JUDGMENT: P.S. SAHAY, J. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing Annexure 5, the notification issued by the Vice-Chancellor appointing respondent no. 8 as temporary lecturer in Education with specialisation in History and also Annexure 8, the order of the Chancellor rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners. 2. In order to appreciate the points which have been raised in this application, it will be necessary to state some facts. The senate and the Syndicate of the Patna University (hereinafter referred to as the University) were superseded in 1971, and respondent 8, the Vice Chancellor assumed power, and he had to act with the approval of the Chancellor. During the year 1974-75 six new posts of lecturers were created by the University which were sanctioned by the State Government in the faculty of Education in six subjects, Viz., Science Methodology, Home Science Methodology, History Methodology, Sanskrit Methodology, Geography Methodology and Hindi Methodology. It has been stated in the petition that respondent 3 (Vice-Chancellor) and respondent 7, Dr. Raja Ram Singh, acting principal of the Training College, were close friends of Sri K.K, Poddar, principal, Ram Mohan Roy Seminary School-husband of respondent 2. On 22.11.74 respondent 3 illegally appointed respondent 3 as lecturer in Education in History Methodology in the post-graduate department without any advertisement and without the concurrance of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission), and the petitioners, though qualified, were not appointed. Similar favours were also shown to respondent 9, 10, 11 and 15. That temporary appointment was valid for a period of six months and had expired on 21.1.75. But respondent 8 still continued to hold that post. On 1. 1. 75 the post of Geography Methodology was advertised in the Indian Nation (vide Annexure 2) and the appointment was made on 26.4.75. On 5.4.75 the Commission (respondent 4), at the request of the University (respondent 1) issued six advertisements bearing nos. 14/75 to 19/75, giving therein essential qualifications, including the post of History Methodology (vide advertisement no. 16/75), with which we are concerned in this case in the scale of pay 400-40-800-50-950. A copy of that advertisement has been filed, marked Annexure 3. 3. According to advertisement no. 16/75, at least second class Master's degree in Education with specialisation in History Methodology was required, with preference to those who had experience in teaching. 16/75), with which we are concerned in this case in the scale of pay 400-40-800-50-950. A copy of that advertisement has been filed, marked Annexure 3. 3. According to advertisement no. 16/75, at least second class Master's degree in Education with specialisation in History Methodology was required, with preference to those who had experience in teaching. A number of persons, including the petitioners and respondent 6, applied for the afore said post in History Methodology. Two experts were necessary for interview by the Commission-one internal and one external. Respondent 7 was appointed as internal expert and respondent 16 was appointed as external expert, though, according to the petitioners, they were not experts in History Methodology. On 26.6.75 respondent 16 (external expert) sent a telegram from Luck-now to the Commission that he was not competent to act as an expert in (he subjects of Science Methodology and History Methodology and, therefore, it would not be proper for him to assist the Commission for the interview in those subjects, and even then if the Commission wanted his assistance, he was ready to come to Patna for the aforesaid interviews. A copy of the letter sent by respondent 16 to respondent 4 has been filed along with the application, marked as Annexure 9. The Commission by its letter dated 5.7.75 wrote back to respondent 16 to come and assist the commission for the interview in those subjects for which advertisement had already been made. Interviews of the candidates for all the six different subjects were held by the Commission between 14.7.75 and 17.7.75, and the interview of those petitioners in History Methodology was actually held on 15.7.75. One day prior to that, i.e. on 14.7.75 respondent 14 filed Title Suit 159 of 1975 before the Subordinate Judge, Patna against the University and the Commission, and respondent 4 was injuncted from sending any recommendation to the University. An appeal was also preferred by the University against the aforesaid order. On 11.5.76 Bihar Ordinance no. 143 of 1976 was promulgated repealing the Patna University Act of 1961 and also the other Ordinances. On 2.6.76 the appeal against the order of Injunction was allowed, and the result was that the injunction was vacated by the appellate court. On 5.6.76 the Commission sent its recommendation for the six posts to the University and on 7.6.76 notification was issued by the Vice-Chancellor respondent 3 (vide Annexure 5). On 2.6.76 the appeal against the order of Injunction was allowed, and the result was that the injunction was vacated by the appellate court. On 5.6.76 the Commission sent its recommendation for the six posts to the University and on 7.6.76 notification was issued by the Vice-Chancellor respondent 3 (vide Annexure 5). On 22.6.76 petitioner 1, Ashok Kumar Jha, made representation before the Chancellor (respondent 2). A copy of this representation has been filed along with the application and marked as Annexure 6. On 6.9.76, this writ application was filed, but since the representation was pending before the Chancellor, the writ application was also kept. pending. On 21.6.77 respondent 2 heard the parties, viz., petitioner I and respondent 6; the University did not appear before him. By his order dated 25.6.77 the Chancellor (respondent 2) rejected the representation filed by petitioner vide Annexure 8. 4. After the aforesaid order, a supplementary-affidavit and an additional affidavit were filed along with order of the Chancellor: and then this writ application was admitted and notices were issued to the respondents. An application under order .6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed on behalf of the petitioners for amending the prayer in the main writ application cause has been shown on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, and affidavit b reply has a1so been filed on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Mr. Krishna Prakash Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the experts, both external and internal, were not qualified in the subjects in which the appointments have been made, as required under section 26 of the Patna University Act, 1961, and, therefore, the interviews, recommendations and appointments are bad in law. Next, it has been contended that even if it be assumed that the Interviews were in accordance with law and the experts were competent to hold the interviews, the recommendations could not have been made by the Commission in view of Ordinance no. 143 of 1976 which came into force on 11.5.76. In the aforesaid ordinance, three experts were necessary and their opinion was binding on the Commission, which was not the position in the Patna University Act of 1961. 143 of 1976 which came into force on 11.5.76. In the aforesaid ordinance, three experts were necessary and their opinion was binding on the Commission, which was not the position in the Patna University Act of 1961. Lastly, it has been contended that prior approval of the Chancellor was not obtained by the Vice-Chancellor, as required under section 71 of the Ordinance: the sanction actually-obtained on 14.7.76, much after the notification (Annexure 5) was issued by the Vice Chancellor on 7.6.76 and, in that 'view of the matter, the appointments were fit to be quashed. 6. Mr. K. D. Chatterji, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 4 and 8, has contended that the interviews recommendations and appointments were done in accordance with law and further submitted that the external expert was an expert in Education, though not in the particular subject for which the interviews were held, and was, therefore, competent to sit as an expert in the subject for which the petitioners were interviewed. Regarding the recommendations made by the Commission, it has been urged that they were done much before the Ordinance came into force but they could not be sent to the University because of the injunction order in the Title Suit, and thus they were all valid recommendations. Regarding the approval of the Chancellor, it has been submitted that all those appointment were in fact approved by the Chancellor and, therefore, it will be deemed to be validly done when appointments were made by the Vice-Chancellor, though it was done subsequently. Mr. Kamlapati Singh appearing for respondents 8 to 11 and Mr. R. K. Misra appearing for respondent 12 have adopted the submission made by the learned Advocate General and have also supported the action of the Commission and the Vice-Chancellor in making the appointments, as contained in Annexure 5. 7. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Misra appearing for respondent 12 that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of his client which was for a different subject, viz.. Geography Methodology, and the petitioners were not concerned with that subject and. therefore, respondent 12 has been unnecessarily added as a party in this writ application. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Misra appearing for respondent 12 that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of his client which was for a different subject, viz.. Geography Methodology, and the petitioners were not concerned with that subject and. therefore, respondent 12 has been unnecessarily added as a party in this writ application. The appointments for all the six subjects were made by Annexure 5, and the petitioners were well advised to make all of them parties in the writ application, otherwise the application could be said to be non-maintainable in the absence of necessary parties. 8. Now, I will take up the first point for consideration which bas been raised by the petitioners regarding the interviews and the recommendation made by the Commission with special reference to the experts. Mr. Sinha has referred to the advertisements for the six posts which, according to him, were treated as different subjects and Methodology an specialisation which require special knowledge in order to test the merits of the candidates. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to the various provisions of the Patna University Act, 1961, the Regulations and courses of study. It will be relevant to quote section 26 of the Act. It runs as follows: “26(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes made there under the Public Service Commission shall, in relation to appointments to posts of teachers and officers of the University ocher than the Vice-Chancellor the Treasurer and the Dean, discharge, so far as may be, the same functions as have been assigned to it by Article 320 of the Constitution of India in relation to the services of the State. (2) (i) In making appointment to every post of teacher, the Public Service Commission shall have the assistance of two experts in the subject for which an appointment is to be made, of whom one shall whenever possible be a teacher of the University to be nominated by the Syndicate and the other be a person, other than a teacher of the University, to be nominated by the Academic Council. (ii) In making recommendation for appointment to every post of officer of the University (other than the Vice-Chancellor, the Treasurer and the Dean), the Public Service Commission shall have the assistance of only one expert to be nominated by the Syndicate. (ii) In making recommendation for appointment to every post of officer of the University (other than the Vice-Chancellor, the Treasurer and the Dean), the Public Service Commission shall have the assistance of only one expert to be nominated by the Syndicate. (iii) The expert or experts shall be associated with the Public Service Commission whose duty it shall be to give expert advice to the Commission but he shall have no right to vote. (3) Subject to the provision of subsections (1) and (2) the Public Service Commission shall wherever feasible, recommend to the Syndicate, for appointment to every post of teacher or officer of the University, names of two persons arranged in order of preference, and considered by Public Service Commission to be the best qualified there for. (4) In making appointment to a post of teacher or officer of the University, the Syndicate shall within three months from the date of receipt under sub-section (3) make its selection out of the names recommended by the Public Service Commission provided that if the Syndicate, in the first instance, does not consider the names recommended by the Public Service Commission to be suitable, it shall refer the matter back to the Public Service Commission for reconsidered on and in no case shall the Syndicate appoint a person who is Dot recommended by the Public Service Commission. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-sections but always subject to the other provisions of this Act, (a) when appointment to a post of teacher or officer of the University is made by promotion or transfer from any other service Including the service of the University, it shall not be necessary for the University to consult the Public Service Commission, unless it is proposed by such promotion or transfer, to fill- (i) a pcrm1nent post substantively, or (ii) a permanent post or a temporary post on an officiating or temporary basis for a period exceeding six months; Provided that if an appointment is made for a period not exceeding six months and it is proposed by the University to extend the period so that it will exceed six months in all, the Public Service Commission shall be consulted. (b) When appointment to a post of teacher or officer of the University is made otherwise than by promotion or transfer from another service including the service of the University it shall not be necessary to consult the Commission if the appointment is not expected to continue for more than six months and cannot and be delayed without detriment to the interest of the college or department or the institutions established and maintained by the university: Provided that if it is proposed to retain the person so appointed in the same post for a period exceeding six months or to appoint him to another post In the Service of the University, the Public Service Commission shall be ultted." The other relevant provision in section 24 (1)(i) and (ii) which runs as follows : 24 (l) (i) The University may include the Faculties of Arts, Science, Medicine, law, Education, commerce and Engineering and such other faculties as may be prescribed by the Statutes. (ii) Each Faculty shall, subject to the control of the Academic Council, have charge of the teaching and the course of study and the research work in such subjects as may be assigned to such Faculty by the Regulation." Much stress his been laid on the words in such subjects appearing in sub-clause (ii); and, according to the learned counsel, 'education" is a subject different from those mentioned in sub-section (1). Section 34 gives power to make Regulation, and it will be relevant to quote sub-section (i) (a) which runs as follows: "34 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, the Academic Council may make Regulations to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the course of study to be laid down for all degrees and diplomas of the University:" Relying on the aforesaid provisions and the Regulations it has been contended that for all the six subjects separate experts should have been called for interview for the appointment of the teachers. The learned Advocate General has, however contended that the subjects are not defined in the Act, and the various provisions of the statutes and the Patna University service rules and the course of study have to be looked into. Reliance has been placed on Chapter v which deals with "faculty of Education". Each faculty hag been assigned subjects some have, any, some have few-only. Reliance has been placed on Chapter v which deals with "faculty of Education". Each faculty hag been assigned subjects some have, any, some have few-only. He has, therefore, urged that subjects have been used in different context and cannot be put in straight jacked. He has also argued that experts need not necessarily be experts in a particular subject, but if they are experts in Education, they are competent to act as experts in various subjects. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the various provisions and the Act, Regulation and course of study, I am of the considered opinion that the subjects for which advertisements had been made have to be treated as different from each other and for that experts in those very subjects were necessary for interviewing candidates in order to test their merit. The proposition of the learned Advocate General that the expert in Education is competent to act as an expert in all those subjects having different Methodology is too wide and cannot be accepted. For example, a professor of English, who is an educationist of repute, is ca1Jed as an expert for interviewing candidates for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. Can it be said that he has special knowledge to test the merit of the candidate in that subject, eyen if he be a reputed scholar and a man of learning. The answer must be in the negative. The external expert in the instant case, on his own admission was not an expert in History Methodology with which we are only concerned in this case, and still be was called as an expert. In my opinion therefore, he was definitely not capable of testing the merits of the candidates in that subject Relying on section 26 (2) (iii) it has been contended by the learned Advocate General that experts have to give advice to the Members of the Commission and they have no right to vote and, there fore, those Members are at liberty to ignore the opinion of the expert. I am unable to accept this submission. They are experts. and they are called with some purpose, and their opinion is bound to weigh with other Members while making recommendations; and as I have said earlier, their opinion is bound to play an important part in selecting candidates. I am unable to accept this submission. They are experts. and they are called with some purpose, and their opinion is bound to weigh with other Members while making recommendations; and as I have said earlier, their opinion is bound to play an important part in selecting candidates. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is an empty formality. Experts do play an important part in selecting candidates; it is their questions which are put at the time of the interview and the answers given thereto can be correctly understood by them alone and not by the other Members, who have no specialised knowledge for the same and, naturally, they have to depend on the experts advice. 10. It has also been submitted by the learned Advocate General that the provision for calling experts for interview is not mandatory and is merely directory, and interviews could have been held without the help of the experts. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Montreal Street Railway Co. V. Normandin where it bas been held as follows: "The question whether provisions in a statute are directory or imperative has very frequently arisen is this country, but It bas been said that no ger1eral rule can be laid down, and that in every case the object of the statute must be looked at….when the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done." This contention also cannot be accepted. If experts are not called for the interview, what will be its effect is not the question for consideration here. But in case experts are called, they must be experts, in the true sense, qualified in that subject for which their services are requisitioned. I am also not prepared to accept that there has been substantial compliance of section 26 of the Act. But in case experts are called, they must be experts, in the true sense, qualified in that subject for which their services are requisitioned. I am also not prepared to accept that there has been substantial compliance of section 26 of the Act. It has been further submitted that respondent 6 had no control over the proceedings, and, therefore, he should not be made to suffer for the fault of the University. In this connection, various case laws have been referred to, which I do not consider it necessary to discuss for the simple reason that the petitioners should also not be made to suffer for the fault of the University. They could not raise this point at the time of appearing at the interview because they did Dot know who will be coming as experts and whether they were qualified to act as such. They have taken this point at the earliest opportunity by filing this petition on 6.9.76 after the appointments Were made by the Vice-Chancellor on 7.6.76 (vide Annexure 5). 11. The petitioners, therefore, succeed on the first point itself and, in that view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider the two other points which have been raised on this behalf in support of the application. It also made clear that I have applied my mind only to the appointment of Lecturers of History Methodology, for which the petitioners were candidates, and not for other subject, for which advertisements and appointments have been made on the same date. 12. The application is, therefore, allowed. Let a writ of certiorari issue quashing Annexures 5 in so far as it relates to the appointment of respondent 5 for the post of Lecturer in History Methodology. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 13. I entirely agree with brother Sahay that this application should be allowed in so far as it relates to the appointment of respondent no. 8 but at the same time I would like to add some observations of my own. 11. Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 13. I entirely agree with brother Sahay that this application should be allowed in so far as it relates to the appointment of respondent no. 8 but at the same time I would like to add some observations of my own. 11. As would appear from the facts stated by my learned brother Sahay, the whole controversy of this case rests on the use of the expression "subject" in section 26 of the Patna University Act, 1961: the section expressly dealing with the procedure for "appointment to posts of teachers and officers of the University''. Sub-section (2) (1) of that section has been quoted in the judgment of my learned brother and, therefore, I need not quote it again. It has been specifically provided there that in making recommendations for appointment to every post of teacher, the Public Service Commission shall have the assistance of two experts in the subject for which an appointment is to be made, Where as the contention of the learned Advocate General, appearing, for the respondents, was that this expression "subject" has been used in section 26 in a rambling sense, counsel for the petitioners contended that the Legislature has used the said expression deliberately and with a purpose. In my own view also, the use of the expression "subject' in section 26 (2) (1) of the Act cannot be said to have been made in a rambling manner as contended by the learned Advocate General, inasmuch as the expression "subject" bas got assumed a definite and precise meaning other than the word "faculty" used at different places in the Act as well as the st'1tutes and regulations framed there under it cannot be held that the Legislature, while using this expression in the Act was ignorant of its prevalent meaning and used it in a rambling manner. Such a view would be quite contrary to the established principles of interpretation. The word "subject" has not been defined in the Act, but on that account it cannot be held that a different meaning to this word other than that commonly understood should be given, particularly when in the Act wherever different intentions have been intended different words have been used at relevant place to which I would refer here in after. The word "subject" has not been defined in the Act, but on that account it cannot be held that a different meaning to this word other than that commonly understood should be given, particularly when in the Act wherever different intentions have been intended different words have been used at relevant place to which I would refer here in after. Let us first indicate some of the meaning assigned to this word in the dictionaries which may be relevant to appreciate the divergent submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and to come to a proper conclusion. Firstly, I would refer with advantage to the meaning given to these words in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to bring home my view. According to this dictionary, the word "faculty" means "A department of knowledge'" "One of the departments of learning at a University", "The whole-body of Masters, Doctors, in anyone of the studies", The relevant meanings given to this word in the Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary are-these,-"any particular ability or aptitude an original power of the mind", "a department of learning at a university, or the professors constituting it, the members of a profession". The following meanings have been given to the word 'subject in the Oxford Dictionary : "the mind, as the 'subject' in which ideas in here that to which all mental representations or operations are attributed; the thinking or cognizing agent", "A thing affording matter for section of a specified kind: ground, motive, or cause", "that which can be drawn upon or utillsed, means of doing something". . . . . . . . . a person or thing towards which action or influence is directed", "that which forms or is chosen as the matter of thought, consideration; or inquiry". In the Chamber's Dictionary this word bas been given these meanings. "matter of discourse" "as a thing existing .independently", that on which any operation is performed'' "that which it is the object of the artist to express". 15. Section 24 of the Act deals with the "Faculties" and provides that the University may include the Faculties of Arts, Science, Medicine, Law, Education, Commerce and Engineering besides such other Faculties as may be prescribed by the Statutes. 15. Section 24 of the Act deals with the "Faculties" and provides that the University may include the Faculties of Arts, Science, Medicine, Law, Education, Commerce and Engineering besides such other Faculties as may be prescribed by the Statutes. Each Faculty, subject to the control of the Academic Council is to have (barge of the teaching and the course of study and the research work in such subjects as may be assigned to such Faculty by the Regulations. Sub-sections (2) and (3) deal with the number of members which the Faculty should contain and sub-section (5) provides for comprising such department of teaching as may be prescribed by the Regulations. From the provisions contained in section 24 dealing with the Faculties, it would appear that in the courses of study, subjects have to be assigned to the Faculties in question by the Regulations and each Faculty shall comprise of different departments of teaching as may be prescribed by the Regulation. 16. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate General in this connection was that the relevant subject was the subject of Education as the appointments were to be made in the (acuity of Education, and once it was found that the expert was an expert in anyone of the subjects appertaining to the Faculty of Education, the test of his competency to be an expert as required by section 26 (2) of the Act was fulfilled and it was not necessary that the expert contemplated to associate with the recommendations to be made by the Public Service Commission, must necessarily be an expert in the subject concerned in which the appointment is to be made. Pursuing this contention the learned Advocate General also contended that if that interpretation is given, it may create immense difficulty and in many cases it will not be possible to procure the services of an expert in the subject concerned. There is no force in this argument. It may be noticed at this very place that the six posts of he Lecturers which were created by the Patna University and sanctioned by the State Government in the faculty of Education were: (i) Science Methodology, (ii) Home Science Methodology. (iii) History Methodology, (iv) Sanskrit Methodology, (v) Geography Methodology, (vi) Hindi Methodology. 17. It is not possible to accept the above contention of the learned Advocate General for various reasons. (iii) History Methodology, (iv) Sanskrit Methodology, (v) Geography Methodology, (vi) Hindi Methodology. 17. It is not possible to accept the above contention of the learned Advocate General for various reasons. Firstly, the subjects which have been sanctioned in the Faculty of Education by the University are not so obscure that It may rather be impossible to find out an expert of the subject concerned. But that apart, from the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 26 of the Act also give some indication that the Legislature whi1e providing for appointment of one expert out of the two, being a teacher of the University to be appointed by the Syndicate, has provided that the said expert shall be appointed by the Syndicate "whenever possible". But no such expression is provided so far the other expert is concerned, who has to be a person other than a teacher of the University to be nominated by the Academic Council. In my opinion, the Legislature duly conceived and contemplated that in the earlier region of the concerned University, it may not be possible in all cases to find out an expert in the subject concerned and, therefore, it provided "whenever possible", but with respect to the outsider expert, no such relation has been contemplated as the availability of the expert could be looked for from any part of the country. In my opinion, therefore, the legislature definitely emphasized by providing express language with respect to the two experts and by the use of the expression "expert in the subject" meant that the outsider expert must be an expert in the subject concerned for which the appointment or, for that matter, the recommendation was to be made by Public Service Commission. 18. 18. We have seen that each faculty is to be under the control of the Academic Council which is to have charge of the teaching and the courses of study section 25 of the Act lays down that the Academic Council shall be the Chief Academic body of the University which has, subject to the powers conferred by or under the Act on the Vice-Chancellor and on the Syndicate, to determine and regulate all academic matters concerning the University and it is also responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction and education including the conduct of postgraduate teaching and the centralised under-graduate teaching of any standard in any subject or subjects and the promotion of research work in the University. The courses of study prescribed for the Master of Education Examination, 1975 to 1976-77, by the Patna University were also shown to us by the learned counsel for the petitioners to impress that the courses of study composed different subjects for teaching, and on that basis it was contended that the expert, for example, in the case before us, the subject being History Methodology, an expert of any other subject, could not possibly render the expertised assistance, which was intended by the legislature under section 26 (2) of the Act, to the Commission to recommend a suitable candidate to impart teaching in the particular subject concerned. I find myself in full agreement with this contention and would accordingly, in agreement with the view of my learned brother, hold for issuance of a writ of certiorari as indicated in his order, Application allowed.