Rajendra v. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr — 1980 DIGILAW 659 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. -These are three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution which involve common questions of fact and law, as such we consider it proper to decide these petitions by a common order. 2. Amar Singh College, Lakhaoti, in district Bulandshahr is a Post-Graduate Degree College affiliated to the University of Meerut. The management of this college was taken over by the State Government under its order dated August 3, 1944, and since then the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, has been functioning as Administrator of the college. In August, 1977, a vacancy arose in the office of Principal on the retirement of permanent Principal. Dr. Harpal Singh, the senior most teacher of the college, was allowed to officiate as Principal pending selection of a permanent incumbent. In January, 1978, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for selection and appointment to the post of Principal. A number of persons including Dr. Harpal Singh, Dr. P. S. Malik and Sri Rajendra, applied for the post of Principal. A selection committee was constituted for the purpose of making selection of a suitable person. On July 20, 1978, one Kr. Brijendra Singh filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr (No. 155 of 1978) against the Administrator (District Magistrate), Bulandshahr, for a decree for injunction restraining the holding of interviews and in the alternative restraining Sri Rajendra being called for interview. On an interim stay application, the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, passed an interim injunction order restraining the holding of interview. On August 22, 1978, the Civil Judge discharged the ex parte interim injunction order. Thereafter 2nd of December, 1978, was fixed for the interview but it was again postponed for 14th December, 1978. On December 13, 1978, Kr. Brijendra Singh made another unsuccessful attempt be fore the Civil Judge in Suit No. 55 of 1978 to obtain interim injunction order. Ultimately, interviews were held on December 14, 1978, and the Selection Committee submitted its recommendation to the Administrator. By his letter dated December 21, 1978, the Administrator requested the Vice-Chancellor to approve the appointment of Dr. P. S. Malik on the post of Principal. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 26-12-1978 did not accept the request of the Administrator, instead he approved the appointment of Sri Rajendra as Principal of the College. 3. Kr. By his letter dated December 21, 1978, the Administrator requested the Vice-Chancellor to approve the appointment of Dr. P. S. Malik on the post of Principal. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 26-12-1978 did not accept the request of the Administrator, instead he approved the appointment of Sri Rajendra as Principal of the College. 3. Kr. Brijendra Singh again made an application in Original Suit No. 155 oi 1978 before the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, and obtained an injunction order on 1-1- 1979 restraining the Administrator of the College from taking any action to appoint Sri Rajendra as Principal of the College. Sri Rajendra got himself impleaded in the suit as a defendant. D. P. S. Malik also got himself impleaded as a defendant in the suit. In addition to that Dr. P. S. Malik and Dr. Harpal Singh filed separate representations to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor approving the appointment of Sri Rajendra. The Chancellor by his order dated Oct. 19, 1979, rejected both the representations and upheld the appointment of Sri Rajendra. During the pendency of his representation before the Chancellor Dr. Harpal Singh filed a civil suit (No. 198 of 1979) in the court of the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, for a declaration that constitution of the Selection Committee was void and that proceedings taken in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee were also rendered void. 4. Writ Petition No. 8601 of 1979 has been filed by Sri Rajendra for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, from proceeding further in the two suits pending before him, namely, Suit No. 155 of 197H filed by Kr. Brijendra Singh and Suit No, 198 of 1979, filed by Dr. Harpal Singh, and also for the issue oi a writ of certiorari quashing the interim injunction order dated 1-1-1979. Writ Petition No 8397 of 1979 has been filed by Dr. Harpal Singh for the issue of a direction to the Chancellor for quashing the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and also the order of the Vice-Chancellor but subsequently the writ petition was amended claiming relief for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Chancellor dated 19-10-1979 and also of the Vice-Chancellor, I dated 26-12-1979. Dr. Dr. P. S. Malik has also approached this Court by means of writ [petition No. 10511 of 1979 for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 26-12-1979 and the order of the Chancellor dated 19-10-1979. Thus the writ petitions filed I by Dr. Harpal Singh and Dr. P. S. Malik challenge validity of the selection and appointment of Sri Rajendra as Principal of the College while writ petition No. 8601 of 1979 raises the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a civil suit in the matter of selection and appointment of the Principal of a Degree College. We would first deal with the questions raised in Writ Petitions Nos. 10511 and 8397 of 1979 challenging the selection and appointment of Sri Rajendra. 5. Learned counsel for Dr. P. S. Malik and Dr. Harpal Singh made the following submissions: (1) There was no difference of opinion between the management and the Selection Committee and as such the Vice-Chancellor had no jurisdiction to disapprove managements proposal to appoint Dr. Malik as Principal of the College. (2) The Selection Committee acted beyond its powers in observing that since Dr. Malik had made a request for higher salary, Sri Rajendra should be appointed, although Dr. Malik was found superior in merit. (3) The Vice-Chancellor as well as the Chancellor both failed to consider the questions raised by Dr. P. S. Malik before them. (4) Sri Rajendra did not possess the minimum requisite qualification as such he could not be selected or appointed as principal of the College. (5) The constitution of the Selection Committee was invalid as Sri R. P. Singh was not a member of the Managing Committee and yet he was nominated to act as member of the Selection Committee. The two experts on the Selection Committee were not eligible under S. 31 (5) of the Act. The participation of these three persons in the deliberations of the Selection Committee rendered the entire selection invalid. 6. The first three submissions made by the learned counsel can conveniently be dealt with together. Appointment of a teacher or principal of an affiliated college is made on the recommendation of Selection Committee in the manner laid down by Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 6. The first three submissions made by the learned counsel can conveniently be dealt with together. Appointment of a teacher or principal of an affiliated college is made on the recommendation of Selection Committee in the manner laid down by Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of the Principal or a teacher the same is required to be advertised in two issues of three newspapers having (adequate circulation), as prescribed by Section 31 (10). Section 31 14) (c) provides for constitution of Selection Committee for selection and appointment of Principal of an affiliated college. The Selection Committee is entitled to recommend the name of one or more persons but not more than three. If the management of an affiliated college does not agree with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, the management is required to refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor along with reasons for such disagreement and the latters decision shall be final (Section 31 (8) (b)). Section 31 (11) deals with the appointment of a teacher in an affiliated college. It lays down that no teacher shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated college unless prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor has been obtained. The management is required to submit the recommendations of the Selection Committee along with other relevant documents to the Vice-Chancellor for obtaining his approval. Clause (c) of Section 31 (11) confers power on the Vice-Chancellor to approve or disapprove the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. According to this provision, the Vice-Chancellor is empowered to disapprove the recommendation of the Selection Committee if he is satisfied that the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee does not possess the minimum qualifications or experience prescribed under the Act or that the procedure laid down in the Act for selection of teacher has not been followed. The legislature requires the Vice-Chancellor to take these two factors into consideration in disapproving the recommendation of the Selection Committee. While the legislature has laid down principles for the guidance of the Vice-Chancellor for disapproving the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it has not provided any guidelines for disapproving the managements proposal under Section 31 (8) (b) of the Act. While the legislature has laid down principles for the guidance of the Vice-Chancellor for disapproving the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it has not provided any guidelines for disapproving the managements proposal under Section 31 (8) (b) of the Act. In the absence of any guidelines, the Vice-Chancellor is expected to exercise his powers under Section 3l (8) (b) of the Act in a reasonable manner for good reasons, he is not expected to exercise this power arbitrarily. If the Selection Committee recommends the name of a person who does not fulfil the requisite qualification or if the Selection Committee travels beyond its jurisdiction in taking matters into consideration which do not fall within its purview, and if- the management disagrees with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, in that situation the Vice-Chancellor must apply his mind to the grounds which may have been raised by the management before exercising his power under Section 31 (8) (b) of the Act. 7. Now coming to the question of jurisdiction of the Selection Committee to withhold its recommendation for the appointment of a candidate on the ground of his request for a higher start in salary, it would be noticed that there is no such provision in the Act or the Statutes conferring such a power on the Selection Committee. Under the provisions of the Act the primary duty of the Selection Committee is to interview candidates to judge and assess their comparative merit with a view to find out the most suitable person for appointment to the post for which selection is being held. In that process the Selection Committee must address itself to the question as to whether the candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications and prescribed experience and is otherwise suitable for appointment to the post for which selection is made. If on these considerations the Selection Committee finds a particular candidate suitable for appointment to the post of Principal, it has no jurisdiction to withhold its recommendation in favour of the particular candidate on the ground of his having claimed a higher start in salary as the question relating to the grant of initial salary is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the management. What salary in which pay scale should be paid to the Principal or teacher is essentially a function assigned to the management. 8. What salary in which pay scale should be paid to the Principal or teacher is essentially a function assigned to the management. 8. Section 35 (1) of the Act provide that every teacher in an affiliated college shall be appointed under a written contract containing such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The Statutes framed under the Act prescribe conditions of service of teachers of affiliated colleges. Statute 17.17 of the First Statutes of the University of Meerut lays down that a contract of appointment between a Principal of an affiliated college and the management shall be entered into in the form prescribed in Appendix D. Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement (Appendix D to the Statutes) show that an agreement has to be entered into between the management and the Principal with regard to the salary payable by the management to the Principal. Chapter VI-A of the Act contains provisions relating to payment of salary to teachers and other employees of Degree College affiliated to a University. Chapter XI-A was inserted in the Act by U. P. Act XXI of 1975 and under the provisions of the said Chapter liability for payment of salary to a teacher or employee of an affiliated college has been placed on the State Government after March 31, 1975. The fixation and payment of salary is to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in that Chapter and the Rules made thereunder and the orders issued by the State Government and the Director of Education from time to time. These provisions clearly indicate that the Selection Committee has no jurisdiction to fix salary or to make any recommendation for fixation of salary of a teacher or Principal. Learned counsel for Sri Rajendra and the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor could not place any provision of law before us authorising the Selection Committee to introduce the question of salary while making its recommendation for the appointment of a teacher or Principal of an affiliated college. 9. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the Selection Committee made its recommendation in the following manner: "The Selection Committee picked up Dr. P. S. Malik and Sri Rajendra two best candidates out of all those who presented themselves for interview for Principal of A. S. College, Lakhaoti. Academically, Dr. P. S. Malik had an edge over Sri Rajendra. However, Dr. P. S. Malik and Sri Rajendra two best candidates out of all those who presented themselves for interview for Principal of A. S. College, Lakhaoti. Academically, Dr. P. S. Malik had an edge over Sri Rajendra. However, Dr. P. S. Malik had insisted on starting salary of Rs. 1550/- per month and is not ready to accept less than it. Hence Shri Rajendra is recommended for appointment of Principal, A. S. College, Lakhaoti." 10. The Selection Committee though recommended Sri Rajendra for appointment to the post of Principal but if the entire recommendation is read together it would be apparent that the Committee had found Dr. P. S. Malik more suitable for appointment to the post of Principal than Sri Rajendra, as would be cleat from the expression "academically Dr, P. S. Malik had an edge over Sri Rajendra." The Committee found that Dr, Malik was more suitable and yet it recommended the name of Sri Rajendra merely on account of Dr. Malik having made a request for higher start of salary of Rs. 1550/- per mensem. As discussed earlier, the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction to recommend Sri Rajendra m preference to Dr. P. S. Malik merely on the ground of the former having made a request for higher start in salary. But even assuming that the Selection Committee could legally take into account the question of salary, we do not find any justification for the Committees recommendation. In paras 7 and 8 of his affidavit, Dr. Malik has asserted that during the course of interview it was apparent that the members of the Committee were taking into account his demand for higher start of salary. In fact after the interview was over Dr. Malik was called by the Selection Committee and an enquiry was made from him whether he would accept lower starting salary. Dr. Malik thereupon expressed his willingness to accept the salary which the management of the Degree College may offer to him. Dr. Malik further expressed his willingness in writing to the Administrator of the College on the same day as would be clear from Annexure III to the petition of Dr. Malik. Since Dr. Malik had himself expressed his willingness for not insisting for a starting salary of Rupees 1,550/-, the Selection Committee went out of its way to withhold its recommendation in his favour. Malik. Since Dr. Malik had himself expressed his willingness for not insisting for a starting salary of Rupees 1,550/-, the Selection Committee went out of its way to withhold its recommendation in his favour. The Administrator who was discharging the functions of the Management was satisfied that Dr. Malik was willing to accept any maximum salary offered by the management to him and as such he made a recommendation in writing to the Vice-Chancellor for granting approval for his appointment as Principal of the College. Dr. Malik had further made an application to the Vice-Chancellor requesting him to grant approval for his appointment as he was willing to accept any amount of maximum salary which may be offered by the management. 11. While rejecting the proposal of the Administrator the Vice-Chancellor proceeded on the assumption that the Selection Committee was of the opinion that Sri Rajendra was the only suitable person selected and recommended for the post of Principal and the District Magistrate, while exercising power of the Management, had disagreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee The Vice-Chancellor assumed jurisdiction under Section 31 (8) (b) of the Act in disapproving the managements proposal. In our opinion the Vice-Chancellor committed patent error on two counts, firstly, there was no difference of opinion between the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the management as we have earlier pointed out that the Selection Committee had itself found Dr. P. S. Malik as better candidate for appointment to the post of principal. The substance of the recommendation of the Selection Committee is clear enough to show that it had found Dr. Malik more suitable than Sri Rajendra but it found itself unable to recommend his name merely on the ground of salary. The recommendation made by the management was as in accord with the Selection Committees own assessment of Dr. Malik. In the circumstances Section 31 (8) (b) wa9 not attracted, and the Vice-Chancellor committed error in rejecting the Managements proposal. Secondly, the Vice-Chancellor proceeded on the assumption that the managements disagreement with the recommendation of the Selection Committee was merely based on the ground that Sri Rajendra did not possess the minimum qualification. That is clear from the perusal of the order of the Vice-Chancellor, Annexure VI to the petition of Dr. Malik. Secondly, the Vice-Chancellor proceeded on the assumption that the managements disagreement with the recommendation of the Selection Committee was merely based on the ground that Sri Rajendra did not possess the minimum qualification. That is clear from the perusal of the order of the Vice-Chancellor, Annexure VI to the petition of Dr. Malik. The Vice-Chancellor has observed that the main reason given by the management for disagreeing with the recommendation of the Selection Committee is that Sri Rajendra has been teaching statistics and Mathematics courses which are not included in the subjects of study of the Meerut University, and therefore he is not eligible to become Principal of the College. We are constrained to observe that these observations of the Vice-Chancellor are wholly misconceived. In his letter dated December 21, 1978, addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, the Administrator had merely referred to an application of Sri Brijendra made before him pointing out that Sri Rajendra did not fulfil the minimum educational qualifications, but the Administrator had not expressed any opinion on the question raised by Sri Brijendra nor he disagreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee on that ground. On a perusal of the letter of the Administrate dated December 21, 1978, it is clear that he had requested the Vice-Chancellor to accord approval to the appointment of Dr. Malik to the post of Principal mainly on the ground that he has expressed his willingness to accept any amount of salary which the management may offer to him under the Rules. The Vice-Chancellor, to our surprise, failed to consider this question in his order dated 26th December, 1978, while disapproving the managements proposal. The Vice-Chancellor totally ignored the application made by Dr. Malik as well as the recommendation made by the Administrator. In om opinion, the Vice-Chancellors order is vitiated. 12. Now we would consider the contention raised on behalf of Dr. Malik and Dr. Harpal Singh petitioners that Sri Rajendra did not possess the essential qualification of Masters Degree in one of the subjects taught in the College. It was urged that Sri Rajendra possessed a Masters Degree in Mathematics and Statistics but he did not possess a Masters Degree in one of the subjects taught in Amar Singh College. Malik and Dr. Harpal Singh petitioners that Sri Rajendra did not possess the essential qualification of Masters Degree in one of the subjects taught in the College. It was urged that Sri Rajendra possessed a Masters Degree in Mathematics and Statistics but he did not possess a Masters Degree in one of the subjects taught in Amar Singh College. Placing reliance on clause (2) of statute 11.14 of the First Statutes of the Meerut University it was submitted that under the said clause Masters Degree in one of the subjects taught in the College was necessary essential qualification for the post of Principal of a Post-Graduate College. Since Mathematics and Statistics are not subjects of study in Amar Singh College, Sri Rajendra was not qualified to be Principal of the College. Clause (2) of Statute 11.14 lays down that in the case of any College affiliated to the University the minimum qualification for the post of Principal for a Post-Graduate College shall be a Masters Degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college. It is not necessary to refer to other qualifications as the dispute relates to the question as to whether Sri Rajendra possessed Masters Degree in one of the subjects taught in the College. As noted earlier Sri Rajendra possessed a Masters Degree in Mathematics and Statistics. The question then arises whether these subjects are taught in the college. This question can be answered in the light of the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances. 13. Section 27 of the Act provides for the Faculties of Study and Departments in the University or an affiliated college. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 lays down that each faculty shall comprise such departments oi teaching as may be prescribed and each Department shall have such subjects of study as may be assigned to it by the Ordinances. Sub-sec. (8) further lays down that there shall be a Board of Studies in respect of different subjects of study and more than one subject may be assigned to one Board of Study. Ordinances have not been framed under the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, instead the old Ordinances, framed by the Meerut University prior to the enforcement of the 1973 Act are continuing in force in pursuance of Section 52 of the Act. Ordinances have not been framed under the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, instead the old Ordinances, framed by the Meerut University prior to the enforcement of the 1973 Act are continuing in force in pursuance of Section 52 of the Act. The Meerut University was constituted under the provisions of the Kanpur and Meerut University Act, 1965. Section 22 of the 1965 Act provided that the University shall have different faculties and each faculty shall have such departments of teaching as may be prescribed. The section further laid down that subjects of study shall be assigned to various Departments and Boards of Study in one or more subjects shall be constituted in accordance with the ordinances framed under the Act. 14. As noted earlier, Ordinances were framed under the 1965 Act which are continuing in force. Clause 1 of Chapter XXXI of the Ordinances framed under the Kanpur Meerut Universities Act, 1965, lays down that there shall be a Board of Study in each subject prescribed for a Degree but the Executive Council may in special case empower one Board to deal with one or more allied subjects whether assigned to the same faculty or to different faculties. Cl. 3 of the Ordinances provides that the Board of Studies in the Faculty of Agriculture shall be assigned subjects as under; (a) Agronomy; (i) Agronomy (ii) Agricultural Engineering (iii) Agricultural Economics, (iv) Agricultural Extension. (b) Horticulture & Agriculture Botany: (i) Horticulture, (ii) Agricultural Botany, (iii) Plant pathology. (c) Animal Husbandry and Dairying: (i) Animal Husbandry and Dairying (ii) Zoology and Entomology (iii) Veterinary Science. (d) Agricultural Chemistry. Agricultural Chemistry. 15. Chap. XX of the Ordinances deals with subjects of study and other allied matters for the grant of Degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture and' Master of Science in Agriculture. Cl. 6 of the Ordinance of Chapter XXII lays down that the examination for the Master of Science Degree in Agriculture shall consist of four Semester examinations spread over two years. Clause 9 lays down that subjects of examination shall be one of the following: (1) Agronomy, (2) Agricultural Chemistry, (3) Agricultural Botany, (4) Agricultural Economics, (5) Agricultural Extension, (6) Animal Husbandry and Dairying (7) Horticulture. Clause 9 lays down that subjects of examination shall be one of the following: (1) Agronomy, (2) Agricultural Chemistry, (3) Agricultural Botany, (4) Agricultural Economics, (5) Agricultural Extension, (6) Animal Husbandry and Dairying (7) Horticulture. Out of the seven subjects of study prescribed for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture, the University had granted affiliation to the Amar Singh College only in respect of only four subjects for the purpose of conferring degree of Master of Science, this is clear from Appendix 2 to the Ordinance which contains list of affiliated Colleges together with subjects for which each of them is recognised. The relevant i entry in that Appendix relating to Amar Singh College. Lakhatoi, with respect to : Faculty of Agriculture reads as under. "Faculty of Agriculture: .... ..... ..... ..... M. Sc. (Ag.) Agronomy, Agricultural Chemistry, Agricultural Extension and Horticulture". These provisions make it amply clear that Mathematics or statistics is not a subject of study recognised for the Masters Degree so far as Amar Singh College is concerned. The College is not authorised to impart education in the subject of Mathematics and Statistics for the purpose of conferring Masters Degree, therefore a person holding Masters Degree in Mathematics and Statistics could not fulfil the requisite essential qualifications for being appointed to the post of Principal in Amar Singh College. 16. We may examine this question again in another manner. Chapter XIX of the Ordinance deals with the Course of Study for the Degree of Master of Science in Mathematics. Regulations have also been framed prescribing subjects and course of study and the scheme of examination., Mathematics and Statistics is not a recognised subject of study either under the Faculty of Arts or under the Faculty of Agriculture. On the other hand, Statute 7.16 of the First Statutes clearly shows that Mathematics and Statistics are two different subjects of study in the Faculty of Science. It is indisputable that no Faculty of Science exists in. the College in question and that Mathematics and Statistics are not subjects of study either prescribed or recognised in the Faculty Agriculture. The College is, therefore, not Authorised to impart Education in the subject of Mathematics and Statistics for awarding Masters Degree as these are not recognised subjects of study for the College. the College in question and that Mathematics and Statistics are not subjects of study either prescribed or recognised in the Faculty Agriculture. The College is, therefore, not Authorised to impart Education in the subject of Mathematics and Statistics for awarding Masters Degree as these are not recognised subjects of study for the College. In the circumstances we hold that Sri Rajendra holding Masters Degree in Mathematics and Statistics did not fulfil the requisite essential qualifications for selection and appointment to the post of Principal of Amar Singh College. 17. This question was raised by Dr. Malik and Dr. Harpal Singh before the Chancellor in assailing the selection and appointment of Sri Rajendra. The Chancellor did not apply his mind to the question at all. The Vice-Chancellor considered this question and rejected the objection on the ground that in 1964 when Sri Rajendra was appointed as teacher in the College, Statistics was compulsory inter-Disciplinary course the Department of Agronomy, Agricultural Chemistry and Agricultural Extension and Horticulture and as such Mathematics and Statistics was a subject of study in the College. The Vice-Chancellor further observed that since Rajendra was appointed for teaching Statistics and his appointment was duly approved by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 25 (4) of the Agra University Act and since Satisfies was a compulsory course for the Degree of M. Sc. (Ag) in Agronomy, Agricultural Chemistry, Agricultural Extension and Horticulture, he fulfilled the requisite minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Principal. The Vice-Chancellor further observed that if the objection raised against Sri Rajendra is accepted he would cease to be appointed as Teacher in the College. The Vice-Chancellor did not however record any finding that Mathematics or Statistics was a subject of study in the College. The Vice-Chancellor emphasised that Mathematics and Statistics was part of Agronomy, Agricultural extension and Horticulture and as such Mathematics and Statistics was an inter-disciplinary subject in the College. We have already referred to Statute 11.14 of the First Statute of the Meerut University which lays down in unequivocal terms that Masters Degree in one of the subjects taught in the College shall be the minimum qualification for the post of Principal of a Post Graduate College. 18. We have recorded our reasons for holding that Mathematics and Statistics was not permitted as one of the subjects of teaching in the College. There are other circumstances which support this view. 18. We have recorded our reasons for holding that Mathematics and Statistics was not permitted as one of the subjects of teaching in the College. There are other circumstances which support this view. Sri Rajendra had himself realised that the subject of Mathematics was not one of the subjects permitted to be taught in the College and that he was not qualified as would appear from his own conduct. On May 30, 1977, he made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor oi the Meerut University requesting him to include Agricultural Statistics and Mathematics in the Faculty of Agriculture as a subject of study. His request was turned down by the University as evidenced by the letter of the Deputy Registrar of the University dated 7-6-1977 addressed to the Principal of the college saying that the Departments which are included within the faculty of Agriculture have been mentioned in Statute 7.09 of the First Statutes of the University. Since there was no Department of Mathematics it was not possible to permit teaching of Mathematics as a subject of study. Sri Rajendra made another request by means of an application to the Vice-Chancellor for amending Statute 7.09 of the Meerut University by adding one more Department of "Agricultural Statistics and Mathematics" in the Faculty of Agriculture. The University again rejected his request by its letter dated January 25, 1978. This matter was considered by the Board of Faculty of Agriculture of the Meerut University also on 7-9-1978. The Faculty resolved that "Agricultural Statistics" could not be included as a separate subject in the First Statute of the Meerut University as no separate Degree is awarded in the subject by Meerut University. These facts show that Sri Rajendra as well as the University both knew it well that the subject of Mathematics and Statistics was not a recognised subject of study in the Faculty of Agriculture as the University had refused to treat the subject of Mathematics and Statistics in Faculty of Agriculture. The Vice-Chancellor, in our opinion, committed patent error in holding that as Mathematics and Statistics was compulsory inter-Disciplinary subject in the Department of Agronomy, Agricultural Chemistry and Agricultural extension, therefore Mathematics and Statistics was a subject of study in the College. The Vice-Chancellor, in our opinion, committed patent error in holding that as Mathematics and Statistics was compulsory inter-Disciplinary subject in the Department of Agronomy, Agricultural Chemistry and Agricultural extension, therefore Mathematics and Statistics was a subject of study in the College. The expression "one of the subjects taught in the college" occurring in clause (2) of Statute 11.14 means subject which is permitted to be taught in the College and in respect of which a Degree is permitted to be awarded. The subject taught means a subject of study recognised for a particular Degree. A subject of study is quite distinct from inter-disciplinary subject. As pointed out by the Board of Faculty of Agriculture of the University the subject oi study recognised in a Department is only that subject in respect of which a Post-Graduate Degree is granted by the University. A Post-Graduate Degree can be granted in respect of those subjects which are prescribed by the Statutes and the Ordinances. Since Mathematics and Statistics are not included as a subject of study for Masters Degree in Agriculture no Degree could be awarded in that subject by the college. The Vice-Chancellor committed error in holding that it Mathematics and Statistics was not a subject of study in the College, the appointment of Sri Rajendra would be rendered null and void. Sri Rajendra was teacher, the validity of his appointment does not depend upon his having minimum qualification for the post of Principal of Post Graduate College. In view of our discussion we are of the opinion that Sri Rajendra did not possess the minimum requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal of a Post-Graduate College and he was not qualified to be selected or appointed as Principal of the College. 19. As regards the fifth question, the counsel for Dr. Malik and Dr. Harpal Singh submitted that three members oi the Selection Committee were not qualified to be members of the Committee, their participation in the deliberations of the Committee rendered the selection invalid. In this connection, it was asserted that the Administrator of the College had appointed Sri R. P. Singh, a Deputy Collector, a representative of the Committee of Management, to serve as member of the Selection Committee, although no Committee of Management was in existence or functioning. Sri R. P. Singh was not entitled to participate in the deliberations of the selection Committee. Sri R. P. Singh was not entitled to participate in the deliberations of the selection Committee. It was further submitted that two experts, namely, Sri Y. S. Moorti and Dr. T. R. Sharma were not competent to be members of the Selection Committee. Sri Moortis name was included in the panel of experts for admission to the Faculty of Science and as such he could not be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor to function as expert on the Selection Committee constituted for the selection of a Principal for a College of Agriculture wherein science was not taught. Similarly, Dr. T. R. Sharma was junior most person in the faculty of Arts and as such he could not be nominated as expert in disregard to the claim of senior officers. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 31 (4) (c) and to other provisions of the Act in support of his contention that the Selection Committee was illegally constituted, as a result of which the selection and appointment made in pursuance thereof is rendered illegal. We do not consider it necessary to delve further in the matter as in our opinion the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee. It is indisputable that the two petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee for interview without raising any kind of objection against the constitution of the Selection Committee and took a chance of favourable recommendation in their favour and after their failure to be appointed they cannot turn round and question the validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee. The petitioners failure to raise objection against the participation of the aforesaid three members in the deliberations of the Selection Committee dis-entitles them to raise this question in the present proceedings. In G. Sarana v. Lucknow University ( AIR 1976 SC 2428 ) the Supreme Court refused to consider the validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee at the instance of a candidate who had appeared before the Committee for selection. When the Committees recommendation went against him he turned round to challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee. In the instant case, similar circumstances prevail which do not entitle the petitioners to raise the question of validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee. 20. When the Committees recommendation went against him he turned round to challenge the constitution of the Selection Committee. In the instant case, similar circumstances prevail which do not entitle the petitioners to raise the question of validity of the constitution of the Selection Committee. 20. Now coming to Writ Petition Number 8601 of 1979, filed by Sri Rajendra challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and proceed with the two suits one filed by Sri Brijendra and the other by Dr. Harpal Singh, Sri S. C. Khare, learned counsel, urged that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to grant any relief to the plaintiffs. Sri Khare urged that the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, is a self-contained enactment which has designated the forum as well as the procedure for questioning the validity of any action or order of any authority or officer of the University. Section 68 contemplates reference of a dispute arising out of any decision of any authority or officer of the University to the Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final. Section 69 of the Act lays down that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government or the Director of Education or the Deputy Director or the Authorised Controller or the University or any officer, authority or body thereof in respect of anything done or purported to be done in pursuance of the Act or the Rules or the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder. Section 68 of the Act confers wide power on the Chancellor to adjudge the validity of selection and appointment of a teacher or Principal as well as the order of the Vice-Chancellor approving or disapproving the selection or appointment of a teacher. By Section 68-A of the Act the Chancellor is empowered to enforce his order against the management of an affiliated college. The legislature has specifically declared that the decision of the Chancellor under Section 68 shall be final. By enacting Section 69 the legislature intended to impose a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain a suit against the authorities designated therein as well as against any act or order of any authority, officer or body constituted under the Act. By enacting Section 69 the legislature intended to impose a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain a suit against the authorities designated therein as well as against any act or order of any authority, officer or body constituted under the Act. In view of these provisions no suit is maintainable before a Civil Court challenging the recommendations made by the Selection Committee or an order passed by a Vice-Chancellor or the Chancellor. The Selection Committee is an authority as declared by Section 19 of the Act. Similarly, the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor both are officers of the University as provided by Section 9 of the Act. Their orders cannot be challenged before any Civil Court in view of Sections 68 and 69 of the Act. We find support for our view by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1969 SC 78 ). 21. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants in the suit placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in C.M.P Degree College v. Jamuna Pd. Pandey (1979 All LR 275) : (1979 All LJ 522) in support of their contention that notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 63 and 68-A and 69 of the Act the two suits are maintainable before the Civil Court. It is true that the Division Bench held that notwithstanding the provisions of, Sections 68, 68-A and 69 the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the action of the Committee of Management of an affiliated College. It is, however, noteworthy that the Committee of Management is neither an authority nor a body constituted under the Act and as such the provisions of Sections 68 and 69 do not bar a suit against the Committee of Management of an affiliated College. Moreover, in Jamuna Prasad Pandeys case no order or decision of the Selection Committee, Vice-Chancellor or Chancellor was under challenge in the suit filed before the Civil Court and as such that decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the instant case the two suits filed by Dr. Brijendra Singh and Dr. Harpal Singh challenge the validity of the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor. In the instant case the two suits filed by Dr. Brijendra Singh and Dr. Harpal Singh challenge the validity of the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor. In view of these facts we are of the opinion that the two suits filed before the Civil Court, one by Dr. Brijendra Singh and other by Dr. Harpal Singh are not maintainable and the writ petition filed by Sri Rajendra deserves to be allowed. 22. For the reasons stated above, we allow Writ Petition No. 8601 of 1979 and issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, from proceeding in the two suits pending before him namely, suit No. 155 of 1978 and suit No. 198 of 1979. We also quash the interim injunction order dated 1-1-1979. We allow Writ Petition No. 8397 of 1979 as well as Writ Petn. No. 10511 of 1979 and quash the order of the Chancellor dated 19-10-1979 and the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 26-12-1978 and direct the Vice-Chancellor to consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee as well as the report submitted by the Administrator to him vide his letter dated 21-12-1978 in the light of our judgment at a very early date. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.