( 1 ) THE petitioner is a lecturer in Botany in Central College Bangalore. She was an applicant along with respondents 2 to 4 and some others to the post of a Reader in Botany in Bangalore University. All the applicants including the petitioner and "respondents 2 to 4 who were found eligible for the said post were interviewed by the Board of Appointments appointed under S. 28 of the Bangalore University Act (hereinafter "referred to as the Act ). The Board of Appointments recommended respondents. 2, 3 and 4 in the order of preference for being appointed to the post of Readers in botary in the University. On the basis of the recommendation of the. Board of Appointments the Syndicate of the University which is the appointing authority appointed respondents 2 and 3 as Readers in Botany by its order dt. 24-4-1. 971. Aggrieved by the appointment of respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner filed a petition before the Chanoellor. ( 2 ) THE Chancellor rejected it. Hence this petition. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ or order or direction to the University quashing the orders of appointment issued to respondents 2 and 3 on the following grounds : (1) That the Board of Appointments which interviewed the candidates had not been duly constituted and (2) the Board of Appointments had selected respondents 2 and 3 to the two posts of Readers in question without taking into account the needs of the University. ( 3 ) SRI B. T. Parthasarathy the learned Counsel for the petitioner" contended'relying upon sub-sec. (2) of S. 28 of the Act that one of the experts viz. , Dr. Dhyanasagar of the Institute of Science of Bombay who acted as one of the members of the Board of Appointments was connected with the bangalore University in the capacity of a member of a Board of Examiners and therefore he was ineligible to function as a member of the Board of Appointmsnts, The relevant portion of sub-sec. (2) of S. 28 of the Act reads as follows : the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner before me is that since dr. Dhyanasagar had functioned as an examiner in one of the subjects previously he could not be considered as a person unconnected with the university. (2) of S. 28 of the Act reads as follows : the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner before me is that since dr. Dhyanasagar had functioned as an examiner in one of the subjects previously he could not be considered as a person unconnected with the university. Emphasis is placed on the words not connected with the university appearing in clause (ii) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 28 of the Act in support of this contention. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it is urged that only those persons who are members of any of the authorities or members of any of the statutory bodies appointed under the. Act can be considered as persons connected with the University and persons who act as examiners or as members of a Board of Examinees cannot be considered as persons connected with the University. The persons who can be considered as officers of the University are referred to an Sec. 9 of the Act. Sec; 17 refers to the Authorities of the University. S. 29 authorises the University to appoint Other Boards for the purposes of the University. Dr. Dhyanasagar is neither an officer of the University nor a member of any statutory board. Ha is not even a member of the teaching staff of the University. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed before me that the members of the Boards of Examinees appointed by the University or members who constitute the panel of examiners of the University have no statutory power to exercise in respect of any of the matters connected with the University. They are also not in a position to influence any administrative decision of the University or the academic life in the University. In order to understand the meaning of the expression connected with the University it would be necessary to bear in mind the object with which the legislature required that two of the persons on any Board of Appointment should be un-connected with the University. From the scheme of the Act, it is apparent that the intention of the Legislature was that the appointments to be made to the teaching cadres of the University should be free from bias or interestedness. From the scheme of the Act, it is apparent that the intention of the Legislature was that the appointments to be made to the teaching cadres of the University should be free from bias or interestedness. Viewed from that angle, it cannot be said that a person who is neither a member of any of the authorities of the University nor an officer or a teacher of the University can be considered as a person connected With the University merely because he happens to function casually as a member of a- panel of examiners or as a member of a board of Examiners. The fact that the same person is appointed year after year as an examiner would not also make any difference. It is, however, argued on behalf of the petitioner that because Dr. Dhyanasagar was a member of the Board of Examiners of which the petitioner was the chairman, the construction to be placed on the expression not connected with the University should be different. I do not think that the above fact would in any way tilt the case in favour of the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is not strictly founded on law. The argument of Sri Parthasarathy is that the selection of respondent 2 who had specialised himself in the branch of Botany known as Palep Botany' should not have been selected as a Reader in Botany when at the time of the appointment that was not one of the subjects which was being taught in the University. I am informed on behalf of the university that after respondent 2 was appointed, he has been teaching palea. Botany in the University. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent 2 had no competence to teacn the subjects which were being taught in the University at the time of his appointment. If that is so the fact that he has specialised himself in one other subject which was not taught at the relevant point of time in the University, would not create a disqualification in him for being considered for the post of a Reader in botany. It should be remembered that the Notification which was issued by the University calling for applications did not prescribe that the applicants should be specialised in any particular branch of Botany. It should be remembered that the Notification which was issued by the University calling for applications did not prescribe that the applicants should be specialised in any particular branch of Botany. Decisions of the Board of Appointments consisting of the Vice-Chancellor of the university and two experts in the subject ordinarily should be respected. ( 7 ) IT has to be borne in mind that it is repeatedly observed by the Supreme court that when Courts are called upon to enquire into the validity of selections made by the Boards of Appointments of a University consisting of academic men against whom there is no allegation of bias, the courts should be slow in interfering with their decision, unless there is proof of violation of any mandatory rule. there fore, I see no ground for interferences with the appointments of respondents 2 and 3. The petition therefore fails a'nd is dismissed. There will however be no order as to cost. --- *** --- .