M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who was an applicant for selection and appointment as Lecturer in Sociology (for M. S W.) in the service of the University of Mysore, has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent, the Chancellor university of Mysore, to appoint him to the post in accordance with the selection made by the Board of Apppintment constituted under S. 49 (2) (b) of the Karnataka state Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) THE faqts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The University of Mysore invited applications for one post of Lecture in Sociology (for MSW) by an advertisement dated 18th August 1979. The petitioner was one of the applicants. He was interviewed by the Board of Appointment constituted under S. 49 (2) (b) of the Act. He was selected by the Board for the post. S. 49 (6) of the Act provides that the Chancellor shall appoint a person to the post to which he is selected by the Board. The Chancellor has, however, declined to make the appointment and directed that the post be readvertised. Aggrieved by the refusal by the Chancellor to appoint the petitioner inspite of his selection for the post by the Board of appointment, the petitioner has presented this writ petition ( 3 ) THE scope of the power of the chancellor to decline to appoint a person selected by the Board of Appointment was the subject matter of decision in the case of Venkataratnam v. Chancellor, university of Mysore (1 ). The relevant portion of the judgment is contained in para-9. It reads-"in the light of the above, discussion, my answer to the question of law arising for consideration, set out earlier, is that in the absence of any procedural illegality, or want of qualification or existence of disqualification in the selected candidate, s. 49 (6) of the Act creates a right in favour of a candidate selected by the board to be appointed and a corresponding duty on the part of the chancellor to appoint a candidate selected for the post for which the appointment was intended. "in view of the interpretation of the provision in the above judgment, the only question that arises for consideration in this case is, whether the Chancellor was right in declining to appoint the petitioner to the post to which he was selected by the Board of appointment ( 4 ) SRI H. K. Vasudeva Reddy learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Chancellor declined to appoint the petitioner to the post to which he was selected as the chancellor found that the recommendation of the Board of Appointment was not in accordance with law as the petitioner did not possess the essential qualifications prescribed for the post. He invited my attention to the qualifications prescribed for the post. The relevant portion reads :-"lecturgrs : essential : (a) A doctorate degree or published work of an equally higher standard; (b) Consistently good academic record with I or High II Class (B plus) Master's Degree in a relevant subject or an equivalent degree of a foreign University. General Qualifications : (i) Having regard to the need for developing Inter-disciplinary programmes, the degree in (a) and (b) above, may be in relevant subjects. (ii) Provided that if the Board of Appointment is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of very high standard, it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in (b) above. (iii) Provided further that if a candidate possessing a Doctorate degree or an equivalent published work is not available or ii not considered suitable, the person possessing consistently good academic record (due weightage being given to m. Phil or equivalent degree or research work of quality) may be. appointed on the condition that he will have to obtain a Doctorate degree or give evidence of published work of an equivalent high standard within 5 years of his appointment, failing which he will not be able to earn future increments until he fulfils these requirements. (c) Teaching or research experience of not less than 2 years in all; desirable : publication of research work of high standard in the subject. **explanation : Consistently good academic record means overall record of all assessments through-out the academic career leading to the master's degree which should at least be B plus or high second Class. (c) Teaching or research experience of not less than 2 years in all; desirable : publication of research work of high standard in the subject. **explanation : Consistently good academic record means overall record of all assessments through-out the academic career leading to the master's degree which should at least be B plus or high second Class. ' ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Chancellor noticed that though the petitioner had passed the M. A. Degree Examination in i Class, he had passed the B. A Degree examination in Pass Class and he had secured only 40 per cent marks in that course. Therefore the overall academic record of the petitioner leading to the master's Degree cannot be regarded as good and, therefore, the Chancellor was of the view that the petitioner did not possess essential (b) qualification. Learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner did not possess essential (a) qualification also and, therefore, the Chancellor's decision not to appoint the petitioner was legal and valid. ( 6 ) THE qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer (for M. S. W.) indicates that though the academic qualifications specified at (a) and (b) are under the heading 'essential', the Board of appointment is given the power to relax both the essential qualifications under the circumstances set out in Note (ii) and (iii), respectively. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not possess essential (a) qualification. He did not possess the doctorate degree and he had also not published any research work of a high standard. But under Note (iii) the Board of Appointment had the power to relax the said qualification subject to the condition that the selected candidate should either obtain a doctorate degree or give evidence of published work of an equivalent standard within five years after his appointment, and subject to the condition that he would not be entitled to earn future increments until he fulfilled this requirement. ( 7 ) THE proceedings of the Board of appointment has been produced at the time of hearing. It reads as follows :"based on qualifications, experience and performance at the interview, the Committee is of the unanimous view that the post may be offered to Sri R. Nagaraju with the stipulation that within a period of five years from the date of appointment he should complete his Ph. It reads as follows :"based on qualifications, experience and performance at the interview, the Committee is of the unanimous view that the post may be offered to Sri R. Nagaraju with the stipulation that within a period of five years from the date of appointment he should complete his Ph. D. degree failing which further increments in the scale of Lecturers would be withheld till such time as he acquires the Ph. D. Degree". The contentions of the recommendation indicates that the Board of Appointment did exercise its power under Note (iii) and relaxed the requirement of essential (a) qualification. The petitioner has been called upon to complete his Ph. D. Degree within a. period of five years with a further condition that if he failed to secure the said qualification, he would not be entitled to any further increments. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner had secured the I Class in the master's Degree. A copy of his statement of marks pertaining to Master's degree is produced as Annexure-B along with the writ petition. The statement of marks indicates that the petitioner had secured 418 marks out of 675 in the final year which works out to 61. 9 per cent and 311 marks out of 500 in the M. A. previous examination which works out to 62. 2 per cent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of. his securing i Class in the Master's Degree examination, the petitioner possessed essential (b) qualification and as the requirement of essential (a) qualification had been relaxed, the selection made by the board of Appointment was in accordance with law and, therefore, the Chancellor was not right in declining to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the said recommendation. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, however, strenuously contended that the petitioner did not possess essential (b) qualification. He submitted that even though the petitioner had secured I class both in the M. A. previous and final examinations, he had passed the B. A. Degree examination in Pass Class securing only 40 per cent marks and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had consistently good academic record though he possessed I Class Master's Degree. He submitted that even though the petitioner had secured I class both in the M. A. previous and final examinations, he had passed the B. A. Degree examination in Pass Class securing only 40 per cent marks and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had consistently good academic record though he possessed I Class Master's Degree. He placed strong reliance on the words 'consistently good academic record' which have been incorporated while setting out essential (b) qualification and also the explanation of that term incorporated in the advertisement. He pointed out that in view of the explanation the petitioner could not be considered to have had consistent good academic record if the overall record of all the assessments throughout the academic career of the petitioner which -led to the Master's degree in which he had secured I Class was taken into consideration He submitted that the Chancellor was of the view that as the academic record of the petitioner in the B A. Degree examination was not good, the Board of Appointment was not right in selecting the petitioner for appointment. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the consistent good academic record which was prescribed as essential (b) qualification, read in the light of the explanation set out in the advertisement only meant that the record should be good in respect of all the assessments made throughout the Master's degree course and the record contemplated by the said qualification and the explanat on did not include academic record prior to the joining of the Master's degree course. He also submitted that in several other cases though the Chancell or had taken a view similar to the one taken in the case of the petitioner, later the Chancellor himself was convinced that the academic record which should be looked into pertains only to the Master's degree course and did not include the academic record in the Bachelor's Degree course. The petitioner has also furnished the names of persons whose record in the Bachelor's Degree Course was not good, but who had secured I Class or high II Class in the Master's Degree, who have been appointed by the Chancellor on the basis of the selection made by the Board of Appointment though sometime earlier he had declined to appoint them. ( 11 ) IT is true that the question as to whether the petitioner possessed the qualification or not cannot be decided on the basis of what the Chancellor has done in respect of some other appointment, as rightly submitted by the Counsel for the respondents. Therefore I prefer to rest my decision on the basis of the interpretation of essential (b) qualification read with the explanation incorporated in the advertisement. In my view the expression 'consistent good academic record' has only reference to the various assessments made in respect of a student at different stages in the Master's Degree course until he passed the final examination of the Master's Degree course. This view receives support from the words 'leading to Master's Degree' used in the explanation According to the explananation, the wo,rds 'consistently good record' used in essential (b) qualification means an overall record of all assessments throughout the academic career leading to the Master's Degree. The question that arises for consideration is, when does the academic career of a student which leads to the Master's Degree begin ? can it be said that when a candidate has joined the Bachelor's Degree course, his academic career during that course is one which leads to the Master's degree. If yes, then his earlier academic career in pre-university course or higher secondary classes would also have to be considered as leading to the Master's degree It is not the case of the respondents that those records are relevant. In my view just as a student's academic career as an engineering student commences with his joining the I year of that course and of a medical student's academic career in the medical course commences with his joining the I year of that course and not earlier, the academic career of a student leading to the Master's degree commences with his joining the Master's Degree course. It is not disputed that the assessment of mrit of a candidate during the Master's Degree course is made more than once. If semester system is followed by the concerned university, there would be periodical assessments and there would be at least four assessments in the Master's Degree course. Even in ordinary cases, as in the present case, Master's Degree course consists of two examinations, the former is called 'master's Degree previous examination and the latter. 'master's Degree final examination'. If semester system is followed by the concerned university, there would be periodical assessments and there would be at least four assessments in the Master's Degree course. Even in ordinary cases, as in the present case, Master's Degree course consists of two examinations, the former is called 'master's Degree previous examination and the latter. 'master's Degree final examination'. Therefore, it appears to me that the merit which should be taken into account to find out as to whether a candidate had consistently good record during his academic career leading to the Master's Degree is, the merit of the candidate as found at all the assessments during the Master's Degree course and not merely the merit in the final examination. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he had secured I Class at both the assessments viz. . at the previous examination as also at the final examination. ( 12 ) THE fact that the Board of Appointment consisting of academic experts, who had before them the academic record of the petitioner at the Bachelor't Degree, as well as Master's Degree, selected him and recommended him for appointment, is a circumstance which supports the view taken by me on the interpretation of the words used while specifying the essential (b) qualification The fact that the chancellor, who had declined to appointment some of the candidates selected on the ground that thsy bad secured lower marks in the Bachelor's degree course and subsequently revised his opinion and appointed those candidates, whose names have been set out in the reply statement is an additional circumstance which supports the view taken by me. ( 13 ) IN the light of the discussion made as above, I am of the view that the selection of the petitiontrs's name for appointment as Lecturer in Sociology (for M. S. W ) by the Board of Appointment constituted under S. 49 (2) (b) of the Act was in accordance with law and, therefore, the Chancellor could not have declined to appoint the petitioner to the post of which he was selected by the board and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the petition. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, I make the following order : (I) Writ petition is allowed. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, I make the following order : (I) Writ petition is allowed. (II) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the 2nd respondent- the Chancellor, Mysore University-to appoint the petitioner to the post of lecturer in Sociology (for M's. W.) in the service of the University of Mysore on the basis of the selection made by the board of Appointment constituted under s. 49 (2) (b) of the Karnataka State Universities act. (III) No costs. --- *** --- .