Judgment :- 1. In this appeal a lecturer in English who has had long service in the second respondent college has challenged the appointment of the third respondent to the post of a professor in English and Head of the English Department in the college by Ext. P3 order dated 15-4-66. The controversy between the appellant and the third respondent appears to have commenced more than a decade ago and has been fought out with a persistence which is commendable. This is the second time the matter has been considered by this Court. On the first occasion by judgment in O. P. No. 889 of 1970 which was disposed of on the 21st March, 1972 this Court directed (hat the University should consider the whole matter arising from the complaint of the appellant before the University that the third respondent had been wrongly chosen for the post of professor along with the representation made by the second respondent evidenced by Ext. R3 in these proceedings. The Vice Chancellor who, it was not disputed before us, was competent to deal with the matter passed Ext. P2 order rejecting the complaint of the appellant. The writ application O. P. No. 2819 of 1972 challenging the order Ext. P2 was dismissed by Justice Nambiyar by the judgment under appeal. 2. The ground on which the order Ext. P2 of the Vice Chancellor is rested is that the appellant was not qualified for holding the post of a professor and Head of the Department in the second respondent college. This finding has been very strenuously challenged before us by counsel for the appellant. Our attention was drawn to the Travancore University Act, 1113 and particularly to S.18(f) thereof which authorises the Syndicate subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes to prescribe qualifications of teachers in the colleges and in the institutions maintained by the University. We have then been referred to the Ordinances framed under that Act, Chapter XVI and our attention was drawn to Para.1 and 2 thereof. The second paragraph provided:-"The Syndicate may in the exceptional case of a candidate who has passed the Honours or M. A. or M. Sc. We have then been referred to the Ordinances framed under that Act, Chapter XVI and our attention was drawn to Para.1 and 2 thereof. The second paragraph provided:-"The Syndicate may in the exceptional case of a candidate who has passed the Honours or M. A. or M. Sc. Degree Examination in the Third Class recognise this qualification as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in para one above provided he has had at least seven years teaching experience in colleges and provided further that his entire academic career and his tested teaching experience justify such exemption." Reference was then made to the minutes of the Syndicate April to June, 1955 at page 111 and Para.83 was relied on. That paragraph is in these terms: "83. Considered the requests from the Principals of Private colleges under the University that teachers who do not possess the qualification prescribed by the Ordinances and who are working in the colleges may be granted exemption from the provisions in the Ordinances; together with the recommendation thereon of the Standing Committee on Staff, Equipment and Buildings. Resolved that exemption from the Ordinances prescribing the qualification of teacher be granted to teachers who possess a third Class B.A. (Hons)/B.Sc. (Hons) or M.A./M.Sc Degree of a recognised University and that the case of others be scrutinised further at the next meeting of the Syndicate." The Travancore University Act, 1113 was superseded by the Kerala University Act. 1957 and Chap.16 of the Ordinances framed under that Act provided in Para.6 and 7 as follows: "6. Classification of successful candidates: Candidates who pass in both the parts at their first appearance and who obtain not less than 60 per cent of the total marks shall be placed in the First Class: those who obtain less than 60 per cent but not less than 50 per cent shall be placed in the Second Class, and other successful candidates including those who complete the examination by passing in Parts at different examinations shall be placed in the Third Class. 7. The marks obtained by candidates will be issued on application together with the prescribed fee. 7. The marks obtained by candidates will be issued on application together with the prescribed fee. In the case of those who have passed or completed the whole examination the class obtained will also be indicated in the mark list." Counsel relying on Para.6 which we have extracted above contended that the general exemption that has been granted by the resolution passed by the Syndicate which we have extracted earlier in the judgment will continue to be in operation and therefore the appellant was qualified for the post of a teacher. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Fandey v. The Chancellor, University of Bihar and others (AIR. 1968 SC. 353) and it was stressed that the exemption will enure not only for the purpose of holding the post that he held at the time the new Act came into force but would be sufficient to enable the appellant to claim promotion to the post of professor. These aspects were not brought to the notice of the learned judge who dismissed the O.P. by the judgment under appeal. Nor was the matter brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor who passed Ext. P2 order. But now that the whole matter is before us considering the fact that this dispute has been pending for a very long time we do not think that we should send back the case to the University or the Vice Chancellor for a de novo fresh consideration. But before doing so, we must refer to another aspect. 3. We took considerable time to get at the relevant provisions and the hearing continued on several occasions, adjourned from time to time to enable counsel to get at the relevant Ordinances and Minutes. Though the Standing Counsel for the University Sri. K. P. Radhakrishna Menon was present in court it is a matter of regret that he had not been instructed by the University, if not for assisting the University, at least to assist this Court in the matter of disposing of the case. We had to adjourn the case after the arguments were almost over to enable Mr. Menon to get information that the decision of the Vice Chancellor referred to in Ext. We had to adjourn the case after the arguments were almost over to enable Mr. Menon to get information that the decision of the Vice Chancellor referred to in Ext. RI produced along with the petition that the degree of the Victoria University, Newzealand an equivalent to the degress of the Universities of India had been ratified by the Syndicate. We consider that it would be appropriate and even necessary that the University should be represented by counsel in all matters where orders had been passed by the University or by the authorities under the University Act and those orders are under challenge before this Court or matters pertaining to the law applicable to the University which may have repercussions as far as the rights of teachers in colleges are concerned have to be considered by this Court. We are grateful to Mr. K. P. Ramakrishna Menon for the assistance that be rendered to this Court though be had not been instructed by the University to appear. 4. Turning now again to the question whether the appellant was qualified we must refer to the contention of counsel for the second respondent that the special qualifications prescribed by the Ordinances in Chapter XVI of the Ordinances framed under the Travancore University Act, 1113 required that "only persons who have obtained a First or Second Class Master's Degree and who have had at least 4 years' teaching experience shall be recognised as Heads of Departments in colleges." (Para 2 of Ordinance XVI). It was stressed that the exception from this requirement will not be of any avail for the appellant to claim that he was qualified. The exception is to this effect: "It shall be open, however, to the Syndicate to approve the appointment, as Head of a Department for the B. A. or B.Sc., Pass Course, of a person who has obtained Third Class Honours Degree and who has not less than seven years' teaching experience." 5. It is clear from this provision that the Syndicate can approve the appointment as Head of a Department of a person,only if that person possessed a Third Class Honours Degree and has had not less than 7 years' teaching experience. Admittedly the appellant before us is not a B.A. Honours but only a M. A. and did not have a Second Class In M. A. but only a Third Class. Admittedly the appellant before us is not a B.A. Honours but only a M. A. and did not have a Second Class In M. A. but only a Third Class. The minutes of the Syndicate containing the exception which we have extracted earlier cannot apply to the qualifications prescribed for the Heads of the Departments. The Syndicate itself had no power to exempt a Third Class M. A. for the purpose of appointing him as a Head of the Department. Therefore the contention on behalf of the appellant with reference to the various Acts and Ordinances and the Minutes and the Supreme Court decision cannot be accepted. The conclusion reached by the Vice Chancellor that the appellant was not qualified seems to be correct. This is enough to dismiss this appeal. 6. But we think that for the sake of completeness we should advert to other questions arising as well. Para.7 in Chapter LVII of the Ordinances framed under the Kerala University Act, 1957 clearly states that the post of a professor shall be a selective post. Here length of service or seniority is not enough for substantiating a claim to a selective post. The Board of the college which included a "subject expert" is stated to have considered all aspects including the claims of the appellant before us before deciding that the place mast go to the third respondent. Unless the assessment is vitiated by malafides or where it is established that the claims of any particular person had not been considered or when the assessment is presumed to be arbitrary and or perverse such assessment cannot be questioned in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. On this ground also therefore the appellant is not entiled to any remedy before this Court. 7. Apart from this, it appears to us that the appellant missed the bus as early as 1952. At that time whether there was a post of an additional professor available or not the management decided to appoint the third respondent as an additional professor. The order appointing the third respondent then has been produced by the petitioner himself as Ext. P5. This order itself stated that the third respondent will succeed Mr. Kurien who had been appointed as professor of English and Head of the Department when Sri. Kurien retired from service. The petitioner knew that the appointment of the third respondent was against his interests. P5. This order itself stated that the third respondent will succeed Mr. Kurien who had been appointed as professor of English and Head of the Department when Sri. Kurien retired from service. The petitioner knew that the appointment of the third respondent was against his interests. He complained. In Para.6 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is averred that that complaint was rejected on the 10th September, 1962. In the reply affidavit filed there is no clear dental of the statement that the representation made by the petitioner was rejected on 10 9 62. Though technically it is possible to urge that this reversal which the appellant suffered is not sufficient to exclude him from consideration at the time the vacancy of the professor occurred, we are not impressed by the argument. Whatever that be, the claims of the appellant had been considered again at the time of choosing the 3rd respondent as Head of the Department. 8. The learned judge, we think with respect, was right in declining in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution to interfere. We dismiss this appeal, We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.