GOSWAMI, C. J.:- In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner states that he obtained the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering (B. S. E. E.) from the Pur­due University, West Lafayette, In­diana (U. S. A.) and thereafter obtain­ed the Degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering (M. S. E. E.) from the same University in the year 1952, specialising in High Voltage Engineering. The petitioner had worked in the United States as well as in the Assam Oil Company before he was appointed as an Engineer-in-charge of Erection at the Umtru Hydel Project site in the Electricity Department of the Government of Assam. He was sent on deputation for six months to the Assam Engineer­ing College, Gauthati, as Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering and he chose to continue in that post. In August, 1960 he was transferred to the Jorhat Engineering College. In 1962 he was transferred again to the Assam Engineering College at Gauhati and was placed in charge of the Electrical Engineering Department there. In November of the same year, he was selected by the Government of India for a Teacher Training Program­me in U. S. A. under the U. S. Agency for International Development (T. C. M.) Programme. On return from U, S. A., he Coined as a Pro­fessor of Electrical Engineering in the Jorhat Engineering College in 1964. By Annexure 'A' dated 7th June, 1967, he was "allowed to hold, in addition to his own duties, the charge of the cur­rent duties of the post of Principal of the same institute for a period of six months or till the post of Principal is filled up by regular appointment whichever is earlier with effect from 1-6-67". This was necessary because Prof. R. J. Thaker, who was earlier allowed to hold charge of the current duties of the Principal, was released on expiry of the term of his contract service. This was necessary because Prof. R. J. Thaker, who was earlier allowed to hold charge of the current duties of the Principal, was released on expiry of the term of his contract service. By Annexure 'B' dated 18th July, 1968, the petitioner was "allow­ed to hold charge of the current duties of the post of Principal of the same Institute in addition to his own duties for a further period till the appointment of the Principal........." On 5th June, 1968, an advertise­ment was made in the Assam Gazette (vide Annexure 'C') by the Assam Public Service Commission, herein­after called 'the Commission', inviting applications for the post of the Prin­cipal, along with some other posts, prescribing the qualifications etc., for, the post. The petitioner applied for the post in answer to the aforesaid advertisement and he along with three other candidates including the Res­pondent No. 1 were interviewed for the said post by the Commission on 29th January, 1969. The interview of the petitioner and the other candi­dates was held by the Chairman and another Member of the Commission. There was also Sri A. Z. Ahmed, Re­tired Chief Engineer, present in the interview with the Members as an ex­pert. After the interview, the Com­mission recommended only one name, that of the Respondent No. 1 for the appointment. The petitioner represented to the Education Minister objecting to the nomination and praying for considering his case favourably. The peti­tioner did not object to the constitu­tion of the Commission or to the Board of interview in this represen­tation dated 18th February, 1969. The petitioner was informed that "the Government do not find any apparent reason for not accepting the said nomi­nation of the Assam Public Service Commission". The petitioner then ob­tained the present returnable Rule on 23rd May, 1969 challenging the nomi­nation of the Commission on various grounds. 2. When this Rule was heard by a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd September, 1969, the petitioner's counsel submitted that a Division Bench decision of this Court since re­ported in Assam LR (1969) Assam and Nagaland 202 (A. C. Sarkar v. State of Assam) would require reconsidera­tion and that is how this case has come before this Full Bench. When, however, the matter came up before us for final hearing Mr. When, however, the matter came up before us for final hearing Mr. S. M. Lahiri, the learned counsel, clearly submitted that he does not want reconsideration of the aforesaid decision and, according to his submis­sion, the same does not require recon­sideration. On the other hand, the learned counsel submits that he will rely upon this decision in support of his submission which he wants to ad­vance before this Court. In the course of the argument, we indicated to the learned counsel that it would be per­fectly open to him to give us any reasons he chooses to reconsider the aforesaid decision, but he did not make any attempt in that respect. The learned counsel took us through the decision and we do not find any reason to reconsider the same, which, according to us, is correct. 3. Mr. Lahiri submits that the Commission has been constituted by the Governor under Article 316 (1) of the Constitution. The Governor has also made a Regulation known as "The Assam Public Service Commis­sion Regulations, 1951" under Art. 318 of the Constitution. Regulation 4 as amended by the Assam Public Service Commission (Amendment) Regula­tions, 1968, reads as follows: "The Commission shall consist of a Chairman and two or more Mem­bers not exceeding three, as may be determined by the Governor from time to time and shall be appointed by the Governor." The previous Regulation 4 provided for "one or more Members not ex­ceeding two." Mr. Lahiri submits that the Commission under the amended Regulation was constituted of the Chairman and three other Members and since the interview was conduct­ed only by the Chairman and another Member, in absence of the remaining two Members, the recommendation of only two Members was not the re­commendation of the Commission and the same is invalid and without juries he relies upon A. C. Sarkar's case, diction. Secondly, he submits that Assam LR (1969) Assam & Naga 202 (supra) to establish that the Commis­sion with the minimum number, name­ly the Chairman and the two Members provided for under the Regulation must participate in the interview in order to confer the status of recom­mendation of the Commission under the law. It should be observed that this point in this form was not taken in the petition at the time of obtain­ing the Rule. It should be observed that this point in this form was not taken in the petition at the time of obtain­ing the Rule. Even so, we have al­lowed the learned counsel to address us on the two points, notwithstanding the objection of the learned Senior Government Advocate. 4. This Court granted a certi­ficate to appeal to the Supreme Court in A. C. Sarkar's case, Assam LR (1969) Assam & Naga 202 (supra) and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by its decision in Assam LR 1970 SC 8 (A. C. Sarkar v. State of Assam). The Supreme Court observed that "the appellants questioned the composition of the Public Service Commission", but did not deal with the submission, while dismissing the appeals. 5. The principal point, there­fore, that calls for a decision is whe­ther in this particular case the inter­view being conducted by the Chair­man and a Member of the Commis­sion, without the two other remaining Members, is invalid and on that ac­count cannot be said to be a recom­mendation of the Commission. 6. The constitution of the Commission as such has not been challenged by the learned counsel and indeed it cannot be challenged in. view of the submission of the learned counsel that our earlier decision (A. C. Sarkar's case) Assam LR (1969J Assam & Naga 202 does not require any reconsideration and on the basis of which he seeks to make out a case. Further, the petitioner does not deny that the nomination of the Respon­dent No. 1 was made by the Commis­sion. His whole objection as can be seen from Paragraph 28 of his appli­cation is that the Commission made recommendation "pursuant to the aforesaid illegal interview dated 29-1-69 for its acceptance by the Govern­ment of Assam." This objection is devoid of substance. Mr. Lahiri sub­mits that in A. C. Sarkar's case, the Commission was manned by the Chairman and another Member, but the vacancy on the retirement of the Third Member was not filled up. Since, however, under the Regulation then in force, the minimum number was two, namely the Chairman and another Member, the interview con­ducted by two members was unexcep­tionable, The learned counsel sub­mits that in the instant case, the inter­view, being conducted by the Chair­man and another Member when the minimum number under the amended Regulation is three, is absolutely in­valid and -without jurisdiction. This argument however does not bear scrutiny when we take into considera­tion Articles 316 (1-A) and 317 (2) of the Constitution. Omitting the por­tion that is not necessary for our pur­pose, Articles 316 (1-A) and 317 (2) read as follows: "If the office of the Chairman of the Commission becomes vacant or if any Chairman is by reason of absence or for any other reason unable to perform the duties of his office, those duties shall, until some per­son appointed under Caluse (1) to the vacant office has entered on the duties thereof or, as the case may be, until the Chairman has resumed his duties, be performed by such one of the other members of the Com­mission......... and the Governor of the State in the case of a State Commis­sion, may appoint for the purpose." Article 317 (2): ".........the Governor, in the case of a State Commission, may suspend from office the Chairman or any other member of the Commission in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under Clause (1) until the President has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supre­me Court on such reference." We may also in this context notice that Article 316 (1-A) provides for the contingency when the office of the Chairman of the Commission becomes vacant. This would go to show that there is no illegality per se of the Commission continuing to function with one member less under certain circumstances. Article 317 (2) also makes provision for another contin­gency under some other specified cir­cumstances." We are, therefore, unable to accede to the argument that A. C. Sarkar's case supports the contention of the learned counsel. 7. Mr. Lahiri relied upon the decision in AIR 1951 SC 230 (U. C. Bank v. Their Workmen). This was a case with regard to the constitution of a tribunal of three members under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereas the award was made by two of them. The Supreme Court held that the award by two members in absence of adjudication by all the three constituting the tribunal was without jurisdiction and void . This was a case with regard to the constitution of a tribunal of three members under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereas the award was made by two of them. The Supreme Court held that the award by two members in absence of adjudication by all the three constituting the tribunal was without jurisdiction and void . The Court came to this conclusion after examining the provisions of the Indus­trial Disputes Act and made a refer­ence to Section, 5 (4) of the Act where a provision has been made with re­gard to a Board of Conciliation enabl­ing it to act "notwithstanding the ab­sence of the chairman or any of its members or any vacancy in its num­ber." This decision is therefore of no assistance to the learned Counsel. Another decision cited is AIR 1970 SC 150 (A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India). The Court held in this case that the decision of the Selection Board was vitiated on account of bias and therefore the final recom­mendations made on the selection made by the Selection Board were also vitiated and the Court set aside the impugned selections. This deci­sion can hardly come to the assistance of the learned counsel. The learned counsel also referred to AIR 1951 Assam 169 (SB) (Kishorilal v. The State) which was a case under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The order of detention was quashed as the detenu's case was not consider­ed by all the three members of the Advisory Board. This was a matter where the fundamental right of the detenu as guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution has been held to be infringed. This case is not at all ap­plicable to the present controversy. Mr. Lahiri also referred to AIR 1964 AndhPra36 (FB) which is a Full Bench decision (Sheik Hussain & Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh). This was a case under the Motor Vehi­cles Act with regard to an appeal be­fore the State Transport Authority constituted and composed as provided under Section 44 (2) of the Act. The Court held that a tribunal, whose composition is not in accordance with the statutory requirement, has no jurisdiction to decide a question aris­ing under the statute. This decision is also of no assistance in the present controversy. The Court held that a tribunal, whose composition is not in accordance with the statutory requirement, has no jurisdiction to decide a question aris­ing under the statute. This decision is also of no assistance in the present controversy. Action of a judicial or quasi-judi­cial authority affecting the rights of parties is altogether on a different place from that of the Commission in the matter of advising upon suitability of candidates for appointment in the service of the State. This is parti­cularly so when consultation under Article 320 (3) of the Constitution is not even mandatory. 8. In the view we have taken on the merits, it is not necessary to consider the preliminary objection of the learned Senior Government Advo­cate to the maintainability of the ap­plication on the ground of it being premature and also because the peti­tioner has no legal right to move this Court under Article 226 of the Cons­titution. 9. In the result, the applica­tion fails and is dismissed. We will, however, make no order as to costs. M.C.Pathak, J.: 10. I Agree. B.N.Sarma, J.: 11. I agree. Petition dismissed.