ORDER : Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Rama Rao Kilaru, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:- “…to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari a) calling for records in O.A.187 of 2016 and its order dated 12.12.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and the orders passed in R.A.No.5 of 2024, dated 01.04.2024 and quash the same. b) further declare that, Petitioner is entitled to be selected and appointed as Scientist "C" (Nutritionist) in 3rd Respondent Organization in pursuance of Notification No.Nin/Advt./Sci/1/2012-13, dated 02.01.2013. c) further declare that, the selection and appointment of the 4th Respondent to the post of Scientist "C" (Nutritionist) in the 3rd Respondent Organization is illegal and arbitrary and unjust, therefore, his appointment is liable to be set-aside. d) and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (CAT) in O.A.No.187 of 2016 dismissing the O.A. filed by the writ petitioner herein, as also the consequential order dated 01.04.2024 passed in Review Application No.020/005/2024, whereby the review application filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 12.12.2023 in O.A.No.187 of 2016 came to be dismissed. Factual Matrix (in brief) 4. The 3rd respondent issued Notification No. NIN/Advt/Sci/1/2012-13, dated 02.01.2013, inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including one post of Scientist-C (Nutritionist) in the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad, under the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). The notification prescribed the following essential qualifications for the said post, so far as material is extracted hereunder: First Class Master’s Degree in Food Science/Nutrition or equivalent degree from a recognized University OR Second Class Master’s Degree with Ph.D. degree in relevant subject from a recognized University. Four years R&D experience in the related subject after obtaining essential qualification(s) (1) above 5. Four years R&D experience in the related subject after obtaining essential qualification(s) (1) above 5. The petitioner, who possess a post graduate degree, M.S. in Nutritional Sciences (2006) and Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences (2011) from Oklahoma State University, USA, apart from other academic and research credentials, applied for the said post within the stipulated time. Upon scrutiny, the petitioner was shortlisted and was called to appear for the written test and personal discussion/interview held on 22.12.2015 at the ICMR, New Delhi, before a duly constituted Selection Committee. 6. Around 121 candidates, including the petitioner and the 4th respondent, participated in the selection process. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 09.05.2016, the 4 th respondent, namely, Dr. Paras Sharma, was selected and appointed to the post of Scientist-C (Nutritionist). The 4 th respondent admittedly possessed an M.Sc. in Food Technology and Ph.D. in Food Science and Technology. 7. Aggrieved by the said selection, the petitioner approached the CAT by filing O.A.No.187 of 2016, contending inter alia that the 4 th respondent did not possess the essential qualification in “Nutrition” or a “relevant subject” as mandated by the Recruitment Rules governing the Health Research Scientist Cadre Rules 2007 (for short, ‘2007 Rules’), and that Food Technology/Food Science and Technology could not be treated as equivalent or relevant to the discipline of Nutrition for the post of Nutritionist. It was further contended that the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules and the terms of the notification. 8. The respondents opposed the said O.A., asserting that the Selection Committee, consisting of subject experts, was competent to assess equivalence and suitability and that the 4 th respondent fulfilled the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. 9. By the impugned order dated 12.12.2023, the CAT dismissed the O.A. holding that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process without demur, was estopped from challenging the same after being unsuccessful, and that no arbitrariness or illegality could be attributed to the decision of the Selection Committee. 10. The petitioner thereafter filed Review Application No.020/005/2024, which came to be dismissed by the CAT by order, dated 01.04.2024, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court, assailing both the original and review orders passed by the CAT. Contentions of the petitioner 12. 10. The petitioner thereafter filed Review Application No.020/005/2024, which came to be dismissed by the CAT by order, dated 01.04.2024, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court, assailing both the original and review orders passed by the CAT. Contentions of the petitioner 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended as follows: i. That the impugned orders of the CAT are legally unsustainable and suffer from a failure to examine the core issue of eligibility in accordance with the governing statutory framework. ii. That the 4 th respondent does not possess the essential educational qualification in the discipline of Nutrition, as prescribed for the post of Scientist-C (Nutritionist). iii. That the Selection Committee had no authority in law to dilute, relax, or substitute the essential qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the notification as the Selection Committee could only assess merit and suitability among eligible candidates and cannot confer eligibility by treating a non-prescribed qualification as sufficient, particularly in the absence of any prior determination or notification declaring such equivalence. iv. That the notification dated 02.01.2013 itself travels beyond the statutory framework governing the appointment, namely the 2007 Rules. The Rules specifically mandate a Master’s Degree and/or Ph.D. in the “relevant subject”, whereas the notification impermissibly introduces the expression “equivalent degree”, thereby, enlarging the zone of eligibility, contrary to the statutory rules, which is impermissible in law, as executive instructions or recruitment notifications cannot override or amend statutory rules. v. That the appointment of the 4 th respondent is vitiated by patent illegality and non-compliance with the Recruitment Rules, and that the CAT erred in non-suiting the petitioner without adjudicating the legality of the eligibility of the 4 th respondent on merits. 13. The petitioner in support of her case has placed reliance on the following decisions: i. Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, (2019) 20 SCC 17 ii. Ranjit Kumar Meher v. State of Orissa , (2017) 4 SCC 568 iii. Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. , (2018) 3 SCC 55 iv. Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University , (2009) 4 SCC 555 v. Prakash Chand Meena and others v. State of Rajasthan and others , (2015) 8 SCC 484 vi. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another , (2009) 1 SCC 610 14. Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. , (2018) 3 SCC 55 iv. Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University , (2009) 4 SCC 555 v. Prakash Chand Meena and others v. State of Rajasthan and others , (2015) 8 SCC 484 vi. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another , (2009) 1 SCC 610 14. The petitioner at the time of hearing has additionally relied on the following decisions: i. Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur , 2024 (8) SCT 885 ii. Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala , (2024) 8 SCC 309 iii. Shikha Arora v. DSSSB and another , 2011 (179) DLT 568 iv. Santoshi Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh , Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No.6544 of 2019 dated 17.12.2021 v. Hewlett Packard India Sakes Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva , (2023) 7 SCC 799 Contentions of the respondents 15. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders of the CAT and contended as follows: i. That the 4 th respondent fully satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification dated 02.01.2013, inasmuch as he holds M.Sc. in Food Technology and Ph.D. in Food Science and Technology, which fall within the broader domain of Food Science and Nutrition. ii. That nutrition constitutes a core and integral component of Food Science and Food Technology curriculum, particularly in the context of research-oriented institutions such as NIN. iii. That the expert Selection Committee comprising seven eminent scientists evaluated the academic qualifications, research credentials, and performance of the candidates and, upon such assessment, found the 4 th respondent to be eligible and most suitable for appointment. iv. That there is no violation of the statutory Recruitment Rules, as the advertisement expressly permitted candidates possessing an “equivalent degree”, which is consistent with and supplements the requirement of a “relevant subject” under the 2007 Rules. v. That the expression “relevant subject” necessarily includes Food Science and allied disciplines, and the determination of such relevance squarely falls within the academic expertise of the Selection Committee. vi. That the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection process, having voluntarily participated in it without any demur. vii. That the scope of judicial review is limited in matters of expert selection, and neither the CAT nor this Court can sit in appeal over the academic assessment made by a duly constituted expert body. viii. vi. That the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection process, having voluntarily participated in it without any demur. vii. That the scope of judicial review is limited in matters of expert selection, and neither the CAT nor this Court can sit in appeal over the academic assessment made by a duly constituted expert body. viii. That the selection process was conducted in a transparent and fair manner, involving screening of applications, shortlisting of candidates, and interviews by a panel of reputed experts, and that the 4 th respondent secured higher merit in the overall assessment, including screening and interview. 16. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. Analysis and finding 17. In the present case, the principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the selection and appointment of the 4 th respondent to the post of Scientist-C (Nutritionist), pursuant to Notification dated 02.01.2013, suffers from any illegality or arbitrariness on the ground that the qualification of Food Technology/Food Science and Technology cannot be treated as an “equivalent degree” or a “relevant subject”, and whether the CAT erred in declining interference on the principles governing judicial review and participation in the selection process. A. Scope of Judicial Review over Expert Selection 18. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the decision- making process of the Selection Committee was tainted by mala fides, bias, or arbitrariness. The determination of suitability was preceded by evaluation of all shortlisted candidates and was based on academic and research considerations falling squarely within the Committee’s area of expertise. 19. On perusal of the record, it discloses that the Selection Committee constituted for the post of Scientist-C (Nutritionist) comprised seven subject experts drawn from the fields of nutrition, food science and allied disciplines. The Committee undertook scrutiny of academic qualifications, research credentials, and performance in the interview, and thereafter recommended the 4th respondent for appointment. 20. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not act as an appellate authority over the decisions of expert committees, nor does it substitute its own assessment for that of duly constituted bodies possessing domain expertise. The law in this regard stands crystallised by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. The law in this regard stands crystallised by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan , AIR 1990 SC 434 and Dr. Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh , (2010) 8 SCC 372 , wherein it has been consistently held that interference is warranted only in cases of patent illegality, mala fides, perversity, or violation of statutory rules. B. Participation in the Selection Process and the Principle of Estoppel 21. It is to be noted that, in this case, the undisputed factual position is that the petitioner applied pursuant to the notification dated 02.01.2013, was found eligible, was shortlisted, and participated in the entire selection process, including the interview held on 22.12.2015, without raising any objection either to the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement or to the eligibility of competing candidates. It was only after the petitioner was not selected and the 4th respondent came to be appointed that the present challenge was mounted. The CAT, while dismissing the O.A, relied upon the decisions such as Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others , (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2017) 4 SCC 357 and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi , (2013) 11 SCC 309 , which lay down the principle that a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process cannot, upon being unsuccessful, turn around and assail the same on grounds that were available at the inception. 22. This Court finds no error in the CAT’s application of the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case. The petitioner was fully aware of the eligibility clause in the notification, including the expression “or equivalent degree”, yet chose to participate without protest. C. Interpretation of the terms “Equivalent Degree” and “Relevant Subject” 23. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2007 Rules employ the expression “relevant subject”, whereas the notification dated 02.01.2013 introduces the expression “or equivalent degree”, and that such deviation renders the selection illegal. 24. In this regard, it is to be noted that the said contention does not merit acceptance, as the petitioner applied pursuant to the very notification which expressly permitted consideration of candidates possessing an equivalent degree, and thus the petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. 24. In this regard, it is to be noted that the said contention does not merit acceptance, as the petitioner applied pursuant to the very notification which expressly permitted consideration of candidates possessing an equivalent degree, and thus the petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. The determination of whether a qualification is equivalent or relevant is essentially an academic exercise, best left to experts in the field, unless the conclusion arrived at is manifestly absurd or perverse. 25. It is also pertinent to note that the Selection Committee, construed qualifications in Food Technology / Food Science and Technology as falling within the ambit of equivalent or relevant disciplines, having regard to the interdisciplinary nature of nutrition science, particularly in a premier research institution such as NIN. Further the 4th respondent possessing the doctoral research in food science with nutritional components, may have in the opinion of the selection committee established a rational connection with the requirements of the post. Therefore, this Court finds no basis to hold that such an interpretation by a body of experts is either arbitrary or dehors the advertisement. D. Distinguishing the Judgments Relied Upon by the Petitioner 26. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the following decisions are inapposite and misplaced as they are distinguishable on facts and fail to support the legal prepositions asserted herein, for the reasons recorded hereunder: i. In the case of Ranjit Kumar Meher (Supra 2) and Ashish Kumar (Supra 3) the advertisement and the statutory rules were in direct conflict. In the present case, however, the advertisement supplemented the rules by permitting consideration of an equivalent qualification, which constitutes a permissible exercise of executive discretion. ii. In Mohd. Sohrab Khan (Supra 4) it involved the question of the appointment of a candidate holding a degree in Industrial Chemistry to a post in Pure Chemistry, resulting in a clear mismatch of disciplines. In contrast, Food Technology and Nutrition are inter-disciplinary and complementary fields, particularly in the context of food and health research, and were considered as such by the expert body. iii. In Prakash Chand Meena (Supra 5) and Guru Nanak Dev University (Supra 6) it emphasised the requirement that equivalence be formally recognised. In the present case, such equivalence was assessed and applied by a duly constituted committee of experts as part of the selection process, which constitutes a permissible academic evaluation. iv. iii. In Prakash Chand Meena (Supra 5) and Guru Nanak Dev University (Supra 6) it emphasised the requirement that equivalence be formally recognised. In the present case, such equivalence was assessed and applied by a duly constituted committee of experts as part of the selection process, which constitutes a permissible academic evaluation. iv. In Salam Samarjeet Singh (Supra 7), the Court invalidated the introduction of a minimum qualifying mark in the viva voce contrary to the statutory selection scheme, as it altered the prescribed method of evaluation and violated Article 14. The present case involves no such post-hoc modification of selection criteria or procedure. The issue here is confined to whether a degree in Food Science and Technology falls within the ambit of “Nutrition or equivalent degree,” which is a matter of academic equivalence and statutory interpretation. v. In Shifana P.S. (Supra 8) it is reiterated that courts cannot sit in appeal over determinations of academic equivalence. In the present case, the expert Selection Committee assessed Food Science and Technology as a relevant or equivalent discipline in terms of the notification. Such assessment, absent manifest perversity, is not amenable to judicial interference. Far from assisting the petitioner, Shifana P.S. reinforces the limited scope of judicial review in matters of academic qualifications. vi. In Shikha Arora (Supra 9), the grievance arose from the introduction of a cut-off percentage after completion of the written examination, thereby impermissibly altering the eligibility criteria mid-process. However, In the present case, no qualification was introduced or modified during or after the selection process. The notification dated 02.01.2013 prescribed the eligibility criteria at the threshold, including the expression “equivalent degree.” The dispute relates only to the interpretation of equivalence, and not to any post-facto change in eligibility norms. vii. In Santoshi Devi (Supra 10) the Court dealt with filling a vacancy by the next-in-merit candidate and did not involve any dispute regarding eligibility or academic qualifications. The present case, in contrast, raises a challenge to the very eligibility of the 4 th respondent and the expert determination of academic equivalence under the Rules and the notification. As the issue here lies within the domain of expert academic judgment and no patent illegality or perversity is shown, Santoshi Devi is clearly inapposite. viii. The present case, in contrast, raises a challenge to the very eligibility of the 4 th respondent and the expert determination of academic equivalence under the Rules and the notification. As the issue here lies within the domain of expert academic judgment and no patent illegality or perversity is shown, Santoshi Devi is clearly inapposite. viii. Hewlett Packard (Supra 11) dealt with tariff classification under the Central Excise law and the interpretation of the term “portable” in a taxation context and the reliance on Wikipedia for such interpretation. The decision has no bearing on service jurisprudence, recruitment rules, or assessment of academic equivalence. Its reliance is, therefore, wholly misplaced and irrelevant to the preent controversy. E. Fairness and Transparency of the Selection Process 27. It is to be noted that the material on record indicate that the selection process was conducted in a transparent and structured manner. Approximately 122 applications were received; 12 candidates were shortlisted; interviews were conducted by a duly constituted committee; and comparative assessment was undertaken. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate any allegation of bias, favouritism, or procedural irregularity. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the outcome of the selection cannot furnish a ground for judicial interference, especially when the process itself is shown to be fair and in consonance with the terms of the notification. Conclusion 28. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the Selection Committee acted within its jurisdiction in assessing the equivalence and suitability of qualifications. No patent illegality, perversity, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory rules is established to warrant interference by this Court, and the orders dated 12.12.2023 in O.A.No.187 of 2016 and 01.04.2024 in Review Application No.020/005/2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, are affirmed. 29. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.