JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur. Actg. C.J. - The University of Allahabad issued advertisements inviting applications for six posts of Readers in the English Department. 25 persons, including 10 Lecturers in the English Department of the Allahabad University, applied for these posts. Some applicants were from other Universities in this State while some were from Universities outside Uttar Pradesh. A Selection Committee was duly constituted with the Vice-Chancellor as the Chairman, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and the Head of the English Department as Members and four experts. The applicants were invited to appear at an interview which was to be held by the Selection Committee on March 1, 1973. In these appeals, we are only concerned with the ten Lecturers of the English Department of the Allahabad University who had applied for the posts. Out of these ten Lecturers, 8 appeared at the interview but the remaining two namely, Sri Skand Gupt and Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya, did not appear at the appointed time. Later on. Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya appeared. Ultimately, the Selection Committee submitted to the Executive Council of the University the following names for appointments to the six posts: 1. (a) Hem Lata Joshi (b) H. S. Saxena (c) R. R. Dutt 2. (a) H. S. Saxena (b) R. R. Dutt (c) I. N. Agarwal 3. (a) R. R. Dutt (b) I. N. Agarwal (c) A. K. Bhattacharya 4. (a) I. N. Agarwal (b) A. K. Bhattacharya (c) L. M. Upadhyaya 5. (a) A. K. Bhattacharya (b) L. M. Upadhyaya (c) S, N. Prasad 6. (a) L. M. Upadhyaya (b) S. N. Prasad (c) No Candidate The Executive Council. at its meeting held on March 17, 1973 accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee and appointed Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi, Sri H. S. Saxena. Dr. R. R. Dutt, Sri I. N. Agarwal, Dr. A. K. Bhattacharaya and Dr. L. M. Upadhayaya to the six posts. The four Lecturers of the English Department of the Allahabad University, who were not selected, namely, Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha, Sri Skand Gupt. Sri O. P. Malviya and Sri Amar Singh. thereupon filed a representation before the Chancellor against the selections and appointments. This representation was rejected by the Chancellor by an order dated November 22, 1973. The four Lecturers of the English Department of the Allahabad University, who were not selected, namely, Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha, Sri Skand Gupt. Sri O. P. Malviya and Sri Amar Singh. thereupon filed a representation before the Chancellor against the selections and appointments. This representation was rejected by the Chancellor by an order dated November 22, 1973. On January 24, 1974 these four Lecturers filed a writ petition in this Court, challenging the selections and appointments of the other six Lecturers. 2. The selections and appointments were challenged before the learned Single Judge on a number of grounds. Two of the grounds found favour with the learned Single Judge. The first ground was that Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi. Sri H. S. Saxena and Sri I. N. Agarwal were not eligible for the posts of Readers as they did not satisfy the first qualification prescribed by Ordinance 9 (2) of Chap. XI of the Calendar of the University of Allahabad for 1968. Ordinance 9 (2) requires a candidate for the post of Reader to have a First or high second Class Master's Degree. The learned Single Judge was of opinion that high Second Class Master's Degree means that the candidate must have obtained above 54 per cent of marks in his M. A. Examination. Accordingly, he held that Dr, Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi, Sri H. S. Saxena and Sri I. N. Agarwal. who had obtained marks below 54,70 in the M. A. Examinations, were not qualified for the posts of Readers. The selections and appointments of these three persons were set aside on this ground. Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya, who had obtained more than 54% marks was not covered by the first ground but his selection and appointment were set aside on the second ground that the Selection Committee was biased in his favour. The selections and appointments of the remaining two. namely Dr. R. R. Dutt and Dr, L. M. Upadhyaya, were upheld. In the result, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the selections and appointments of Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi. Sri H. S. Saxena, Sri I. N. Agarwal and Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya but dismissed it as against Dr. R. R. Dutt and Dr. L. M. Upadhyaya. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi; Sri H. S. Saxena, Sri I. N. Agarwal and Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi. Sri H. S. Saxena, Sri I. N. Agarwal and Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya but dismissed it as against Dr. R. R. Dutt and Dr. L. M. Upadhyaya. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi; Sri H. S. Saxena, Sri I. N. Agarwal and Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya have filed Special Appeal No. 26 of 1976. the University has filed Special Appeal No, 66 of 1976 and the writ petitioners have filed Special Appeal No. 37 of 1976. It will be convenient to dispose of all the appeals by a common judgment. 3. The first question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi, Sri H. S. Saxena and Sri I. N. Agarwal did not fulfil the requirements of Ordinance 9 (2) and were for that reason ineligible for selection as Readers. Ordinance reads thus: "9. The following qualifications are prescribed for the appointment of teachers in the Faculties of Arts. Science, Commerce and Law, (2) For Readers: (i) First or High Second Class Master's degree in the subject concerned and good academic record, (ii) Established reputation for sound scholarship and be competent to teach upto Master's degree and guide research. (iii) A doctor's degree or equivalent published work. (iv) At least 5 years' teaching experience of the subject concerned in post-graduate classes in a University recognised by law, or research experience in a Research Institute recognised by the University or the State. or the Central Government. Provided that the Selection Committee may relax the qualifications contained in Cl. (iii) for the post of Readers in the case of candidates whose total length of service as teachers in this University is not less than the period required to reach the maximum of the lecturer's grade and who shall have established a reputation as teachers. Provided further that in the case of women teachers of this (i.e. Allahabad University). in place of qualification no. (iv) requiring 5 years' teaching experience in post-graduate classes, a minimum of 5 years' teaching experience of the subject concerned in graduate classes in this University may be considered adequate for the post of Readers." Though the Ordinance labels Cls. (i) to (iv) as qualifications. it is difficult to read these four clauses as laying down rigid rules of eligibility for appointment of Readers. (i) to (iv) as qualifications. it is difficult to read these four clauses as laying down rigid rules of eligibility for appointment of Readers. In each one of these four clauses much is left to the discretion of the Selection Committee. In Cl, (i) what is "High Second Class Master's degree" and what is "good academic record" can normally only be decided by the Selection Committee. In Cl. (ii) what is "established reputation for sound scholarship and be competent to teach upto Masters degree and guide research" can only be decided by the Selection Committee. Likewise, in Cl. (iii) what is "equivalent published work" is also left for determination by the Selection Committee. It appears to us that though Ordinance 9 (2) purports to lay down qualifications for appointment of Readers, it really sets out criteria for the selection of Reader. That being so. it is for the Selection Committee to decide which of the candidates fulfil the criteria and who are the best judged in the light of the criteria laid down. 4. The language in Cl. (ii) is not precise. The expression "High Second Class Master's degree" is vague, as there is nothing like high and low in second class Master's degree. It is contended that this expression requires that the candidate, who has obtained the Master's degree in a second class, must have secured high marks. Since the Ordinances do not set out what is "High Second Class Master's degree", it is legitimate to infer that the Ordinance left it to the discretion of the Selection Committee and the Executive Council to determine what they would consider High Second Class Master's degree." 5. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that since second class marks in the M. A. degree in Arts in the Allahabad University range from 48% to 60%. the line between high and low should be drawn mid-way between these two percentages. He has. accordingly, held that high marks mean, marks above 54% and low marks mean 54% and below. If the Selection Committee and the Executive Council had taken this view. it would not have been possible for us to say that it was unreasonable so as to vitiate the selections and appointments. But that is not the view which the Selection Committee and the Executive Council have taken. If the Selection Committee and the Executive Council had taken this view. it would not have been possible for us to say that it was unreasonable so as to vitiate the selections and appointments. But that is not the view which the Selection Committee and the Executive Council have taken. Both these authorities seem to have proceeded upon the view that a candidate obtaining 48% marks and above had a "High Second Class Master's degree." The question is whether this view of the authorities is so unreasonable that this Court should interfere with it. In other words, is the view so erroneous that this Court must step in and substitute its own view and interpretation for that of the authorities. It is now well settled that Court should be reluctant to interfere with the decision of experts in academic matters. In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao. AIR 1965 SC 491 , the Supreme Court observed. "Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them. are challenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the expert. There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so. we think, it would not normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of the academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be." 6. Ordinance 9 v as framed in the year 1966. Before this there was no Ordinance or any other statutory provision laying down qualifications for appointment of Lecturers and Readers. Many lecturers were appointed who could not be said to possess "High Second Class Master's Degree" according to the interpretation of the learned Single Judge. All such Lecturers, who have served this University for long periods, would in the interpretation put by the learned Single Judge, become ineligible for appointment as Readers. Many lecturers were appointed who could not be said to possess "High Second Class Master's Degree" according to the interpretation of the learned Single Judge. All such Lecturers, who have served this University for long periods, would in the interpretation put by the learned Single Judge, become ineligible for appointment as Readers. It has been urged on behalf of the University as well as the Lecturers, who have been appointed Readers, that it was on account of this reason and for another reason, which we will mention presently, that the University Authorities have consistently ever since 1966 taken the view that any Lecturer, who had obtained second class marks, according to the standard laid down by the Allahabad University, would be deemed qualified for the post of Reader. From the various affidavits filed in the case it appears that, on a number of occasions from 1966 upto date candidates obtaining marks below 54%n in their M. A. Degree were selected and appointed Readers. On one particular occasion the appointment of one Dr. Niranjan Das as Reader in Botany was challenged right upto the Chancellor on the ground that he had not obtained high second class marks in the M. Sc. Degree and was. therefore, not qualified for appointment as Reader. Though he had obtained only 48.3% marks in the M.Sc. Degree, the Chancellor, by his order dated December 2. 1910, held that he was qualified for appointment and upheld his selection and appointment. It thus appears that the University Authorities have consistently been treating this requirement as directory and satisfied by the obtaining of 48% or more marks. The other reason which justifies the view taken by the Authorities is this; For the post of Readers, not only lecturers of the Allahabad University are eligible but also lecturers from other Universities inside Uttar Pradesh and outside it. From "the Handbook of Indian Universities" it appears that different Universities in India have prescribed different percentages of marks for the different divisions awarded by them for the Master's examination. In some Universities the second Class marks start from 40% in some from 45% in some 48% and in some 50 per cent. For instance, in the Calcutta and Madras Universities the second division marks range from 40 to 60%. In some Universities the second Class marks start from 40% in some from 45% in some 48% and in some 50 per cent. For instance, in the Calcutta and Madras Universities the second division marks range from 40 to 60%. If a lecturer who has obtained a second class Master's degree from one of these Universities, applies for appointment as Reader in the Allahabad University, can he not be considered to have obtained high second class marks. if he has obtained 48% marks. Considering this varying range of second class marks prescribed by the various Universities. the Authorities of the Allahabad University could very well take the view that a candidate obtaining 48% marks in his Master's degree will be deemed to have obtained high second class marks. There is no reason why in considering what the expression "High Second Class Master's degree" means only the range of marks prescribed by the Allahabad University should be taken into account, when candidates from all Universities are permitted to apply for the posts of Readers in this University. 7. In view of what has been said above, we think that if the Authorities of the Allahabad University have taken the view that a candidate obtaining 48% marks in Master's degree satisfies the condition of obtaining "High Second class Master's degree", we cannot say that the view is unreasonable or so manifestly erroneous that this Court must necessarily interfere. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was not justified in prescribing, when the Ordinance itself did not do so, marks above 54% to be the qualifying marks for appointment as Readers. Since the Selection Committee, the Executive Council and the Chancellor all took this view that Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi, Sri H. S. Saxena and Sri I. N. Agrawal satisfied the condition mentioned in Ordinance 9 (2) and since the view taken by them is a reasonable view, their selections and appointments as Readers in the English Department are not liable to be quashed by this Court. We are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that these three persons were not qualified for appointment as Readers in the English Department. 8. The learned Single Judge has also held that the selection of Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi is vitiated on account of the fact that she gave a wrong percentage of marks obtained by her in her M.A. Examination. 8. The learned Single Judge has also held that the selection of Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi is vitiated on account of the fact that she gave a wrong percentage of marks obtained by her in her M.A. Examination. Admittedly, she had obtained 52.2% of marks in this examination but, in her application form. she had mentioned them as 54%. We are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that this mistake vitiates her selection. We have already noticed earlier that the Selection Committee proceeded on the view that a Second Class M.A. of the Allahabad University was qualified for appointment as Reader if he or she obtained 48% or more marks. Since every M.A. of the Allahabad University. who obtained a Second Class in the M.A. Examination, possessed 48% or more marks and was qualified, the mistake committed by Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi in mentioning her percentage of marks was immaterial and could not vitiate her selection. 9. We may now consider whether the selection of Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya was vitiated on account of bias of the Selection Committee in his favour, We must emphasise the fact that there is no averment in the writ petition that before March 1. 1973, the date on which the interviews were held, any member of the Selection Committee was interested in or biased in favour of Dr. Bhattacharya. We are called upon to infer the existence of bias only on account of the events which took place on this date. Invitations to appear at the interview had been issued to all the 25 candidates, who had applied for the posts, including Dr. Bhattacharya and Sri Skand Gupt. 13 candidates appeared for the interview at the relevant time. Dr. Bhattacharya and Sri Skand Gupt did not appear. It appears that the Head of the English Department and the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, who were members of the Selection Committee, informed the Selection Committee that Dr. Bhattacharya was not appearing at the interview on account of some grievance which he nursed against the University and that he may appear if asked again. At this, a message was sent to the English Department, informing Dr. Bhattacharya that, if he so desired. he might still appear at the interview. Dr. Bhattacharya was not appearing at the interview on account of some grievance which he nursed against the University and that he may appear if asked again. At this, a message was sent to the English Department, informing Dr. Bhattacharya that, if he so desired. he might still appear at the interview. Dr. Bhattacharya was not present in the English Department but the message appears to have been conveyed to him and he appeared at the interview. It was contended by the writ petitioners that the conduct of the Selection Committee in sending a second invitation to Dr. Bhattacharya was so extraordinary that it must necessarily lead to an inference that it was biased in favour of Dr. Bhattacharya. We have given the matter our anxious care and find that we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Selection Committee was biased in favour of Dr. Bhattacharya. 10. In support of the averments made in the writ petition, an affidavit was filed by Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha, one of the writ petitioners. The averments regarding what transpired at the meeting of the Selection Committee are sworn on the basis of information. Admittedly, Dr. Kulshreshtha was not present at the place where the Selection Committee was holding its meeting at the time when the so-called second invitation is alleged to have been sent to Dr. Bhattacharya and at the time when Dr. Bhattacharya came to that place. Dr. Bhattacharya has denied receiving any message from the Selection Committee, He has asserted that he went of his own accord to appear at the interview. This much is admitted that the messenger sent by the Selection Committee did not meet Dr. Bhattacharya but it appears that the message of the Selection Committee was conveyed to him. The other allegations made in the writ petition that when Dr. Bhattacharya went to the place where the Selection Committee was holding its meeting, he was met in the room of the Vice-Chancellor's P.A. and was persuaded by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and by the Head of the English Department to appear at the interview have not been substantiated. As observed. earlier, the allegations had been made on the basis of information. Dr. Bhattacharya, who was admittedly present. and the Registrar of the University. who was the secretary to the Selection Committee and who was also present. As observed. earlier, the allegations had been made on the basis of information. Dr. Bhattacharya, who was admittedly present. and the Registrar of the University. who was the secretary to the Selection Committee and who was also present. have both denied these assertions. Therefore, we are unable to accept these assertions in the writ petition. The fact, however. remains that the Selection Committee, at the instance of the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and the Head of the English Department gave Dr. Bhattacharya another opportunity to appear at the interview and that Dr. Bhattacharya availed of that opportunity. We see nothing sinister in this action of the Selection Committee. It has come on the record that Dr. Bhattacharya was harbouring some sort of grievance against the University and, on account of that) grievance as a protest, he had earlier declined to appear at the interview. If the Selection Committee considered him suitable for appointment as Reader and, on that account, gave him another opportunity to appear at the interview, that can be no ground for drawing any inference of bias. We may again mention that there' is not even an allegation that any member of the Selection Committee had any interest in Dr. Bhattacharya before the date of the interview. The Selection Committee gave him another chance to appear at the interview as it thought that his earlier refusal to appear was merely by way of a protest. In this connection, it was pointed out that no second invitation was issued to Sri Skand Gupt who had also refused to appear at the interview. The stand of Sri Skand Gupt was that it was illegal for the Selection Committee to hold an interview. His stand in the writ petition as well as in the appeals before us was that the Selection Committee was not entitled to hold any interview. He made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor on March 17, 1973. the date on which the Executive Council Meeting was to take place, protesting against the giving of a second opportunity to Dr. Bhattacharya and against the denial to him of such a second opportunity but he did not state in this representation that he would have appeared before the Selection Committee if a second invitation had been extended to him. the date on which the Executive Council Meeting was to take place, protesting against the giving of a second opportunity to Dr. Bhattacharya and against the denial to him of such a second opportunity but he did not state in this representation that he would have appeared before the Selection Committee if a second invitation had been extended to him. He did not file any affidavit along with the writ petition asserting that he would have appeared at the interview if a second invitation had been extended to him. Even in the representation to the Chancellor, he did not state that, if a second invitation had been sent to him. he would have appeared at the interview. He has belatedly, in a rejoinder affidavit filed in opposition to the counter-affidavit of Dr. Bhattacharya. stated that he would have appeared at the interview if a second invitation had been extended to him. We are unable to accept this assertion in the rejoinder affidavit. It appears to have been the firm stand of Sri Skand Gupt throughout that the interview was illegal and it was on account of this stand that he refused to appear at the interview. The Dean of the Faculty of Arts and the Head of the English Department were aware of his stand and, for that reason. they did not request the Selection Committee to send him a second invitation as it would have been futile to do so. From the mere fact that a second invitation to appear at the interview was sent to Dr. Bhattacharya by the Selection Committee we are unable to draw any inference that the Selection Committee was biased in his favour, particularly when there is not even an averment in the writ petition that any member of the Selection Committee was interested in him from before. 11. Certain cases were cited before us on behalf of the writ petitioners on the question when bias can vitiate a decision or proceeding. It is laid down in these cases that it is not necessary for the Court to find positively that the bias has affected the decision or proceedings, but that it is sufficient if a reasonable man would, in the circumstances, infer that there was reasonable likelihood of bias affecting the proceedings. It is not necessary to cite these cases. as they have no application to the present case. It is not necessary to cite these cases. as they have no application to the present case. In all these cases there was a pre-existing bias in the deciding authority. or if there were more than one, then in one of them either in favour of or against some person, the question which arose for determination was whether it was necessary to prove that this bias had affected the decision or the proceedings before the Court could quash them. In the case before us, there is not even an averment that there was any pre-existing bias in any member of the Selection Committee in favour of Dr. Bhattacharya. On the facts proved. we are unable to hold that either the Selection Committee as a whole, or any member thereof was interested in Dr. Bhattacharya. No bias having been established, no question arises whether any reasonable man could have a reasonable apprehension that there was a real likelihood of its affecting the decision of the Selection Committee. For these reasons we are of opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the selection and appointment of Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya on the ground that the Selection Committee was biased in his favour. 12. This disposes of the two appeals filed by Dr. Mrs. Hem Lata Joshi and others and the University. We now come to the appeal filed by the writ petitioners. In this appeal they have challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge rejecting some of the other grounds raised by them in support of the writ petition, 13. The first of such ground is that the recommendations of the Selection Committee are vitiated on account of noncompliance with Regulation 5 (c) of the Regulations printed at pages 155 and 156 of the Calendar of the Allahabad University for the year 1968. The first of such ground is that the recommendations of the Selection Committee are vitiated on account of noncompliance with Regulation 5 (c) of the Regulations printed at pages 155 and 156 of the Calendar of the Allahabad University for the year 1968. This regulation reads thus: "5 (c) It (report of the Selection Committee) shall also state (1) the names and qualifications of the candidates, and (2) the ground on which the candidate or candidates selected or recommended to the Executive Council." It is not disputed that the recommendations of the Selection Committee do not give the grounds on which the selected candidates were recommended, The Regulation was framed by the Executive Council at a time when the Selection Committee was not an authority of the University as defined in S. 16 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921. At that time the Executive Council had authority to frame Regulations for selection committees. But in the year 1955 S. 16 was amended and the selection committees were also made authorities of the University, Section 34 of the Act empowers the, authorities of the University to make Regulations consistent with the Act. Statutes and the Ordinances, inter alia, laying, down the procedure to be observed at their meetings. From after this date the Regulations made by the Executive Council ceased to apply to the selection committees, Further in 1958 the statutes of the University were amended and provisions regarding the procedure etc. of the selection committees was laid downs in statutes 125 onwards. In view of these changes the original Regulations made by the Executive Council did not apply to the present Selection Committee and it was not required to give grounds for its recommendations. 14. The next ground urged on behalf of the writ petitioners is that the Selection Committee was not entitled to hold interviews and that the holding of the interview has vitiated its recommendations. Reliance is placed upon the fact that there is no specific provision in the Act, the Statutes or the Ordinance providing for holding of the interviews by the Selection Committee. But that alone, in our opinion. does not make the holding of the interviews illegal. Reliance is placed upon the fact that there is no specific provision in the Act, the Statutes or the Ordinance providing for holding of the interviews by the Selection Committee. But that alone, in our opinion. does not make the holding of the interviews illegal. The Selection Committee is an Authority of the University and in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, Statutes or Ordinances it is entitled to follow any procedure which is relevant and reasonable for making the selection. Holding of interviews is a well recognised method used for judging the merits of candidates at a selection. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the Selection Committee committed no illegality in calling the candidates for interview. 15. The last argument of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners is that the interview held by the Selection Committee. even if permissible, was an arbitrary exercise of power. According to the learned Counsel, no criteria was laid down on the basis of which the merits of the candidates was to be judged at the interview and no valid criteria emerges from an examination of the recommendations of the Selection Committee. We are unable to accept this argument. It is to be kept in mind that the Selection Committee was a very high powered body consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, the Head of the English Department and four experts. For such a body it was unnecessary to lay down any fixed objective criteria. They were in the best position to judge, after considering the achievements of the each candidate and after interviewing him, whether he was fit for appointment as Reader or not. The learned Counsel invited us to examine the merits of the candidates and to hold that the selection was arbitrary. We decline to do so, as it is not our function to judge the merits of the candidates. This was solely the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee. The learned Counsel also urged that the interview has introduced an extraneous factor in judging the merits of the candidates. According to him the Selection Committee was bound to consider only the matters enumerated in Ordinance 9 (2) and not any other matter. In our opinion. This was solely the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee. The learned Counsel also urged that the interview has introduced an extraneous factor in judging the merits of the candidates. According to him the Selection Committee was bound to consider only the matters enumerated in Ordinance 9 (2) and not any other matter. In our opinion. the Selection Committee was entitled to judge the suitability of the candidates for the appointments not only on the basis of the factors mentioned in Ordinance 9 (2) but also on the basis of the interview. The writ petitioners, have not been able to establish that any extraneous factors was taken into consideration by the Selection Committee, apart from the suitability of the candidates for the posts of Readers. We, thus, find no merits in the appeal filed by the writ petitioners. 16. In the result Special Appeals Nos. 26 and 66 of 1976 are allowed. the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the selections and appointments of Dr. Smt. Hem Lata Joshi. Sri H, S. Saxena, Sri I, N. Agarwal and Dr. A. K. Bhattacharya is set aside. Special Appeal No. 37 filed by Dr. J. P. Kulshreshtha, Sri Skand Gupt, Sri O. P. Malviya and Sri Amar Singh is dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed in toto. The parties will bear their own costs of these appeals as well as of the writ petition.