JUDGMENT

G.N. RAY, J.—Gupta, Tripathi and Rizvi are working as Superintendent Engineers in the service of U.P. Jal Nigam. Gupta was selected for the post of Additional Chief Engineer, Level II by the Selection Committee in 1985 and his name was brought on the merit list. Unfortunately, he was not offered the appointment and in 1989 fresh selections were held by the Selection Committee. Tripathi and Rizvi were selected by the Selection Committee in the year 1989 whereas Gupta was not found fit by the Selection Committee on the basis of his service record. Tripathi and Rizvi were promoted to the post of Additional Chief Engineer as a result of their selection in the year 1989.

2. Gupta challenged the selection made in the year 1989 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main ground of attack was that the Selection Committee was not validly constituted. Gupta also contended that before the fresh selection could be made in the year 1989 he was entitled to be appointed as Additional Chief Engineer on the basis of the merit list prepared in the year 1985 which was operating even in the year 1989. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the selection made in the year 1989 and further directed that Gupta be given appointment on the basis of his selection made in the year 1985. It may be mentioned that Tripathi and Rizvi were reverted from the posts of Additional Chief Engineer by the interim order of the High Court during the pendency of the writ petition. These appeals by Tripathi, Rizvi and U.P. Jal Nigam are against the judgment of the High Court.

3. It is not disputed that under the Government order dated December 14, 1979 the Selection Committee for the post of Chief Engineer was to consist of the following persons:

(i) A Secretary nominated by the Chief Secretary

(ii) An Expert nominated by the Chief Secretary

(iii) Secretary Appointment Department

(iv) Director General, Bureau of Public Enterprises

(v) Secretary of the Department concerned.

4. The contention before the High Court was that instead of nominating an expert on the Selection Committee the Chairman of the Jal Nigam was nominated as a member of the Committee. The High Court accepted the contention and set aside the selection on the ground that there was no expert on the Selection Committee. The High Court rejected the contention that the Chairman Jal Nigam, having vast experience in the field of selection to various offices of Jal Nigam, was an expert and in his presence no other expert was necessary.

5. Mr Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 840 of 1992, namely, Shri A. Tripathi and Shri M.A. Rizvi, has contended that the High Court on a very flimsy ground has held that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted because no expert was nominated in the Selection Committee and the Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam, Shri Venkataramani, could not be held to be an expert. He has submitted that nowhere it has been mentioned that any member not having expertise in any particular field can not be treated as an expert. There is no manner of doubt that the then Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam, Shri Venkataramani, being a very senior I.A.S. Officer had wide experience in the administration of Jal Nigam and by virtue of his vast experience in the administrative set-up, he was entitled to be treated as an expert. He has further submitted that it was stated in the counter-affidavits of the State Government and also of the Jal Nigam that as a long-standing practice, the Chairman of the Jal Nigam was always included as an expert member of the Committee and besides the said Chairman, the Managing Director of Jal Nigam who had technical expertise in the field of engineering was also one of the members of the Committee. Mr Salve has contended that even assuming for arguments sake that expert as contemplated under the Government order in question should be a