JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner passed the Draftsman Certificate Course from the M. B. M. Engineering College. Jodhpur, securing the first position. He was appointed as Draftsman in the M. B. M. Engineering College in August, 1957, and was promoted as Head Draftsman in September 1961. On the establishment of the University of Jodhpur, hereinafter referred to as "the University" the M. B. M. Engineering College Passed under the control of the University and the service of the petitioner stood transferred to it. He obtained the Diploma in Architecture of the Government of Maharashtra in July 1966. It is not disputed that the Diploma has been considered by the University as equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree in Architecture. A copy of the resolution of the University in this respect has been placed on the record at page 24-A. 2. The University wanted to impart education in Architecture and invited applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Structural Engineering under its advertisement (Annexure 21 No. 4 of 1966 dated March 9, 1966. It was stated in the advertisement that the candidates may possess a degree in Civil Engineering or Architecture. Petitioner D. G. Goldsmith sent his application for that post. He was interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, but the Committee took the view that none of the candidates was qualified in Architecture and that petitioner Goldsmith, who was a diploma holder in Architecture, may be appointed as a temporary measure, and the post re-advertised. The report of the Selection Committee is on the record as Annexure 3. The Vice-Chancellor however issued order Annexure 4 appointing the petitioner as Lecturer in Structural Engineering on probation for one year. But that order was rescinded, and another order Ex. A. 2 was passed on October 3, 1966, stating that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Structural Engineering on a temporary basis and that his appointment was liable to termination at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. The petitioner's representation against the issue of that order was rejected. 3. Thereafter the University issued advertisement No. 1 of 1968 (Annexure 5) for the recruitment of Lecturers in Structural Engineering stating that one post was permanent and the other was temporary. The petitioner's representation against the issue of that order was rejected. 3. Thereafter the University issued advertisement No. 1 of 1968 (Annexure 5) for the recruitment of Lecturers in Structural Engineering stating that one post was permanent and the other was temporary. It was clarified in the advertisement that for the permanent post of Lecturer in Structural Engineering, the degree could be in Civil Engineering or in Architecture, and that the Diploma Examination in Architecture of the Government of Maharashtra was equivalent to the Bachelor's degree in Architecture. The petitioner applied for the permanent post of Lecturer in Structural Engineering and so also Mr. B. K. R. Mathur respondent No. 2. The Selection Committee which was constituted for making the selection, interviewed the candidates on September 19, 1968, and selected Mr. B. K. R. Mathur for appointment on the permanent post of Lecturer in Architecture. That recommendation is contained in Annexure 6. It was approved by the Syndicate in its resolution dated November 17, 1968. An order was accordingly issued for the appointment of Mr. B. K. R. Mathur as Lecturer in Structural Engineering. 4. The petitioner feels aggrieved against the appointment of Mr. B. K. R. Mathur for the reasons mentioned in his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to state all those reasons because the petitioner's learned counsel has confined his argument to the question of the validity of the selection made by the Selection Committee. The respondents have challenged the petitioner's contention in their replies. 5. It is not disputed before me that a Selection Committee consisting of the following was appointed for selecting a candidate for appointment as Lecturer in Structural Engineering (Architecture),- 1. Dr. M. L. Roonwal, Vice-Chancellor. 2. Prof. S. C. Chiamh, Professor and Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Patiala. 3. Dr. M. L. Mathur. Dean. Faculty of Engineering, University of Jodhpur, Jodhpur. 4. Dr. S. Divakaran, Head of the Department of Structural Engineering, University of Jodhpur, Jodhpur. 5. Prof. G. V. Joshi. Professor of Structural Engineering. Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. 6. Prof. O. H. Patel. Professor of Civil Engineering M. S. University of Baroda, Baroda. 6. Professor S. C. Chiamh was the educationist, nominated by the Chancellor, while Professor G. V. Joshi and Professor O. H. Patel were the experts nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. 5. Prof. G. V. Joshi. Professor of Structural Engineering. Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. 6. Prof. O. H. Patel. Professor of Civil Engineering M. S. University of Baroda, Baroda. 6. Professor S. C. Chiamh was the educationist, nominated by the Chancellor, while Professor G. V. Joshi and Professor O. H. Patel were the experts nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. The University has admitted in paragraph-14 of its reply that, this was so, and that Professor O. H. Patel fell ill and expressed his inability to attend the meeting of the Selection Committee on September 19, 1968, so that as the meeting "could not be postponed merely because one of the members has been prevented owing to illness" from attending it, it was held on the appointed date. Thus its deliberations were carried on by the five members. The question is whether the Selection Committee which interviewed the candidates and made the selection could be said to be properly constituted in the absence of Prof. O. H. Patel? 7. Statute 19 (1) of the Statutes of the University governing the constitution of such a Selection Committee provides as follows,- "19 (1). The Selection Committee for any appointment specified in column (1) of the Table below shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor, an educationist nominated by the Chancellor and the persons specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table. 1 2 Professors or Readers (i) …. …. …. …. (ii) …. …. …. …. (iii) …. …. …. …. Lecturers (i) The Dean of the Faculty. (ii) The Head of the Department concerned. (iii) Two experts in the subject not connected with the University nominated by the Vice-Chancellor." The Table It follows therefore that a Selection Committee which did not consist of any of the aforesaid six persons could not be said to have been constituted in accordance with Statute 19 (1), and had no authority to select a candidate for appointment as Lecturer in Structural Engineering (Architecture). I am fortified in this view by the decision in Dr. S.M. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Rai LW 539 , which has been upheld on appeal by a Division Bench of this court. I am fortified in this view by the decision in Dr. S.M. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Rai LW 539 , which has been upheld on appeal by a Division Bench of this court. So when all the six members could constitute the Selection Committee, and not any majority of them, those who made the selection for the post of Lecturer in Structural Engineering on September, 19, 1968, could not be said to constitute the Selection Committee envisaged by Statute 19 (1) and had no authority to inter view the candidates or make a selection. 8. Mr. Joshi learned counsel for the University, has argued, however, that section 34 of the Jodhpur University Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act is attracted to the proceedings of the Selection Committee and that those proceedings could not therefore be invalidated merely by reason of the existence of a vacancy or vacancies among its members. The learned counsel has supported his argument by a reference to Dr. (Mrs) Shabbir Fatima v. Chancellor, University of Allahabad, AIR 1966 Allahabad 45 . 9. The said section 34 of the Act provides as follows;- "34. No act or proceedings of any authority or other body of the University shall be invalidated merely by reason of existence of vacancy or vacancies among its members". The section therefore applies to the act or proceedings of (i) any authority, or (ii) other body, of the University. A cross-reference to section 14 of the Act is necessary in this connection for it mentions the "authorities" of the University. These authorities are (i) the Senate, (ii) the Syndicate, (iii) the Academic Counsel, (iv) the finance Committee (v) the Faculties (vi) the Committees of Courses and Studies and (vii) such other authorities as may be declared by the statutes to be the authorities; of the University. The learned counsel for the University has not been able to show that the Selection Committee referred to in Statute 19 (1) has been declared by the Statutes to be one of the authorities of the University. It cannot therefore be said to be an "authority" of; the University so as to bring its acts or proceedings within the protection of section 34 of the Act. 10. It has however been argued by Mr. It cannot therefore be said to be an "authority" of; the University so as to bring its acts or proceedings within the protection of section 34 of the Act. 10. It has however been argued by Mr. Joshi that the Selection Committee was the "other body" of the and that section 34 of the Act is therefore attracted to its act or proceedings. In order to examine this argument, it will be necessary to make a reference to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 which deal with the constitution, power and duties of the Senate and "other bodies", and the election and continuance in office of the members of those bodies. 11. The said section 21 states that the Statutes may provide for all or any of the matters stated in it. One of these matters has been mentioned in clause (a) of the section and relates, inter alia, to the constitution of the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Finance Committee, and such "other bodies" as it may be deemed necessary to constitute from time to time. The use of the expression "other bodies" in the clause is significant, as the same expression has been used in section 34. I tried to ascertain what exactly could be said to be those "other bodies" of the University and I find that clause (b) of section 21 of the Act helps to provide an answer. It states that the Statutes of the University may provide for the "election, and continuance in office of the members of the said bodies. The "said bodies" in clause (b) are therefore the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Finance Committee and the "other bodies" mentioned in clause (a) of section 21 of the Act. so that only those bodies can be said to be "other bodies" of the University the members of which are required to be elected and continued in office according to the Statutes of the University. Thus those bodies which are not required to be so elected and continued in office cannot be said to be the "other bodies" of the University. 12. Thus those bodies which are not required to be so elected and continued in office cannot be said to be the "other bodies" of the University. 12. Now a perusal of Statute 19 (1) shows that the Selection Committee for any appointment specified in column (1) of the Table given therein is not required to be elected, and there is no question of the continuance in office of its members because such a Committee is constituted for the specific purpose of making the selection of candidates, and it ceases to exist once it has discharged that function. In other words, there is no question of "election" and "continuance in office" of such a Selection Committee. This persuades me to take the view that the expression "other body" in section 34 of the Act does not refer to a Selection Committee constituted under Statute 19 (1). The Act or proceedings of the Selection Committee which was constituted for filling the post of Lecturer in Structural Engineering in the present case, could not, therefore, fall within the purview of section 34 of the Act, and the fact remains that the selection made by the improperly constituted committee on September 19, 1968 were quite invalid. 13. I have gone through the decision in AIR 1966 Allahabad 45, which is the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court but, for the reasons already stated. I am unable to agree with the argument that the Selection Committee constituted under Statute 19 (1) in the present case was an "authority" of the University so as to bring its act and proceedings within the protection of section 34 of the Act. It may be mentioned that Mr. Chhangani, learned counsel for petitioner, has relied on Kashinath Misra v. Chancellor, University of Allahabad, AIR 1967 Allahabad 101 in which a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken the view that a Selection Committee is not an authority or body of the University within the meaning of section 45 of the Allahabad Act. which is somewhat similar to section 34 of the Act. 14. The fact therefore remains that the selection for the post of Lecturer in Structural Engineering (Architecture), made by the Selection Committee on September 19, 1968 was invalid. It is therefore set aside, along with the Syndicate's resolution dated November 17, 1968 approving the appointment of Mr. which is somewhat similar to section 34 of the Act. 14. The fact therefore remains that the selection for the post of Lecturer in Structural Engineering (Architecture), made by the Selection Committee on September 19, 1968 was invalid. It is therefore set aside, along with the Syndicate's resolution dated November 17, 1968 approving the appointment of Mr. B. K. R. Mathur, respondent No. 2, as Lecturer. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from the University.Petition allowed. *******