WA 417/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.6115/2010. The Assam Public Service Commission (for short, APSC ) invited applications for selection to the post of Director of Agriculture under the Agriculture Departme nt of the Government of Assam. We are not concerned with the scale of pay or the age of the candidates. We are only concerned with the educational qualification, which reads as follows: (1) First Class or High Second Class Degree in Agriculture or First Class or High Second Class Honours or Master Degree in a Subject basic to Agricultural S cience such as Botany, Chemistry etc. (2) Experience in Research Extension work or Teaching for 10 years. (3) Experience in administration of Agriculture in a Senior post at least fo r 8 years. (4) The following qualifications will be treated as desirable additional qua lifications: (a) Post Graduate Degree or Ph. D. or D. Sc. in any of the basic Agricultura l Sciences like Agronomy, Agriculture, Extension, Horticulture, Botany, Agricult ural Botany and Agricultural Chemistry etc. (b) Outstanding Research Training or Extension as evidenced by Published Pap er (c) Experience in a top position in the field of Agricultural Extension. (d) Intimate Knowledge of problems of Indian Agriculture particularly with r eference to any of the rice growing regions of India. Learned counsel for the appellant rested his case only on Item No.3 i.e. Experi ence in administration of Agriculture in a Senior post at least for 8 years. The appellant and respondent No.7 were among the applicants for the post and the selection was conducted by the APSC. By its letter dated 29th October, 2010, th e Government of Assam was informed that 8 (eight) candidates were interviewed wi th the help of an expert deputed by the Government of Assam. On the basis of the interviews, the APSC recommended the name of respondent No.7 for appointment/se lection as Director of Agriculture. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition in which the sole con tention urged was that respondent No.7 did not have the experience in administra tion of Agriculture in a Senior post at least for 8 years. This contention was r ejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Court cannot sit in a ppeal over the decision of an expert selection committee and if, on the basis of the materials on record the Selection Committee came to the conclusion that res pondent No.7 met the qualifications, the Court could not disagree unless of cour se the conclusion of the expert selection committee was perverse. We are in agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge and we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. It must be noted that the advertisement mentions experience in administration o f Agriculture in a Senior post at least for 8 years but what is a Senior post t hat has not been mentioned nor experience in administration has been specified . Respondent No.7, from the record, seems to had a long career starting from some time 1980 onwards and has held various posts including that of Senior Scientific Assistant, Agriculture Extension Officer, SMS (Agro), Assistant Professor, Asso ciate Professor and Professor. The Selection Committee, which includes an expert from the Government, would hav e surely looked into the materials for the purposes of determining whether respo ndent No.7 met the qualifications laid down in the advertisement. It must also be noted that the State did not file any affidavit in response to t he writ petition but produced the original official records, which were apparent ly perused by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge tha t it is not possible for the Court to sit in appeal over the decision of a Selec tion Committee, which included an expert from the Government. This view is in co nformity with several decisions of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dism issed.