irrational view. It is, however, quite possible that the other view could have been a better view, but then this court cannot substitute the view taken by the respondent authorities by its view on such ground. Under the circumstances, the interference of this court in the selection of the respondent No.5 is not warranted.” 10. We are convinced that the above quoted reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in respect to appointment of Respondent No.5 are well founded and do not call for any interference. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.