JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. [1.] Heard Mr. P.J Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.C Das, learned Senior Counsel and Standing Counsel, Dibrugarh University for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Ms. T. Wapangla, learned counsel for respondent No.6. [2.] The case of the petitioner is that she responded to the advertisement issued by the Dibrugarh University on 18.10.2016 for the post of Assistant Professor in Applied Geology. As per the advertisement, the applicant was required to have specialization in Geochemistry/Petroleum Geology. There were many applicants for the post and finally only 07(seven) candidates shortlisted appeared in the interview. Out of the 07(seven) candidates, who appeared for the interview, the respondent No.6 scored the highest marks at 59.54 while the petitioner scored 57.31 marks as the second highest. It is the case of the petitioner that the Selection Committee has been biased in selecting and recommending the respondent No.6 to the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement as per the advertisement was specialization in Geochemistry or Petroleum Geology and although the respondent No.6 did not have any such specialization on the subject, he was given the highest marks and selected for the post. The petitioner on the other hand has a Ph. D in Applied Geology and therefore, preference ought to have been given to her over the respondent No.6. He submits that the Screening Committee could not have ignored the prescription of the advertisement and make a deviation from what was prescribed in selecting appropriate candidate for the post in question. Mr. P.J Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled principle of law that only eligible persons can be considered for selection to a post. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of K. Sekhar –vs- V. Indiramma and others , reported in (2002) 3 SCC 586 [3] Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel has also has drawn the attention of this Court to the dictionary meaning of the word th “Specialization” as found in the Chambers 28 Century Dictionary and the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. He submits that by the word ‘specialization’, it means an expert in a particular area of work. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel has also has drawn the attention of this Court to the dictionary meaning of the word th “Specialization” as found in the Chambers 28 Century Dictionary and the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. He submits that by the word ‘specialization’, it means an expert in a particular area of work. The respondent No.6 is only a Master Degree holder and having studied Geochemistry as one of the paper in the Master Degree syllabus and therefore, he cannot be considered to be a person specialized in the subject prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the respondent No.6 should be set aside and the petitioner appointed to the post in question. [4.] Mr. N.C Das, learned Senior Counsel and Standing Counsel for the Dibrugarh University on the other hand by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the University, submits that out of the 17(seventeen) candidates, who applied for the post, 07(seven) candidates were shortlisted for holding of interview and the Selection Committee after conducting the interview, recommended the respondent No.6 for appointment which was then approved by the Executive Council of the University in its 335th meeting. The respondent No.6 was then appointed to the post and he joined the post on 26.07.2017. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Screening Committee upon scrutinizing the applications submitted by the applicants found that none of the candidates had specialization in Geochemistry and therefore, decided to consider those candidates who had Geochemistry as a subject in the M.Sc syllabus. The respondent No.6 had also pursued and completed a course with Isotope Geochemistry as a subject and therefore, she was called for the interview. As for the petitioner, the Screening Committee found her to have obtained Ph. D in Applied Geology as written in her certificate. As such, she too could not be considered to have specialization in Geochemistry. The respondent No.6 otherwise had the knowledge of both the Geochemistry and Petroleum Geology and found his candidature to be in a better footing than the writ petitioner and therefore, he was recommended for appointment to the post. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. [5.] Ms. The respondent No.6 otherwise had the knowledge of both the Geochemistry and Petroleum Geology and found his candidature to be in a better footing than the writ petitioner and therefore, he was recommended for appointment to the post. The learned Standing Counsel therefore submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. [5.] Ms. T. Wapangla, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 adopts the arguments and submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the University and she submits that the Screening Committee was within its own right to consider candidates having Geochemistry as one of the subject in the Master Degree level since the Committee did not find any of the applicants to have specialization on the subject. She submits that the respondent No.6 was a better choice in view of the fact that he had studied papers related to the specialization such as Geological and Geochemical Exploration, Isotope Geochemistry, Petroleum Geology, Exploration and Development of Oil and Gas Fields. Further, respondent No.6 had cleared CSIR-UGC NET in “Earth, Atmospheric, Ocean and Planetary Sciences” in which a major unit of the syllabus consists of Geochemistry. She submitted that the same can be easily appreciated from annexure-IV appended to the affidavit-in-opposition of the University which was a letter written by the Registrar of the University to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that since the Screening Committee comprises of the Experts in the subject, the decision taken by the Screening Committee may not be reviewed by this Court. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Dr. Dimple Doley –vs- The Dibrugarh University and others, reported in 2025 0 Supreme (Gau) 392; (ii) Baharul Islam –vs- State of Assam and others, reported in 2016 (1) GLT 442; and (iii) Rajbir Singh Dalal –vs- Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 284. [6.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the materials available on record including the authorities relied upon by the parties. [7.] It is seen that pursuant to the selection made, the Executive Council of the University approved the recommendation and the respondent No.6 was appointed and he joined the post on 26.07.2017. [7.] It is seen that pursuant to the selection made, the Executive Council of the University approved the recommendation and the respondent No.6 was appointed and he joined the post on 26.07.2017. The petitioner is also an Assistant Professor (as on 07.12.2017) in Department of Geology, Cotton University as can be seen from the communication dated 07.12.2017 written to her by the Registrar of the Dibrugarh University. Being a Doctorate in Applied Geology, it is her case that she ought to have been selected to the post in question instead of respondent No.6. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.6 does not have the specialization on the subject and could not have been appointed. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Dibrugarh University, it can be seen that the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose on scrutinizing the applications made by the applicants found that none of the candidates have the specialization in Geochemistry either in Ph.D or in any research works carried out post M.Sc. Therefore, it decided to consider the candidates having Geochemistry as a subject in the M.Sc syllabus and short-list them accordingly. The petitioner was found to have the qualification of Ph.D in Applied Geology while the respondent No.6 was found to have studied papers related to specialization in Geological and Geo Chemical Exploration, Isotope Geochemistry, Petroleum Geology and Exploration and Development of Oil Field besides having cleared CSIR-UGC NET in Earth, Atmospheric, Ocean and Planetary Sciences, in which a major unit of the syllabus consisted of Geochemistry. As per the advertisement, the requirement was specialization in Geochemistry or Petroleum Geology and it is not disputed that none of the applicants had specialization in Geochemistry or Petroleum Geology including the petitioner, who was found to have Ph.D in Applied Geology. Therefore, all the applicants having Geochemistry as a subject in the Master Degree syllabus were shortlisted for consideration which included both the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.6. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has a better right over the other candidates including the respondent No.6 for having Ph.D in Applied Geology. It is also seen from the marks allotted to the 07(seven) candidates that the petitioner was given marks for having Ph.D Degree and for her research performance. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has a better right over the other candidates including the respondent No.6 for having Ph.D in Applied Geology. It is also seen from the marks allotted to the 07(seven) candidates that the petitioner was given marks for having Ph.D Degree and for her research performance. The Screening Committee constituted comprised of experts on the subject and therefore, having regard to the limited role that the Court can play in such a situation, I am of the view that, it would not be possible for this Court to determine as to which of the candidate would be the best suited candidate for the post in question. The finding of the Screening Committee was that none of the candidates had specialization in Geochemistry and therefore, under the facts and circumstances, this Court cannot take a different view for lack of expertise or specialization. [8.] The Apex Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra) in the given facts and circumstances of that case, held that it is normally not for the Courts to question the opinion of the experts unless the Court has a specialized knowledge. Similarly, in the instant case, since the constituted Screening Committee has examined who would be the best suited candidate for the post in question, this Court will not substitute the view taken with its view. The referred decision is found to be squarely applicable to the instant case including the case of Baharul Islam (supra) and Dr. Dimple Doley cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6. [9.] The case of K. Sekhar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be not applicable in view of the acceptance of this Court that the Screening Committee was within its right to consider the candidates having Geochemistry as a subject at the Master Degree level in the absence of any of the candidates having specialization in Geochemistry. [10.] In the result, the writ petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own cost.