( 1 ) THE petitioner was an applicant for the post of Dean of Students in bangalore University (hereinafter referred to as the University ). In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, he has prayed for issue of a mandamus directing the Vice-Chancellor of the University (hereinafter referred to as the Vice-Chancellor), respondent 1, to give effect to the resolution of the Syndicate of the University (hereinafter referred to as the Syndicate) passed at its meeting held on the 12th and the 13th May 1969 and to appoint him as Dean of Students. He has also prayed for quashing the subsequent resolution of the Syndicate passed at its meeting held on the 24th and the 27th June 1969 to defer his appointment to that post and the resolution of the Syndicate at its meetiing held on 21-2-1970 in regard to the post. Though in the petition there is also a prayer for quashing the memo of the Registrar of the University (hereinafter referred to as the Registrar), respondent 2, dt. 25-2-1970 withdrawing his (the petitioner's) service from the post of Chief of the University employment, Information and Guidance Bureau, that prayer was not urged at the stage of hearing of the petition. ( 2 ) AT the outset, certain material facts which are not in dispute may be stated. The University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ugc.) recommended creation of the post of Dean of Students in the university and had offered to give to the University the necessary grantin-aid for creation of that post. The University Grant Commission had originally suggested that post being equivalent to that of professor in the University. However, at the suggestion of the University, the ugc has agreed to that post being made equivalent to that of reader in the university in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1100. The University, by its order dated 13-3-1968, accorded sanction for the creation of the post of Dean of students welfare for a period of 5 years (i. e. co-extensive with the IV five Year Plan period) in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1100, The University by its notification dt. 19-12-1967 (Ext. 6)called for applications inter alia, for that post. In that notification, the qualifications for that post were stated as follows:" (a) Essential. 700-1100, The University by its notification dt. 19-12-1967 (Ext. 6)called for applications inter alia, for that post. In that notification, the qualifications for that post were stated as follows:" (a) Essential. A first or II class Masters degree and at least 5 years experience of teaching under-graduate and graduate classes. Experience in students counselling, guidance and welfare. (b) Desirable. Publication of work of high standard or a Research degree. " ( 3 ) BY its resolution dt. 24-5-968, the Syndicate constituted a Board of appointments (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for making selection to that post. That Board consisted of the Vice-Chancellors of Bangalore University, the University of Mysore and the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and dr. Bob-Hoalms, Director, United States educational Foundation in India. The petitioner was one of the applicants for the post of Dean of students. He holds a Master's degree in economics. He was a Lecturer in Economics in the University. By the order of the Registrar dt. 13-9-1966 (Exhibit 1) he was nominated as officer to be in charge of the University employment Information and Guidance Bureau. The Board interviewed the candidates for the post of Dean of Students and recommended three candidates for that post in the order of preference, placing the petitioner's name first in that order of preference. However, the Chairman of the Board, the Vice-Chancellor for (Bangalore University), was unable to agree as to the order of preference. At its meeting held on the 12th and 13th May 1969, the Syndicate considered the recommendation of the Board and resolved by majority of its (Syndicate's) members that the majority recommendation of the board be accepted and that the petitioner be appointed Dean of Students in the pay scale of Rs. 700-40-1100 on tenure basis for a period of three years from the date of assuming charge. The relevant extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on the 12th and 13th May 1969, has been marked as Exhibit 3. 700-40-1100 on tenure basis for a period of three years from the date of assuming charge. The relevant extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on the 12th and 13th May 1969, has been marked as Exhibit 3. ( 4 ) AT the meeting of the Syndicate, held on the 24th and 27th June 1969, the Vice-Chancellor informed the Syndicate that the order of appointment of Dean of Students as per the earlier resolution of the Syndicate, had not been issued in view of the discussion on that subject at the meetings of the Senate and a letter signed by three members of the Senate and receved by him. The Syndicate decided to defer the appointment and left the matter to the Vice-Chancellor for such action as he might deem necessary. The relevant extract from the minutes of the meeting of the syndicate held on the 24th and the 27th June 1969, has been marked as exhibit 4. ( 5 ) ON 25-2-1970 the Registrar issued a memo (Exhibit 2) stating that the services of the petitioner were withdrawn from the University employment, Information and Guidance Bureau and that he was placed exclusively at the disposal of the Department of Economics with immediate effect. The memo directed the petitioner to hand over charge to the deputy Chief of that Bureau immediately. At the meeting of the Syndicate held on 21-2-1970, the question of appointment of Dean of Students was considered. The Vice-Chancellor raised the question whether that post should be re-advertised. The Syndicate resolved that a dear idea should be had of the requirements of that post and that suitable proposal consistent with such requirements, should be brought up before it (The Syndicate) in due course. The Syndicate also resolved that that post should be made tenable by an officer of the rank of Professor as per the original sanction of the UGC. An extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 21-2-1970 has been marked as Exhibit 5. ( 6 ) MR. The Syndicate also resolved that that post should be made tenable by an officer of the rank of Professor as per the original sanction of the UGC. An extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 21-2-1970 has been marked as Exhibit 5. ( 6 ) MR. M. P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Syndicate could not go back on its own earlier resolution appointing the petitioner as Dean of Students and that even if the syndicate was competent to re-consider its earlier decision, it could not itself turn down the recommendation of the Board, but had to submit the matter to the Chancellor for orders. It was also contended by Mr. Chandrakantharaj urs that the action of the University in not appointing the petitioner to that post, was mala fide. On the other hand, Mr. H. K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents (the Vice-Chan cellar and the Registrar), contended that the petitioner had not been actually appointed to the post of Dean of students, that the Syndicate was competent to reconsider and reverse its earlier decision to appoint him and that this was not a matter which the syndicate had to submit to the Chancellor for orders. Mr. Vasudeva reddy also contended that the decision of the University authorities not to appoint the petitioner as Dean of Students was not actuated by any mala fides but was based on its later decision that that post should be held by an officer of the rank of Professor. ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned Counsel, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Bangalore University act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Statutes made thereunder. Section 2 of the Act contains definitions of certain expressions used in that Act. The word 'teachers' has been defined in sub-sec. (8) of that section so as to include Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other persons imparting instruction in the University or in any College. Sec. 12 of the Act sets out the powers of the Vice-Chancellor who is one of the Officers of the University specified in S. 9. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 provides, inter alia, that he shall be the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Syndicate and the board of Appointments. Sub-sec. Sec. 12 of the Act sets out the powers of the Vice-Chancellor who is one of the Officers of the University specified in S. 9. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 provides, inter alia, that he shall be the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Syndicate and the board of Appointments. Sub-sec. (4) of that Section provides, inter alia, that he shall perform all such acts as may be necessary to carry out, and give effect to, the decisions of the authorities of the university, section 17 of the Act enumerates several authorities of the University including the Senate and the Syndicate, section 20 of the Act sets out the powers and functions of the Senate. Sub-sec. (1) of that Section provides, inter alia, that the Senate shall be the supreme authority of the Unversity and shall have the power to review the action of the Syndicate save where the Syndicate has acted in accordance with the powers conferred upon it under that Act, the statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made under that Act. Section 22 of the Act sets out the powers of the Syndicate. Sub- sec, (1) of that Section provides inter alia, that subject to the general directions of the Senate, the Syndicate shall have the control of all administrative affairs of the University. The relevant part of sub-sec. (2) of that Section reads : (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the ordinances, the Syndicate shall in addition to all other powers vested in it, have the following powers, namely: (a) to appoint, from time to time, the Registrar, the Bursar, principals of ] colleges and Institutions established or maintained by the university, and such Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff as may be necessary on the recommendations of the Boards of Appointments; provided that no action shall be taken by the Syndicate in respect of the number, qualifications and emoluments of teachers otherwise than after consideration of the recommendations of the Academic council; (b) to appoint members of the administrative staff of the University or to delegate the power of appointment to such authority or authorities or officer or officers as the Syndicate may, from time to time, by resolution either generally or specially direct; " sub-sec. (1) of S. 28 of the Act provides inter alia, that there shall be boards of Appointments for the purpose of appointments of Professors, readers and Lecturers in the University Service. Sub-sees. (2) to (4) of that Section provide what the composition of such Boards should be when selection for appointments of Professors, Readers and Lecturers for any subject in the University Service are made. Sub-section (5) of Section 28 reads : (5) (a) The Board of Appointments shall consider and submit to the Syndicate its recommenations. (b) If the Syndicate considers that recommendations of the board are not acceptable, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Chancellor for orders, and the orders of the Chancellor thereon shall be final. Section 32 of the Act specifies the matters in respect of which the statutes may provide subject to the provisions of the Act. Clause (c) of that Section reads : (c) the appointment, conditions of service, powers and duties of the officers, teachers and other employees of the University. Section 33 of the Act provides that the first Statutes of the University made by the Government shall continue in force until amended or superseded by Statutes made by the Senate, and that no Statute passed by the Senate shall have validity until assented to by the Chancellor. In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 32 (c) of the Act, the Senate made Statutes 152 to 164 governing the cadre and recruitment of employees (non-teaching) of the University. They received the assent of the chancellor and were published in the Gazette on 8-7-1971. The Schedule to those Statutes sets out the scale of pay, minimum qualifications prescribed, period of probation and method of recruitment for each non- teaching post. The Dean of Students is one of the posts specified in that schedule. The scale of pay of that post is stated as Rs. 700-40-1100. In the schedule the qualifications prescribed for that post read: (a) Eessential : A First or II Class Masters degree and at least 10 years experience of teaching under-graduate and or graduate classes. Experience in students counselling guidance and welfare. (b) Desirable; A Professor. Experience of administering an employment Bureau and record of extra curricular activities. 700-40-1100. In the schedule the qualifications prescribed for that post read: (a) Eessential : A First or II Class Masters degree and at least 10 years experience of teaching under-graduate and or graduate classes. Experience in students counselling guidance and welfare. (b) Desirable; A Professor. Experience of administering an employment Bureau and record of extra curricular activities. The method of recruitment for that post is stated thus in that Schedule:" By direct recruitment or by transfer of a Professor or Reader, on the recommendation of a Selection Committee to be constituted for the purpose by the Syndicate. "elaborating his first contention, Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs argued that when the Syndicate had passed a resolution to accept the majority recommendation of the Board and to appoint the petitioner as Dean of students, the Syndicate had no power to review that resolution and to modify or rescind it and that hence the subsequent resolution of the Syndicate to defer that appointment and to make that post tenable by an officer of the rank of Professor, were invalid and had no legal effect. ( 8 ) IT is plain that the resolution of the Syndicate to appoint the petitioner as dean of Students, was an administrative decision and not a judicial decision. It is only in the case of a judicial decision, the jurisdiction or power to review it cannot be assumed or imported in the absence of any specific provision therefor Vide: Sampu Gowda v. State of Mysore AIR 1953 MYS. 156 @ 159. . But in file case of an administrative decision, the power to review it is inherent in the authority which is empowered to make that decision. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, where such decision, though administrative, has created rights or has induced persons to alter their positions, there may be legal impediments for it being reviewed, modified or rescinded. In the present case, no order of appointment has been issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the resolution of the Syndicate to appoint him as Dean of Students, nor had he assumed that office. Hence, there was no legal impediment for the Syndicate reviewing or reconsidering that resolution and modifying or rescinding it. Thus the contention of Mr. Chandrakantharaj urs that the subsequent resolutions of the Syndicate modifying and rescinding its earlier resolution, were invalid, must be rejected as untenable. ( 10 ) THE second contention of Mr. Hence, there was no legal impediment for the Syndicate reviewing or reconsidering that resolution and modifying or rescinding it. Thus the contention of Mr. Chandrakantharaj urs that the subsequent resolutions of the Syndicate modifying and rescinding its earlier resolution, were invalid, must be rejected as untenable. ( 10 ) THE second contention of Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs was more substantial. Elaborating it, he urged, that the Dean of Students was a member of the teaching staff and that if the Syndicate considered that the recommendation of the Board was not acceptable, the Syndicate should have recorded its reasons and submitted the case to the Chancellor for orders and that the Syndicate could not itself reject that recommendation, nor could it decide to make that post tenable by an officer of the rank of Professor. Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs strongly relied on the decision of this court in P. S. Reddy v. Bangalore University and others WP. 3343/1970. , There, the board of Appointments constituted by the Syndicate for selection of a Reader in a subject, had selected a person. The Syndicate did not accept the recommendation of that Board, The resolution of the Syndicate in that behalf did not record any reason for not accepting such recommendationt ( 11 ) THE person so selected challenged that resolution. This Court quashed that resolution holding that the requirement under Cl. (b)of sub-sec. (5) of S. 28 of the Act that the Syndicate should record its reasons where it does not accept the recommendation of the Board, is a mandatory provision and not merely a directory one, because such requirement is intended to ensure that the recommendation made by the Board which is an expert body, is not rejected by the Syndicate arbitrarily. Mr. Vasudeva Reddy did not dispute that if the Dean of Students could be regarded as a member of the teaching staff, the Syndicate could not disregard the recommendation of the Board which had selected him for that post, but should have recorded its reasons for not accepting such recommendation of the Board and submitted the case to the Chancellor. But mr. Vasudeva Reddy contended that the Dean of Students was only a member of the administrative staff and not of the teaching staff, that the appointment of Dean of Students was governed by Clause (b), and not clause (a), of sub-sec. But mr. Vasudeva Reddy contended that the Dean of Students was only a member of the administrative staff and not of the teaching staff, that the appointment of Dean of Students was governed by Clause (b), and not clause (a), of sub-sec. (2) of S. 22, that hence the Syndicate had the full- power to appoint or not to appoint the petitioner to that post whatever might have been the recommendation of the Board, and that when the syndicate did not accept the recommendation of the Board, there was no legal obligation on the Syndicate to record its reasons and to submit the case to the Chancellor. ( 12 ) SO, the material question is whether the Dean of Students could be regarded as a member of the teaching staff coming within the ambit of clause (a) as contended by the petitioner or whether he was, only a member of the administrative staff coming within the ambit of clause (b) of s. 22 (2) as contended on behalf of the University authorities. . Neither at the time when applications for the post of Dean of Students were called for, nor at the time when the impugned resolutions of the syndicate were passed, was there any Statute made under S. 32 (c) of the act denning the functions or duties and responsibilities of the Dean of students or even indicating whether imparting instruction was part of jiis functions and duties. Statutes 152 to 164 passed by the Senate subse. quently merely prescribe the minimum qualifications for that post , the method of recruitment thereto, the period of probation and the pay scale thereof, but do not prescribe the functions and duties of that post. The notification dt. 19-12-1967, Ext. 6, calling for applications for that post, also did not specify the functions and duties of that post. No resolution or decision of the Syndicate, the Senate or any academic body as to what should be the functions and duties of the Dean of Students, has been brought to our notice by either of learned Counsel. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs invited our attention to the following passage in the report of the University Education Commission (1948-49) (Popularly known as Dr. Radhakrishnan Commission, Vol. 1 at page 386. "81. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs invited our attention to the following passage in the report of the University Education Commission (1948-49) (Popularly known as Dr. Radhakrishnan Commission, Vol. 1 at page 386. "81. Functions of Office of Dean of Students In the United states, where all Colleges and Universities have teaching functions and each possesses its own academic spirit and atmosphere, student life abound and determines in a large degree the character of the institution. In the heart of every campus is an office, that of the dean of Students, which works full time upon the problems of helping the students to plan their lives. It is concerned with how or where students live; it assists the needy student in finding work if he requires financial aid, or recommends him for a scholarship or loan if he is worthy; it knows about his habits; it discovers whether he is falling at any important point such as health, morality or classwork and moves to, assist him; it sees that he gets a fair opportunity to enjoy the social and recreational life; in short, the office of Dean of students is a place constantly on the alert to promote student life, academic, social, moral and material, and prepares to give advice on every subject ranging1 from where to buy pencils upto matrimonial perplexities. " ( 14 ) THAT Commission recommended the creation of an office headed by the Dean of Students in every University. Our attention was also invited to the following passage in the Report of the Education Commission, 1964-65 (popularly known as Dr. Kothari commission) at page 295:" 11. 72. Administration of Welfare Services. The advice, support and initiative of the Vice-Chancellor or Principal are indispensable for an imaginative and effective programme of student welfare but such work is so complex and many-sided that it needs a full-time dean of student welfare to look after its implementation. He should be an educationist with tact and vision trained specifically for the job and should be given sufficient status and authority to command respect and co-operation from the students and the staff. He should be expected to participate in academic work to the extent possible and regarded as a member of the academic community. He should be an educationist with tact and vision trained specifically for the job and should be given sufficient status and authority to command respect and co-operation from the students and the staff. He should be expected to participate in academic work to the extent possible and regarded as a member of the academic community. " ( 15 ) THE above passages contain the views of the two Commissions as to what should be the role of the Dean of Students and what should be the equipment and qualifications of a person who occupies such office. But from these passages it is not possible to infer that the University had prescribed that teaching or imparting instruction should be a part of the functions and duties of the Dean of Students. Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs referred to the qualifications for the post of Dean of Students in the notification Ext. 6, calling for applications for that post. That 5 years teaching experience was prescribed as an essential qualification and that a research degree or publication of work of high standard, was stated as a desirable qualification for that post, would, according to Mr, Chandrakantharaj Urs, show that teaching or impartiing instruction was one of the functions of the Dean of Students. The mere fact that 5 years teaching experience was an essential qualification or even the fact that research degree or publication of work was a desirable qualification, would not necessarily lead to an inference that teaching or imparting instruction was a part of the functions and duties of the Dean of students. It may well be that the University authorities considered that previous experience of teaching or research or publication of works; would be a necessary or desirable background for the person holding the post of Dean of Students and to perform the functions of advising, counselling, guiding and helping students in regard to their welfare. Relying on the circumstance that in the notification, Ext. 6, calling for applications, all other posts advertised were teaching posts like Professors, readers and Lecturers, Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs wanted to draw an inference that the Dean of Students was also a teaching post. The mere circumstance that all other posts mentioned in the notification, ext 6, were teaching posts, does not necessarily lead to the inference that the post of Dean of Students mentioned in that notification, was also a teaching post. Chandrakantharaj Urs wanted to draw an inference that the Dean of Students was also a teaching post. The mere circumstance that all other posts mentioned in the notification, ext 6, were teaching posts, does not necessarily lead to the inference that the post of Dean of Students mentioned in that notification, was also a teaching post. ( 16 ) IT was also contended by Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs that if the dean of Students was only an administrative post and not a teaching post, there was no need for the Syndicate to constitute the Board of appointments for making selection to that post and that the fact the board was constituted to make such selection, would go to show that the syndicate regarded that post as a teaching post and not as administrative post. ( 17 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Vasudeva Reddy contended that even to regard to an administrative post which appointment has to be made by the Syndicate under clause (b) and not clause (a) of S. 22 (2), there is no impediment for the Syndicate constituting a Board of Appointments to assist the Syndicate in making selection for such post. It was also argued by Mr, Vasudeva Reddv that the Board constituted for making selection for the p6st of Dean of Students, was not a statutory Board as contemplated by S. 28 of the Act, nor was the personnel of such Board in accordance with sub-sec. (2), (3) or (4), of that Section. We think Mr. Vasudeva Reddy is right in contending that the Board constituted to make selection for the post of Dean of Students, was not a statutory Board under S. 28 of the Act, because the composition of the board, i. e. Vice-Chancellors of three Universities and another, did not conform to the personnel as provided in any of sub-sec. (2), (3) and (4) of that Section. Mr. Vasudeva Reddy is also right in contending that there is no legal impediment for the Syndicate constituting Boards to assist it (the Syndicate) in making selections for appointment to administrative posts under clause (b) of Section 22 (2 ). ( 18 ) THUS, the petitioner has not established that the Dean of Students was required to impait instruction and that hence should be regarded as a member of the teaching staff. ( 18 ) THUS, the petitioner has not established that the Dean of Students was required to impait instruction and that hence should be regarded as a member of the teaching staff. There is no reason to reject the plea of university authorities that the Dean of Students had no teaching work and that his work which consisted of guiding, counselling and helping students in their welfare, was purely of an administrative character. As the appointment to that post did not come within the scope of clause (a) of S. 28 (2) and as the Board which recommended the appoinment of the petitioner as Dean of Students was not a statutory Board under S. 28, the provisions of sub-sec. (5) of that section had no application to the present case. Hence, there was no statutory obligation on the Syndicate to give reasons in writing when it decided to deter appointing him and subsequently decided not to appoint him Nor was there any legal obligation on the Syndicate to submit that matter to the Chancellor for his orders. ( 19 ) THE relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on the 24th and 27th June 1989, reads:" The Syndicate desired to know why action had not been taken on items Nos. 3, 9 and 42 of the Minutes of the 40th Meeting of the syndicate. The Vice-Chancellor informed the Syndicate that orders of appointment as per Syndicate resolution under item No. 3 relating to appointment of Dean of Students had not been Issued In view of the discussions on this subject at the recent meetings of the Senate and a letter signed by three members of the Senate which was subsequently received. The Syndicate decided to defer the appointment and left the matter to the Vice-Chancellor for such action as he might deem necessary. The Syndicate decided to defer the appointment and left the matter to the Vice-Chancellor for such action as he might deem necessary. " ( 20 ) FROM what has been stated in the above portion of the minutes, it is seen that the Vice-Chancellor had not issued an order appointing the petitioner as Dean of Students infinite of the resolution of the Syndicate appointing him to that post, not because the Vice-Chancellor regarded him as unsuitable to that post or felt that that post should be tenable by an officer of the rank of Professor, but solely because of the discussions in the meetings of the Senate and the letter addressed to him (the Vice-Chancellor) by three members of the Senate regarding the appointment of the petitioner to that post. ( 21 ) AS seen earlier, the Senate hes no power to review the action of the syndicate where the latter has acted in accordance with the powers conferred upon it under the Act. As the power of making appointments of members of teaching staff as well as adminstrative staff has been conferred on the Syndicate under S. 22 of the Act, the Senate had no power to review the decision of the Syndicate to appoint the petitioner as Dean of Students. The Vice-Chancellor should not have been influenced by the discussion in the Senate and the letter of the members of the Senate. Who had no authority to sit in judgment over the decision of the Syndicate to appoint the petitioner as Dean of Students. Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs is right in his criticim of the conduct of the Vice-Chancellor in yielding to extraneous pressure and not givine effect to the resolution of the Syndicate appointing the petitioner as Dean of Students. ( 22 ) HOWEVER, it is not clear from the minutes of the meetings of the Syndicate held on the 24th and the 27th June 1p69 and the 2nd March 1970, whether the Syndicate was also influenced by the discussions in the Senate and by the letter addressed by three members of the Senate, in deciding to defer the appointment of the petitioner as Dean of Students and in deciding that the post of Dean of Students should be tenable by an officer of the rank of Professor. In his affidavit, the petitioner has attributed malafides only to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar but not to the syndicate. In his affidavit, the petitioner has attributed malafides only to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar but not to the syndicate. ( 23 ) HENCE, the impugned decisions of the Syndicate cannot be quashed on the ground of malaflde. As the resolution of the Syndicate at its meeting held on the 12th and the 13th May 1969 to appoint the petitioner as dean of of Students, had been superseded by the subsequent decisions of the Syndicate, no mandamus can be issued directing the Vice-Chancellor to give effect to that resolution which has been superseded. Though we are not granting any of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner we are constrained to point out the vagaries of the decisions of the university authorities, which would undermine the confidence of the applicants for posts in the University. When the UGC suggested that the dean of Students should be of the rank of Professor, the University authorities themselves prevailed upon the UGC to agree to that post being of the rank of Reader. In the notification calling for applications for the post of Dean of Students, the pay scale of that post was stated as Rs. 700-40-1100 which is also the pay scale of Readers. After passing a resolution to accept the majority recommendation of the Board and to appoint the petitioner as Dean of Students, the Syndicate itself decided to defer his appointment without assigning any reason. About 8 months later the Syndicate resolved that that post should be tenable by an officer of the rank of Professor. ( 24 ) BUT in the Schedule to the Statutes governing the cadre and recruitment of non-teaching employees passed by the Senate on 9-11-1970, the pay scale of the post of Dean of Students 13 stated as Rs. 700-40-1100 which is also the pay scale of Readers and not Professors and it is also provided in that Schedule that that post can be filled by direct recruitment or by transfer of a Professor or Reader. These decisions of the University authorities from time to time, do not show any consistency or reason. ( 25 ) IN these circumstances it was not unnatural for the petitioner to entertain a feeling that the Syndicate was actuated by extraneous considerations when it decided to defer his appointment and to upgrade that post. With these observations, we dismiss this petition. ( 25 ) IN these circumstances it was not unnatural for the petitioner to entertain a feeling that the Syndicate was actuated by extraneous considerations when it decided to defer his appointment and to upgrade that post. With these observations, we dismiss this petition. But in the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .