ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The appellants were appointed as Voluntary Teachers on tenure basis under the Voluntary Teachers Primary Scheme 1991. Respondent No. 4 challenged their appointment inter alia on the ground that he was academically more meritorious than the appellants and therefore the Selection Committee was not justified in preferring the appellants to him. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the application filed by Respondent No. 4 and quashed the selection of the appellants, by itself judging the comparative merits of the candidates. The appellants have put that order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 10th December 1992 in issue.

3. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc. etc. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc.1 while dealing with some what an identical question, this Court opined :

"It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of