JUDGMENT : 1. This Original Petition is filed by the Union Public Service Commission, the 2nd respondent in the Original Application filed by the 1st respondent herein. The Original Application was filed seeking to quash Annexure-A9 Office Memorandum, by which the 4th respondent was appointed as Director of the National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training (NIFPHATT), Kochi under the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. The Government of India had, as per Annexure-A2 Circular dated 11.8.2016, invited applications to fill up the post of Director in the NIFPHATT from candidates possessing the requisite qualification, which are as under:- “Composite method: Deputation (including Short-term Contract) Plus Promotion: (I) Officers under the Central Government or State Governments or Union Territories or Agricultural Universities or Recognized Research Institutes or Councils or Semi-Government or Autonomous Bodies and Statutory Organizations:- (a)(i) Holding analogous post on regular basis in the parent cadre or department. (ii) with five years' service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 15,600-39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600 (Pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 10,000-15,200) or equivalent in the parent cadre or department. (b) Possessing the following educational qualifications and experience: Essential: (I) Post Graduate Degree in Zoology or Marine Biology or Oceanography or Industrial Fisheries or Fisheries Science or Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry or Food Technology of a recognized University or Institute or equivalent. Post Graduate Diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai or equivalent. (ii) Possessing seven years experience in Managerial Capacity or Fish Processing Technology including five years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity in a concern. Desirable: Ph.D in Fish Processing technology and quality assurance. (II) The Departmental Deputy Director (Processing and Marketing) in the scale of pay of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600 (Pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 10,000-15,200) with five years regular service in the grade and possessing qualifications at (b)(i) above shall also be considered along with outsiders and in case he or she is selected for appointment to the post, the same shall be deemed to have been filled on promotion. 2. The applicant, who had the requisite qualification and was holding the charge of Director at the time of issuance of the Notification, submitted his application through proper channel. 2. The applicant, who had the requisite qualification and was holding the charge of Director at the time of issuance of the Notification, submitted his application through proper channel. The 4th respondent, who was working as the Chief Technical Officer, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai also submitted his application and was selected for appointment to the notified post, on the basis of the recommendation of the UPSC. The applicant challenged the selection and appointment of the respondent on the ground that the 4th respondent does not possess the requisite experience of 7 years in Fish Processing or Fish Processing Technology including 5 years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity. It was also contended that the 4th respondent did not possess the desirable qualifications of Ph.D in Fish Processing Technology and Quality Assurance mentioned in Annexure A2. It was contended that the 4th respondent had acquired Ph.D in Migration and Fate of Selected Contaminants from Anthropogenic Discharges in Coastal Marine Environment, which is totally distinct from Fish Processing. The applicant had relied on Annexure A8 communication wherein it was specifically stated that the Administrative Experience of the 4th respondent in a Managerial Capacity was his experience in administration in the laboratory, which according to the applicant was not the requisite experience mentioned in the Notification. It was therefore contended that the selection undertaken pursuant to Annexure-A2 was in contravention of Annexure-A1 Recruitment Rules. 3. In the reply statement filed by Government of India before the Tribunal, it was stated that two applications were received pursuant to Annexure-A2 notification. The applications were that of the applicant and the respondent, both of whom were found eligible as per the eligibility conditions and that the applications were forwarded to UPSC, which is the selection authority. The UPSC had conducted interview and had selected the 4th respondent as Director. 4. Reply statement was filed on behalf of the UPSC wherein, among other contentions, it was stated as follows: “After scrutiny of case, the Appellant and one more candidate i.e., Respondent No. 4 who fulfilled the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and whose candidature were considered by the Department, were short-listed by the UPSC and were called for attending the Selection Committee Meeting (Personal Talk) on 4.9.2017. The Selection Committee Meeting (Personal Talk) was held under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Member, UPSC, which also comprised of 3 Advisers, who are subject experts. The Selection Committee Meeting (Personal Talk) was held under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Member, UPSC, which also comprised of 3 Advisers, who are subject experts. That on the basis of assessment of ACRs. Bio-data and after holding Personal Talk with them on 4.9.2017 the shortlisted candidates namely Dr.Jai Singh Meena (Applicant) and Shri. Mithilesh Kumar Chouksey (Respondent No. 4), the Selection Committee recommended Shri Mithilesh Kumar Chouksey for appointment to the post on Deputation (on short term Contract).” 5. After a careful scrutiny of the qualification and experience put forth by the 4th respondent in his application (Annexure-A5), the Tribunal found that the 4th respondent did not possess the essential qualification of 5 years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity in a concern. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that administrative experience in a laboratory does not amount to the managerial experience in an administrative capacity set out as an essential qualification in Annexure-A2. Based on the unassailable proof regarding the lack of experience of the 4th respondent, the Tribunal came to the definite conclusion that the 4th respondent did not possess the necessary qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and the notification inviting applications for the post. Resultantly, the Tribunal quashed and set aside Annexure A9 appointment order issued to the 4th respondent and further directed the 1st respondent (second respondent herein) to recommence the selection process in an objective, prudent and careful manner, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. 6. Though the 4th respondent, whose appointment was set aside, had not appeared before the Tribunal and have not challenged the order of the Tribunal before this Court, the UPSC, the petitioner herein, seems to be more aggrieved than the 4th respondent and has therefore, challenged the Tribunal's order. The main ground of challenge is that in exercise of the power of judicial review, the Courts/Tribunals should not sit as an appellate body over the decision of the Selection Committee. Relying on decisions of the Apex Court, it is contended that it is not the job of the Court but of the Selection Committee to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates and decide as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not. 7. Relying on decisions of the Apex Court, it is contended that it is not the job of the Court but of the Selection Committee to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates and decide as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not. 7. The question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is, as to whether, the selection conducted by the UPSC would be inviolable, even in the face of an apparent illegality committed, by deviating from the norms prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the notification inviting applications. In order to answer this question, it has to be considered as to whether there has been any apparent deviation from the prescribed procedure and norms, which had vitiated the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent. Annexure-A1 Recruitment Rules and Annexure-A2 Circular prescribes the essential qualification for selection and appointment to the post of Director, NIFPHATT as, possession of 7 years experience in Fish Processing or Fish Processing Technology including 5 years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity in a concern. In Annexure-A5, the 4th respondent had specified the details of his employment. As per the entries in Annexure-A5, the 4th respondent had worked as Assistant Chief Technical Officer at the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2013. The nature of duties rendered by the 4th respondent during the aforementioned period described in Annexure-A5 are as follows:- “Conducting, organizing and managing short term training programs, Kisan Melas, exhibitions, seminars and workshops etc. (i) Developing infrastructure an setting Fish Processing laboratory under my supervision a fish product manufacturing unit was developed and installed at Virar (Thane, Mumbai) for a women cooperative society. (ii) A training centre constructed developed and installed at KVK, Banswara under the NAIP project - “Livelihood an nutritional security of tribal dominated areas through integrated farming system an technology models.” (iii) A lab was set with necessary equipments at C.I.F.E under the project “Experiential Learning-Setting up of Facilities for Hands on Training” (iv) Associated as a member with Director's PMDRU (Project Management, Documentation and Reporting Unit)” 8. Thereafter, the 4th respondent had been working in the post of Chief Technical Officer from 1.1.2014 onwards. Thereafter, the 4th respondent had been working in the post of Chief Technical Officer from 1.1.2014 onwards. The duties performed by the 4th respondent in his capacity as Chief Technical Officer, as narrated in Annexure-A5 are as follows:- “Managing Fish Processing Lab with respect to conducting training, developing new products, infrastructure development, managing equipments, guiding students for their research etc.- Acted as a Dy. Warden to look after the management of boys hostels of C.I.F.E during 2013-2015. Looking after examination cell at the capacity of “Dy. Controller of Examinations” since January 2016. 9. From a careful perusal of the duties rendered by the 4th respondent during the period from 1.1.2007 onwards, it is abundantly clear that none of those duties can be termed as administrative duty in a Managerial Capacity, which would make him eligible for appointment to the crucial post of Director, NIFPHATT. The petitioner (UPSC) do not have a case that it had verified the claim of the 4th respondent that he had 5 years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity. On the other hand, the contention of the UPSC is that the qualification and experience of the 4th respondent was duly verified by his parent organization and that the parent organization had certified the 4th respondent to be eligible for consideration to the post of Director, NIFPHATT. This contention was reiterated in the additional reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal in the following manner: “It is reiterated and submitted that the candidature of respondent No. 4 was duly considered by respondent No. 1 based on his qualification and experience as reflected in his bio-data, duly verified by his parent organization viz., Central Institute of Fisheries Education (ICAR), Mumbai and found eligible for consideration to the post of Director, NIFPHATT, Kochi. It is again submitted that non possession of desirable qualification by respondent No. 4 does not make him ineligible for consideration to the post as the desirable qualification cannot be taken as essential condition for deciding eligibility of the candidate.” 10. It is therefore clear that the UPSC, on whom the duty of selecting the best candidate was bestowed, had not independently considered, either the essential or the desirable qualification of the 4th respondent, before recommending his name for appointment. In this context it may also be relevant to note that indisputably, the applicant satisfied the essential condition and had the requisite educational qualification. In this context it may also be relevant to note that indisputably, the applicant satisfied the essential condition and had the requisite educational qualification. Moreover, he was an internal candidate who, at the time of selection, was discharging the duties of Director, NIFPHATT. Viewed in that manner, we have no hesitation to hold that the failure on the part of the UPSC to consider on its own, as to whether the candidates satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed under Annexures A1 and A2 had resulted in the selection process being vitiated. Such being the position, it is not open for the UPSC to contend that whatever be the illegalities committed in the process of selection, it is not open for the competent Tribunals or courts to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee. The decisions relied on by the petitioner also do not lay down the position that the decision of the Selection Committee cannot be scrutinised or interfered with under any circumstance. In UPSC vs. I.P. Tiwari, (2006) 12 SCC 317 , the Supreme Court had held that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with by courts, which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise required for the purpose. That finding was rendered on the basis that, as far as that case was concerned, the expert committee had acted in terms of the regulations governing the selection. Even though, in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. Dr. K. Kalyan Ram, 1992 Supp. 2 SCC 481, the Apex Court held that courts would normally be slow to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee consisting of experts, it was also held that the decision of such Selection Committee must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and not based on extraneous considerations. The same view was expressed by the Apex Court in R.S. Dass vs. Union of India and Others, 1986 Supp. SCC 617 also. In this context it would be appropriate to refer the decision of the Apex Court in Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3243 , wherein it has been held as follows:- “Unless there is strong case for applying the Wednesbury doctrine or there are mala-fides, courts and Tribunals cannot interfere with assessments made by Departmental Promotion Committees in regard to merit or fitness for promotion. But in rare cases, if the assessment is either proved to be mala-fide or is found based on inadmissible or irrelevant or insignificant and trivial material-and if an attitude of ignoring or not giving weight to positive aspects of one's career is strongly displayed, or if the inferences drawn are such that no reasonable person can reach such conclusions, or if there is illegality attached to the decision-then the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution are not foreclosed. While the courts are to be extremely careful in exercising the power of judicial review in assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees, the executive is also to bear-in-mind that, in exceptional cases, the assessment of merit made by them is liable to be scrutinised by court, within the narrow Wednesbury principles or on the ground of mala-fides. The judicial power remains but its use is restricted to rare and exceptional situations.” 11. The latest decision on the point, is UPSC vs. M. Sathya Priyan and Others, (2018) 15 SCC 796 , wherein the Apex Court reiterated that courts should show deference and consideration to recommendations of expert committee, in the absence of any allegation pertaining to malice or arbitrariness in the decision making. That, Selection Committee being a high level Committee consisting of experts vested with requisite jurisdiction, it is not open for the CAT or High Court to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee, as an appellate authority except where process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala-fides or arbitrariness. 12. As mentioned earlier, from the reply affidavits filed by the UPSC, it has come out that, rather than independently evaluating the eligibility of the 4th respondent for appointment to the post of Director, NIFPHATT, reliance was placed on the recommendation/certification of the Government and the parent department of the respondent. This action of the UPSC amounts to abdication of its functions. In Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal, (2013) 1 SCC 501 , it was held by the Apex Court that abdication of its functions by the Selection Committee, by entrusting the functions with another authority, which in that case was the State Government, not only amounts to breach of rule of law but also creates a dent in the basic index of law. From a survey of the aforementioned precedents, it is clear that though the scope of judicial review is limited in the case of selection conducted by an expert committee and due deference should be given to the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the decision of the Selection Committee is not inviolable. Non-adherence to the Wednesbury principles, patent violation of the prescribed procedure, abdication of its functions by the Selection Committee, mala-fides in the process of selection, failure to consider relevant inputs and consideration of extraneous materials resulting in arbitrariness, are some of the circumstances under which the courts can interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee, in exercise of its power of judicial review. 13. The only possible outcome of the above discussion is that the petitioner, namely the UPSC, having failed to consider the crucial aspect as to whether the candidates satisfied the prescribed eligibility criteria and the UPSC having proceeded to select a candidate, who apparently did not satisfy the criteria, based on the recommendations/certification of other authorities, the Tribunal was fully justified in setting aside the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent and directing to recommence the selection process in strict compliance with the prescriptions contained in Annexure-A1 Recruitment Rules. 14. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and consequently, the Original Petition is dismissed.