NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in WP. No. 1360 of 1969, K. C. Hiremath, and the 5th respondent therein, J. V. Venkataram, were applicants for selection for appointment as Associate Professor in Agricultural Economics. The 5th respondent was selected and subsequently appointed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in WP. No. 1767 of 1969, R. C. Yeraguntaiah, and the 4th respondent therein, H. Ramachandra Reddy, were applicants for selection for appointment as Associate Professor of Plant Virology. The 4th respondent was selected and since appointed. ( 3 ) THE petitioners assail the appointments of the contesting respondents on the ground that they have been appointed after relaxing the qualifications prescribed for the posts to which they have been respectively appointed and that such relaxation was not legal or in accordance with the relevant provisions of the University of Agricultural Sciences act, 1963, and the Statutes of the University promulgated thereunder. ( 4 ) AS the facts are similar and the questions raised are the same, a detailed examination of the contentions in the first of the cases and a decision thereon will dispose of both the Writ Petitions. ( 5 ) UNDER S. 126, clause (e), of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, the power to appoint teachers, among others, is conferred on an authority of the University called the Board of Regents which is constituted in accordance with the provisions of S. 25 of the Act. It has eight ex- officio members including the Vice-Chancellor of the University and the secretaries and Directors of various Government Departments associated with agriculture, viz. , Animal Husbandry. Horticulture, Fisheries, education, etc. Then there are other members selected according to the provisions of the said section, to the details of which it is unnecessary to refer. ( 6 ) THE appointments have to be made in the manner prescribed under the Statutes of the University. Among the Statutes relevant for the present purpose, those of importance are Statutes Nos. 15 and 30. * In clause (3) of Statute No. 30, it is provided:" The qualifications of teachers scientists and extension specialists shall be as recommended by the Council and approved by the Vice-Chancellor. All persons eligible for selection to the post of Professor or land Associate Professors shall have ordinarily obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the concerned field of specialisation or have an equivalent degree of accomplishments. All persons eligible for selection to the post of Professor or land Associate Professors shall have ordinarily obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the concerned field of specialisation or have an equivalent degree of accomplishments. "the Council means the Academic Council of the University. ( 7 ) IT is common ground that the qualifications prescribed by the academic Council with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor in the case of associate Professor of Agricultural Economics are as follows:"1. First or high Second Class Degree in Agricultural Sciences or a first class degree in any of the basic sciences of any recognised university (in the case of Basic Science Degree Holders a post-graduate Degree of a recognised University in addition to a Second Class degree shall be considered equivalent qualification ). 2. Ph. D. Degree in the concerned field of specification or an equivalent degree of accomplishments (A Master's Degree in Agricultural Science with a minimum of five years of teaching or/and research experience with evidence of high performance may be deemed as equivalent degree of accomplishment ). 3. At least 5 years' teaching experience in an Agricultural or Veterinary College. 4. Experience in Research in the concerned field of specialisation. "to this list or enumeration of qualifications is appended a 'note' reading: " The qualifications may be relaxed in case of candidates otherwise well qualified and available for the posts. " ( 8 ) ALTHOUGH appointments are made by the Board of Regents, the initial selection is made by a committee called the Selection Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor from time to time, under clause (4) of Statute 30, functioning as provided earlier under clauses (2), (3) and (4) of the 15th Statute, which read as follows:" (2) (a) The Selection Committee shall review applications for the posts and consider the qualifications of all applicants including University Officers and other employees who may be qualified for the post. If a qualified candidate (s) is found, the Committee shall recommend in order of merit not more than three qualified persons for appointment. (b) In case no qualified person is recommended and/or appointed as under (2) above, the Selection Committee shall (a) contact various institutions and agencies (such as ICAR, State Departments, Colleges, etc.) for the purpose of obtaining applications from qualified persons and (b) otherwise advertise for qualified applicants in such manner as may be approved by the Vice-Chancellor. (b) In case no qualified person is recommended and/or appointed as under (2) above, the Selection Committee shall (a) contact various institutions and agencies (such as ICAR, State Departments, Colleges, etc.) for the purpose of obtaining applications from qualified persons and (b) otherwise advertise for qualified applicants in such manner as may be approved by the Vice-Chancellor. On receipt of such further applications the Committee shall prepare a list of all applicants and shall recommend in order of merit, not more than three qualified persons for appointment. (3) If the Selection Committee fails to nominate an acceptable person fqr an office, the Board shall take such steps as are necessary to select a suitable person. (4) Out of the qualified persons recommended by each Selection committee the Board shall choose the best individual for appointment in all cases of appointments to be made by the Board. " ( 9 ) IN the case of the 5th respondent in WP. No. 1360 of 1969, the committee has ranked him as No. 2 after the petitioner ranked at No. 1, and has also recommended that relaxation may be made in his favour to the extent of 3 years in the matter of teaching experience. Neither the petitioner nor the 5th respondent had secured any Doctorate at the time of the selection; but the petitioner has the equivalent degree of accomplishments otherwise, whereas the 5th respondent lacks the same to the extent of three years teaching experience. ( 10 ) ON receipt of the Committee's report and consideration thereof, 'the Board of Regents has recorded in its proceedings that the 5th respondent is selected for the post of Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics by a certain majority of votes " after relaxing the shortage in the total teaching experience in his favour". ( 11 ) HENCE, so far as the facts go, the indisputable position is that the 5th respondent's name was included in the list of three persons recommended by the Selection Committee, that the Committee did so with the note that there was a certain deficiency in his qualifications but added a recommendation that the same may be relaxed and that the Board of regents, after applying its mind to the recommendation of the Selection committee, selected the 5th respondent for appointment after giving him the benefit of relaxation in respect of the qualifications. ( 12 ) THERE is no case of either malafides or bias against any of the members of the Selection Committee or of the Board of Regents. ( 13 ) THE question argued is purely one of law as to whether the relaxation from the prescribed qualifications had been lawfully permitted by the Academic Council, the Body entitled to prescribe qualifications, and whether the power of relaxation has been competently conferred and competently exercised by the bodies or body on which the same has been conferred. ( 14 ) ON the first question whether the Academic Council has or has no authority to provide for relaxation, it appears to us impossible to argue that the power to prescribe qualifications excludes the power to provide for alternate qualifications or modifications of certain set of qualifications or relaxation of qualifications. The ultimate object is to see that persons who are suitable for appointment to particular posts and competent to carry out the duties of the posts are selected and appointed thereto. The qualifications necessary for a particular post will be not merely educational qualifications but also other qualifications like experience, and other personal qualities which will fit a person to discharge the duties of the post efficiently. Although educational qualifications as well as the length of experience Or other special qualities consdered necessary for a particular post may be capable of being prescribed in definite terms, it is not possible to prescribe all other qualities in definite terms or to say even in absolute terms that a person who does not possess all the qualifications specifically prescribed is utterly unfit for appointment. Hence, it may become necessary to leave some discretion to be exercised by the selecting and appointing authorities or bodies, especially in cases where, as in universities, such bodies are composed by persons who are either academicians, educationists or men otherwise connected with the University, who may be expected to know what is required for filling a particular post or position in the University and how persons suitable for appointment may be selected. ( 15 ) FOR these reasons, this is a clear case of making a prescription within the scope of the power and does not involve to any extent any delegation in contravention of the power. ( 16 ) THE next question is, on whom the power of relaxation is conferred in this case. ( 15 ) FOR these reasons, this is a clear case of making a prescription within the scope of the power and does not involve to any extent any delegation in contravention of the power. ( 16 ) THE next question is, on whom the power of relaxation is conferred in this case. ( 17 ) AS the power of relaxation is to be exercised with reference to qualifications for appointment, and the prescription of qualifications is one of the ways of controlling the power of appointment, there is no doubt that the power of relaxation in respect of qualifications is a power ancillary to the power of appointment itself. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the power of relaxation can ultimately be exercised competently only by the appointing authority, the Board of Regents. ( 18 ) BUT as the Selection Committee has the power to recommend persons for consideration for appointment by the Board of Regents, it appears to us logical to hold that the Selection Committee also has the power to make a recommendation for relaxation in specified cases. ( 19 ) IT has, however, been argued that it is beyond the competence of the Selection Committee to do so, because under clause (2) of Statute no. 15 what the Selection Committee is expected to do is to prepare and recommend a list of 'qualified persons' who, according to the argument, can only mean persons who possess qualifications as originally prescribed and not persons in respect of whom relaxation regarding qualifications is expected to be made or required to be made. It appears to us that this is cutting things too fine. The answer to the contention is quite simple. If the prescription of qualifications is accompanied by a power of relaxation, the clear result of the competent exercise of the power of relaxation is to convert the person in respect of whom that power has been exercised, into a person qualified for appointment. Hence, when the Committee recommends relaxation in relation to one of the persons, the recommendation is of a qualified person because if the recommendation to relax is accepted by the Board of Regents, the person at once becomes qualified for appointment. ( 20 ) ANOTHER argument, which we may now refer to, is one based on clause (4) of Statute No. 15, viz. ( 20 ) ANOTHER argument, which we may now refer to, is one based on clause (4) of Statute No. 15, viz. , that the Poard is required to select the best person out of qualified persons recommended by the Selection Committee. ( 21 ) WE have already stated that the person, in favour of whom relaxation is recommended, will come within the description of 'qualified persons'. The best person within the meaning of the clause need not necessarily be the person ranked first in the list of recommendations made by the Committee. If it were so, no further action by the Board of Regents at all would be necessary. The Board is expected to apply its own mind and select a person whom it considers to be the best among those recommended by the Selection Committee. ( 22 ) IN the last analysis, what is of the essence of the matter is that the Board, while making appointments, must apply its mind to the qualifications required and the recommendations made by the Committee, ineluding the recommendation for relaxation. As we have already pointed out, the record of minutes of the Board of Regents contains sufficient evidence of their having applied their mind to the appointment in question, including the recommendation made by the Selection Committee in favour of the 5th respondent. ( 23 ) THE only remaining point is whether the appointment should be regarded as vitiated for the reason that in the advertisement calling for applications, there was no indication given of the fact that the qualifications prescribed may be relaxed. The ruling of the Bombay High Court in M. S. E. B. Engineers' Association v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, is relied upon in that regard. The proposition of law stated therein, read in the light of the facts does not support the contention that the petitioner in this case, who had applied for appointment and who has had his case fully considered both by the Selection Committee and by the Board of Regents, can make a grievance of the omission to make mention of the power to relax in the notification calling for applications. The proposition of law as stated in para 18 of the judgment is:" Equality of opportunity will be determined for the purpose of Art. 16 of the Constitution by the representation made in the advertisement calling for applications for filling up a post. The proposition of law as stated in para 18 of the judgment is:" Equality of opportunity will be determined for the purpose of Art. 16 of the Constitution by the representation made in the advertisement calling for applications for filling up a post. The advertisement at Annexure'a', calling applications, nowhere suggests that the educational qualifications mentioned in Column 3, or the period of experience mentioned in Column 4, for the post of Executive Engineer ( E and M), was liable to relaxation or condonation in deserving cases. In the absence of such a representation, if a candidate like petitioner No. 3 considered himself ineligible, the fault cannot be laid at the door of such candidate. "petitioner No. 3 in that case did not apply at all because being unaware of the power of relaxation, he found that he did not possess the prescribed qualifications. ( 24 ) IN the present case, as already stated, the petitioner was not, to any extent, misled, but must be held to have had full opportunity and not denied any opportunity, much less equality of opportunity, because he had applied and his case had been considered. ( 25 ) IN the other WP. 1767 of 1969 also, the position both on facts and law is in all respects the same. Therefore it is unnecessary to discuss the same matters over again. Both the Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .