Judgment 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing a corrigendum issued by the University Service Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission) published in the Searchlight of the 30th July, 1973: a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-6. By the impugned corrigendum, the Commission corrected an earlier advertisement being Advertisement No.222/73-74 for the post of a Lecturer in History in R. K. College, Madhubani. A copy of the earlier advertisement has been filed as Annexure-7. Annexure-7 is an advertisement issued by the Commission inviting applications for the post of a Lecturer in History in R. K. College (hereinafter referred to as the College). The qualifications required for the aforesaid post have been mentioned as follows in the said advertisement (Annexure-7): Qualifications: Candidates for the post of lecturers should possess at least a second class Masters Degree of a recognised University in the subject concerned, except xx xx xx Apart from general qualifications mentioned above, in respect of R. K. College, Madhubani, the advertisement also lays down some special qualifications which are as follows: "Advt. No. 222/73-74 Lecturer . in History One (permanent) American History as a special paper in M. A. and Modern India at the Honours stage essential" It will appear from the advertisement that American History was required as a special paper in M. A. and Modern India as a paper at the Honours stage. This has been reversed by the impugned corrigendum which reads as follows: "Advt. No. 222/73-74 Lec. in History One (Permanent) American History at the Honours stage and Modern India as special paper in M. A. essential. Other terms and conditions remain the same." 2. The petitioner passed B. A. Examination with Honours in History in 1967. In 1969, he obtained his Masters degree in History. His case is that during M. A. course, the petitioners special field of study was Modern Indian History since 1957 (as per Annexure-1) and history of the United States of America. In support of it, a certificate from the Head of the Department of History, Bhagalpur University, has been filed as Annexure-1. The petitioner worked as a temporary lecturer in History in the College from the 6th of April, 1970, with usual breaks during summer vacations, puja vacations, and other long holidays, the last spell of such temporary appointment having expired in March, 1972. The petitioner worked as a temporary lecturer in History in the College from the 6th of April, 1970, with usual breaks during summer vacations, puja vacations, and other long holidays, the last spell of such temporary appointment having expired in March, 1972. The ad hoc Committee of the College by a resolution dated the 24th March, 1973 requested the Commission to issue necessary advertisement for filling up a post of Lecturer in History which fell vacant due to the resignation of Prof. G. R. Rout. A copy of the resolution has been filed as Annexure-5. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that although the ad hoc Committee did not lay down any special qualification for the post of the Lecturer in History, the Commission in the advertisement (Annexure-7) laid down that the candidate should have Modern History of India at the Honours stage and American History as a special paper in M. A. as essential qualification, and the special qualification has subsequently been amended by the corrigendum (Annexure-6) to the disadvantage of the petitioner, by providing that the candidate should have American History as special paper in Honours and Modern History of India at M. A. stage. The grievance of the petitioner further is that although he was fully qualified in terms of both the advertisements and applied for it, the Commission arbitrarily decided not to call him for interview for which 5th to 7th March, 1975, were the dates fixed. 3. This writ application was filed on the 4th March, 1975, and was admitted on the 5th March, 1975; and, at the time of admission a direction was issued to the Commission to interview the petitioner and the final selection was to be made after the disposal of this writ petition. It is an admitted position before us that the petitioner has been interviewed by the Commission as directed by this Court. After the admission of the writ petition, on the 17th March, 1975, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit stating some further facts which will be referred to in due course. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of each of the three respondents separately, namely, (1) University Service Commission, (2) L. N. Mithila University and (3) ad hoc Committee of the College, refuting the allegations and insinuations made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Mr. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of each of the three respondents separately, namely, (1) University Service Commission, (2) L. N. Mithila University and (3) ad hoc Committee of the College, refuting the allegations and insinuations made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the only qualification prescribed by the statutes of the Bihar University, which are applicable to the L. N.Mithila University, for appointment of a lecturer in any speciality, is Second Class Masters degree in that speciality; and, the statutes having been framed in pursuance of the Bihar University Act, 1951, the same could not be changed by the Commission or the ad hoc Committee of the College. Learned Counsel has referred to sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the said University of Bihar Act which, admittedly, is applicable to L. N. Mithila University also. It lays down that the number, qualification, grades, pay and conditions of service of teachers, etc., will be as laid down in the Statutes framed under the Act. The relevant statute on the point is Statute XVI, clause (1) of which reads as under: "1. (1) The following shall be the grades, pay and scales and qualifications of teachers of admitted colleges; provided that the pay and scales shall have no retrospective effect: X Minimum pay and seales. X Minimum qualification. X (c) Lecturer X Rs. 200-20-220-15-340-EB-20-500 X Second Class Masters degree. X On this basis, learned Counsel has submitted that putting any additional qualification will be in excess of the power and jurisdiction of the Commisssion or the ad hoc Committee of the College. There is no substance in this submission of the learned Counsel. What the Statute has provided is the minimum qualification for the post, that is to say, for being appointed a lecturer one must not have less than a Second class Masters degree. That minimum qualification has been provided for in the advertisement issued by the Commission as is apparent from Annexure-7. There is no violation of the Statute in providing for any higher qualification in this regard. The statute does not say that nothing more need be put in the advertisement regarding special courses of studies of the candidates. That minimum qualification has been provided for in the advertisement issued by the Commission as is apparent from Annexure-7. There is no violation of the Statute in providing for any higher qualification in this regard. The statute does not say that nothing more need be put in the advertisement regarding special courses of studies of the candidates. It is common knowledge that there are special papers not only at B. A. Honours stage, but also at the Master degree stage, besides compulsory papers in any particular subject. A college may need a lecturer with particular special subject either at the B. A. Honours stage or at the Masters degree stage, so as to be proficient in that particular special paper to teach in the college. While appointing a lecturer, the college or the University is the competent body to decide with regard to the particular needs. These particular needs of the College would be specified in advertisements calling for applications, besides mentioning the minimum qualifications, as laid down by the Statute. To import any limitation in this regard will be to frustrate the very idea of higher and specialised study, which is one of the main objects of a University. 6. Mr. Mukherjee is also not right in his contention that it is the Commission which has made the change. By issuing the corrigendum (Annexure-6), it has only corrected its earlier mistake in the advertisement (Annexure-7). On the 30th April, 1973, the Principal of the College wrote to the Registrar of the University that after the despatch of the latter requesting the Commission to advertise the post of Lecturer, the students of History Honours course were pressing for appointment of a Lecturer who might have read American History and Modern Indian History at Honours and Master stages, respectively, and at present there is no permanent lecturer to teach these subjects in the College. There is no dispute that American History and Modern Indian History are taught at B. A.Honours stage in the Colleges, which are prescribed by the University syllabus. The Principal also requested the Registrar of the University to permit him to approach the Commission, as it was not possible to hold a meeting of the ad hoc Committee for this purpose alone. A copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure-A. The University approved of the proposal and forwarded a copy of this letter to the Commission. The Principal also requested the Registrar of the University to permit him to approach the Commission, as it was not possible to hold a meeting of the ad hoc Committee for this purpose alone. A copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure-A. The University approved of the proposal and forwarded a copy of this letter to the Commission. A copy of the Universitys letter in this connection has been filed as Annexure-C. From these two annexures, it is apparent that the essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement were not on the lines as suggested by the ad hoc Committee and approved by the University and there were some mistakes, which had been corrected by Annexure-6, There is also no substance in the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that these essential qualifications were not approved by the ad hoc committee. Annexure-B which is a letter dated the 9th June, 1973, addressed to the Commission by the convener of the ad hoc committee of the College, laying down the special qualifications, is also signed by the Principal. It is thus apparent that two but of the three members of the ad hoc Committee having sponsored the matter, which has been approved by the University, it cannot be said that the special qualifications have been arbitrarily put. There is no assertion that the College was not in need of a Lecturer possessing these special qualifications. It may be pointed out that Mr. Mukherjee has not challenged Annexure-7, which also lays down the special qualifications, but what he has challenged is the corrigendum by Annexure-6. His stand in this regard, therefore, is apparently contradictory. 7. Mr. Mukherjee has lastly contended that special qualification has been inserted in the advertisement mala fide to suit a particular candidate and to exclude the petitioner. There is no averment supporting this plea in the original writ petition, and it has been brought in by a supplementary affidavit filed on the 17th March, 1975. It is stated in that supplementary affidavit that one Sri Narendra Narain Singh Nirala, who passed B. A. Examination with Honours in History in 1969 and M. A. Examination in History in 1971, was appointed a temporary lecturer with occasional breaks during the sessions 1972-73 and 1973-74. It is stated in that supplementary affidavit that one Sri Narendra Narain Singh Nirala, who passed B. A. Examination with Honours in History in 1969 and M. A. Examination in History in 1971, was appointed a temporary lecturer with occasional breaks during the sessions 1972-73 and 1973-74. He happened to be a son of a person who was a member of the Governing Body of the College during those two sessions and had American History as a special subject in Honours stage and Modern Indian History as special subject in M. A. It was to suit this candidate that the principal of the College, without the approval of the ad hoc Committee, persuaded the University to make change in the original advertisement by a corrigendum (Annexure-6). The petitioner has also stated that American History was not a subject in Bihar University at the Honours stage when the petitioner was a student of B. A. Honours in 1965-67, and this subject was introduced in Honours course from the session 1966-68. The contention of the petitioners Counsel that this was not one of the subjects taught at the Honours stage when the petitioner was a student could hardly be a ground for annulling the corrigendum (Annexure-6) if it is otherwise valid. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the - corrigendum (Annexure-6) was issued to favour Sri Narendra Narain Singh Nirala, suffice it to say that it is without any foundation. It is true that the resolution of the ad hoc Committee of the College (Annexure-5) does not lay down any special qualification; but in the letter dated the 9th June, 1973, written by Shri S. Hassan, Convener of the ad hoc Committee, which is also signed by the principal of the College (Annexure-B), already referred to, the special qualification has been mentioned which has been approved by the University. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is stated that the father of Sri Narendra Narayan Singh Nirala had ceased to be a member of the Governing Body when decision for appointment of a lecturer was taken by the ad hoc Committee. Mr. Mukherjee has not disputed this position, and, in my opinion, rightly. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is stated that the father of Sri Narendra Narayan Singh Nirala had ceased to be a member of the Governing Body when decision for appointment of a lecturer was taken by the ad hoc Committee. Mr. Mukherjee has not disputed this position, and, in my opinion, rightly. There is no allegation in the writ petition of any bias or mala fides against the petitioner for excluding him by providing the special qualifications, which the petitioner did not possess. It is, therefore, apparent that there is no scope for holding that the insertion of a special qualification in the advertisement was either arbitrarily made or motivated by mala fides. The contention of learned counsel, therefore, in this regard is also without any substance. 8. In the result, there being no merit in the petition, it is, accordingly, dismissed; but, in the circumstances of the case I would make no order as to costs. It will be open now for the Commission to make final selection from the candidates interviewed.