M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was one of the applicants to the posts advertised by the university for Bangalore 2nd respondent herein. The post to which he applied for was of Lecturer in Social work. The University had called for applications to the post by its notification as long before as 30. 4. 77. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was called for interview by the Board of Appointment of the 2nd respondent University. The petitioner was one of the three selected mo the post of lecturer for Social Work. The recommendation of the Board of appointments was forwarded to the chancellor as required under sub-sec. (6) of S. 49 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The Chancellor instead of according approval to the appointment made by the Board of appointments withheld the approval and ordered re-advertisement of the posts for fresh recruitment. But the petitioner was not aware of the same. In spite of repsesentation made to the 2nd respondent-University on more than one occasion he was not informed as to what had happened to the recommendation made by the Boasd of Appointments. In the result, he has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redress inter-alia praying that a writ of mandamus may issue to respondents to appoint the petitioner who has been placed at the top of the list of selected candidates for the post in question by the Board of Appointments. After calling for the proceedings of the Board of Appointments the Writ Petition was listed for hearing. Statements of objections have been filed by the respondents. ( 3 ) WHILE there is no dispute in regard to the essential facts of the case, the sum and substance on which the respondents resist the petition is that the Chancellor-1st respondent has exercised his power under sub-section (6) of S. 49 of the Act in withholding approval or not according approval to the appointment recommended by the Board of Appointments on the sole ground that the petitioner does not possess the qualification prescribed for the post. ( 4 ) IN the light of the above and having regard to the prayer made, the following questions fall for consideration: (1) Whether as contended by the 1st and 2nd respondents the petitioner lacks the qualification prescribed for the post for which he is selected and therefore the 1st respondent acted within his power to reject his selection and direct fresh recruitment by resorting to readvertisement of the post by the 2nd respondent?. (2) Whether a writ of mandamus in the circumstances of the case should issue and if not what relief is the petitioner entitled to, even in the absence of any specific prayer? ( 5 ) IT is unnecessary for me to deal at length with the scope and ambit of power under sub-sec. (6) of S. 49 of the Act as that has already been decided by a learned single Judge of this Court in W P. Nos. 3779, 5269 5934, 6055 and 7804 of 1979 WPs. 3779, 5269, 5934, 6055 and 780411979. Rama Jois, J. by a common order in those petitions has examined the scope and ambit of power of the Chancellor under subsection (6) of S. 49 of the Act with reference to the scheme of the Act and he held after detailed discussion that sub-section (6) of S. 49 of the act does not confer power on the syndicate or the Chancellor to reject or modify the selection made by the board even by recording reasons. He has further held that on the other hand it provides that the Chancellor shall make appointments in accordance with the list of persons selected by the board. He has concluded by holding that in the absence of any procedural illegality or want of qualification or existence of dis-qualification in the selected candidate, sub-sec. (6) of S. 49 of the Act creates a right in favour of the candidates selected by the board of Appointments to be entitled to the appointment and a corresponding duty is cast on the 1st respondent chancellor of the University to approve such appointment (summary of para-9 of the learned Judge's Judgment ). I am in respectful agreement with the discussion as well as the conclusions reached by the learned Judge. I am in respectful agreement with the discussion as well as the conclusions reached by the learned Judge. ( 6 ) IN the light of the stand taken by the respondent in the statement of objections filed, it has become necessary for this Court to examine whether the 1 st Respondent was right in examing whether the petitioner did not possess the qualifications prescribed. It is therefore necessary to set out the qualifications prescribed for holding the post in the Notification of 1977:"doctorate degree or research work of equally high standard. Consistently good academic record (atleast High II Class-B in the seven point scale-Master's degree in the relevant subject or equivalent degree of a foreign University ). Explanation: Consistently good academic record means I or High ii Class-5 in the seven point scale at the Master's degree level and average of 50% to 55 per cent at the two examinations prior to the master's Degree examination. The Board of Appointments may relax the above qualification, if it is of the view that the research work of the candidate as evidenced from his thesis or his publications is of a very high standard. " ( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate General appearing for respondents has contended that on scrutiny of the papers forwarded to him by the University the 1st respondent found that the petitioner did not possess the consistent good academic record and at the relevant time was not holding a Doctor's degree and therefore was not adequately qualified as prescribed. Apart from the conclusions reached by Rama jois, J, in the aforementioned batch of Writ Petitions, the Supreme Court as far back as 1965 in the case of university of Mysore v. C. D. Govind rao AIR 1965 SC 491 . had cautioned the Courts from substituting their opinion to that of an expert body of academicians who are duly qualified to judge purely academic matters. What holds good for the Court also holds good for the chancellor on the facts of the present case. Rama Jois, J, has clearly demarcated the limits within which the Chancellor can withhold approval to the appointment recommended by the Board of Appointments. It must be a procedural irregularity or want of qualification or existence of disqualification in a selected candidate. Want of qualification necessarily means absence of the minimum qualification prescribed. Rama Jois, J, has clearly demarcated the limits within which the Chancellor can withhold approval to the appointment recommended by the Board of Appointments. It must be a procedural irregularity or want of qualification or existence of disqualification in a selected candidate. Want of qualification necessarily means absence of the minimum qualification prescribed. Therefore, all that the chancellor need look at in withholding or according approval under sub-sec. (6) of S. 49 of the Act is whether the candidate recommended by the board of appointments satisfies the minimum qualification test. If that is the nature of power to be exercised by the Chancellor under sub-section (6) of Section 49 of the Act, I have to analyse the meaning and purport of the qualifications prescribed. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, on the relevant date the petitioner was not a holder of a Doctorate degree in the subject but he had done research work of some standard which was available to the Board of Appointments along with his application. Undoubtedly, he was a second class graduate having obtained 55. 4 per cent of marks in the master's Degree Examination. From the proceedings of the Board of appointments made available to me by the learned Advocate General, it is seen that the members of the Board considered the research work of the petitioner and had called him for interview only because he had the minimum qualification of having obtained II Class in Master's Degree. The relevant portion of the proceedings of the Board of appointments is as follows:"seven candidates were called for interview. The following candidates appeared before the Board of appointment for interview: (1) Shri S. S. Moolge (2) Shri S. Virupakshaiah (3) Shri N. Venkataswamy Reddy (4) Smt. Theresa Chinnappa (5) Smt. K. Swadantra. The Board of Appointment in social Work scrutinised the original applications with all the - other documents furnished by the candidates. One SC candidate has applied for the post. The Board of Appointment in social Work after considering the, academic qualifications, etc. , and also the performance of the candidates at the interview recommends the following candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of lecturer in Social Work. 1. Shri S. Virupakshaiah. 2. Shri N. Venkataswamy Reddy note: (1) The Board noted that sri Virupakashiah has completed his Pre-Ph. D. and that he would submit his Ph. , and also the performance of the candidates at the interview recommends the following candidates in order of merit for appointment to the post of lecturer in Social Work. 1. Shri S. Virupakshaiah. 2. Shri N. Venkataswamy Reddy note: (1) The Board noted that sri Virupakashiah has completed his Pre-Ph. D. and that he would submit his Ph. D. thesis to the University shortly. (2) The Board further noted that smt. K. Swadantra is an SC candidate but does not possess the requisite qualification and does not possess merit above the minmum qualification prescribed and is not suitable for the post. " ( 9 ) FROM the above, it is clear that the Board had applied its mind in determining whether the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications prescribed before he was placed at the top of the list and recommended his appointment. Learned Advocate General while submitting his arguments has pointed out that the petitioner did not have consistent good academic record. What he means thereby is that his performance in the previous examinations to Master of Arts Examinations in the subject were not as good as they ought to be. I do not know how that is relevant if the qualification prescribed is correctly understood. In the Notification, after "consistently good academic record," it is stated in brackets "at least high II Class", necessarily with reference to the qualifying examination. In the alter native a grade 'b' in seven point-scale master's degree in the relevant subject or equivalent degree of a foreign university. Nowhere has it prescribed as to who should determine the equivalent of a foreign university's degree. We must, therefore, presume that the Board of Appointments was competent to decide this question, had that arisen before it. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has a high second class Master's degree in the subject. What the argument of the Advocate general overlooks is the power of the Board to relax the qualification at (b) for the reason that the research work of the candidate is of a high standard. I must presume that the board who had the research work before them took that into consideration while recommending the petitioner and thus held the candidate qualified under (a) itself. 9. I must presume that the board who had the research work before them took that into consideration while recommending the petitioner and thus held the candidate qualified under (a) itself. 9. Sri S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J. P. Kulshresta v. Chancellor, Allahabad University AIR 1980 SC 2141 . . In that case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the selection of certain candidates for appointment as Readers in English in the Allahabad University. The minimum qualification prescribed was a high Second Class Master's degree in the subject. It is sufficient to state these facts about the case. Some Readers were appointed who had secured less than 54 per cent of marks in the subject in the Master's degree Examination. Therefore the selection was impugned by those who had secured more than 54 per cent of marks. Though the High Court rejected the petitioners' contention therein, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court holding that in respect of those candidates who had secured less than 54 per cent, the test or formula that was required to be applied to determine "high second Class marks" was to draw a line at mid-point, and marks above and below that line would be high and low second class respectively. There does not appear to be any better alternative formula. ( 10 ) ON the facts of this, case, the board of Appointments has satisfied itself that the petitioner is duly qualified before recommending his appointment though he had secured 55 per cent marks in his Master's degree examination. He had the minimum qualification prescribed. Therefore, the 1st respondent was clearly in error in taking into account the performance of the petitioner in examinations other than the Master's degree examination. In this view of the matter, the 2nd respondent has clearly transgressed the powers conferred on him under sub-section (6) of s. 49 of the Act. In the result, withholding of the approval in the case has been a failure to perform a duty apart from acting in excess of the jurisdiction vested in him. In this view of the matter, the 2nd respondent has clearly transgressed the powers conferred on him under sub-section (6) of s. 49 of the Act. In the result, withholding of the approval in the case has been a failure to perform a duty apart from acting in excess of the jurisdiction vested in him. ( 11 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is as to what should be the relief that should be given to the petitioner in the absence of a prayer by him to quash the decision of the Chancellor. The learned Advocate General has made available the records of the Chancellor as well. ( 12 ) FROM the records, it is clear that the Chancellor has made all efforts to ascertain regarding the fulfilment of the qualifications by the petitioner. The only error committed is in overlooking the prescription by the university of the qualifications in the notification. As already pointed out by me, he should have been wary before interfering with the assessment already made of the qualifications of the candidate by the Board of Appointments. If that is the correct position, even though there is no prayer by the petitioner for quashing the decision of the Chancellor, it has become necessary to quash the same in order to give the relief that the petitioner has asked for. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the decision of the chancellor to readvertise the post is quashed. Any fresh advertisement issued to fill up that post in accordance with the directions of the Chancellor by the 2nd respondent is also hereby set at nought. ( 14 ) A writ Of mandamus will issue to the Chancellor to consider the recommendations made by the Board of appointments in the light of the observations made in the course of this order and give his approval in accordance with law within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute. ( 15 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .