Judgment :- 1. The decision under appeal is reported as P. C. Abraham v University of Cochin (1972 KLT. 810). 2. The University of Cochin called for applications under Ex. P-1 dated 12th January 1972 for the post of part-time Reader in Law fixing certain qualifications for the same. The appellant (and probably a few others) applied for the past. On 2nd February 1972, the University published an erratum (Ex. P-2) to Ex. P-1, wherein the qualifications mentioned in Ex. P-1 were raised. The appellant alleged in the writ petition that this raising of the qualifications was intended to help a particular individual in whom some high official in the University was interested. The relevant files were produced before the single judge (before us too); and the files reveal that there was yet another attempt to publish another erratum, where the attempt was to raise the age from 40 to 45. The counsel of the appellant has pointed out that this was yet another attempt to help the particular individual who was above 40, since it was realised that even Ex. P-2 would not help him. The further contention was that the University bad no power to issue an erratum like Ex. P-2, much less a second erratum. Considering all the facts and the relevant Statutes and Ordinances, the single judge held that the Registrar, who acted at the instance of the Vice-Chancellor, had power to issue not only Ex. P-1 but also Ex. P-2. And the learned judge dismissed the writ petition which sought to quash Ext. P-2. 3. It has been urged by the counsel of the appellant that the learned judge has erred on an important fact. The counsel has pointed out that the Syndicate of the Cochin University was constituted on 23rd December 1971 and it held its first meeting on 22nd January 1972. Ext. P-1 was issued as we have already stated, on 12th January 1972, after the constitution of the Syndicate but prior to its first meeting. (These facts are not disputed by the counsel of the University). Under S.59 (4) (f) of the Cochin University Act, the Vice-Chancellor has power generally to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the statutory bodies by or under the provisions of the Act: but this power can be exercised only until the Syndicate commences to exercise its functions. Under S.59 (4) (f) of the Cochin University Act, the Vice-Chancellor has power generally to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the statutory bodies by or under the provisions of the Act: but this power can be exercised only until the Syndicate commences to exercise its functions. In the present case, the Syndicate had its first meeting only on 22nd January 1972, so that Ex. P-1 issued before that date was validly issued: but Ex. P-2; which was issued subsequently cannot be salvaged by this provision. It is admitted by the counsel of the University that there is no other provision in the Act by which Ex. P-2 can be sustained. 4. Under S.62 of the Cochin University Act, all Statutes, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations in force on the date of commencement of the Act in the Kerala University shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, continue to be in force in the area of the Cochin University until they are replaced by Statutes, Ordinances, Rules and Regula-ions made under the Act. It is admitted that no Statutes, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations bad been framed at the relevant time by the Cochin University. The result is that the relevant Statutes, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations obtaining in the Kerala University on the relevant date have to apply to the present case. Chapter IV of the Ordinances of the Kerala University prescribes the qualifications of Teachers: and Ordinance 5 (2) prescribes the qualifications for Readers: sub-clause (b) of this clause deals with'Humanities': and it was urged before the single Judge that'Law' would also come within'Humanities'. The single judge did not accept this contention, nor do we accept it. And' this will mean that the qualifications mentioned in Ordinance 5 (2) will not apply to the present case. Then the case might come within Clause (4) of Ordinance 5 in Chapter XV, which reads: "For University Professors, Readers and Lecturers in other subjects, the qualifications shall be those prescribed by the University Grants Commission or the University from time to time". It appears that the Kerala University has not prescribed qualifications for University Professors, Readers, Lectures, etc. in other subjects: we are also not told whether the University Grants Commission has prescribed such qualifications. It appears that the Kerala University has not prescribed qualifications for University Professors, Readers, Lectures, etc. in other subjects: we are also not told whether the University Grants Commission has prescribed such qualifications. However, it is brought to our notice that the Kerala University was adopting the same qualifications prescribed for Professors, Readers, Lecturers, etc. in'Hunmanities' for Professors, Readers, Lecturers, etc. in other subjects as well. Since that was the practice in the Kerala University, there is no harm In adopting the same practice in the Cochin University as well. If so, the qualifications prescribed in Ex. P-1 are proper and have to be upheld by virtue of S.62 of the Cochin University Act and by virtue of Ordinance 5(4) of Chapter XV of the Kerala University Ordinances. 5. The result is. we allow the appeal, set aside the dismissal of the writ petition by the single judge and allow the writ petition by quashing Ex. P-2 Naturally, the other prayer for directing the University to consider the applications received in pursuance of Ex. P-1 and make an appointment of part-time Reader in Law must also be allowed and is allowed. No costs.