M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN these five writ petitions in which each of the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Chancellor of the Mysore university to appoint him to the post to which he had been selected for appointment by the Board of Appointment (hereinafter referred to as 'the board') constituted under S. 49 of the Karnataka State Universities act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following common question of law arises for consideration: whether S. 49 (6) of the Act confers a right on a person duly selected by the Board, for appointment to the post of a Professor or Reader or lecturer on the establishment of an university constituted and functioning under the Act to be appointed to the post to which he was selected? or whether under S. 49 (6) of the Act the Chancellor has the absolute right or discretion to refuse to appoint a person so selected by the Board? ( 2 ) THE brief facts which have given rise to these petitions are as follows: by an advertisement dated 4/6th June 1977 issued by the Registrar of the mysore University applications were invited for selection for appointment for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in various faculties on the establishment of the Mysore university. The advertisement specified the number of posts as also the essential and desirable qualifications for each category of posts. The pe,ti- tioners were among those, who submitted their applications pursuant to the above advertisement. The Board constituted in accordance with the provisions of S. 49 of the Act, selected the petitioner in W. P. No. 3779 of 1979 for the post of Professor of history; the petitioner in W. P. No. 5269 of 1979 for the post of Reader in kannada; the petitioner in W. P. No. 5934 of 1979 for the post of Lecturer in ancient History and Archaeology; the petitioner in W. P. No. 6055 of 1979 for the post of Reader in Law and the petitioner in W. P. No. 7804 of 1979 for the post of Lecturer in Mathematics. After the selection was made by the Board, the Chancellor declined to appoint these petitioners for the posts to which they were selected and a communication was sen,t to the registrar to that effect and the chancellor directed that the posts should be re advertised. Aggrieved by the refusal by the Chancellor to appoint the petitioners to the posts to which they were selected by the board, the petitioners have presented these writ, petitions praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the chancellor to appoint the respective petitioner for the post to which he had been selected by the Board. ( 3 ) IN order to answer the question arising for consideration in these writ petitions, before setting out the relevant provisions of the Act, it is also necessary to refer to the corresponding provisions of law which regulated the appointments to the teaching posts in the three universities in the State before the Act was enacted. (1) Prior to 25th September 1975, the constitution and organisation of the three universities in the State, viz. , The Karnataka University, the mysore University and the Bangalore university were governed by the karnataka University Act, 1949, the mysore University Act, 1956 and the bangalore University Act, 1964. respectively, (I) S. 44 (1) of the Karnataka university Act had provided that no person shall be appointed as teacher of the University except on the recommendation of a committee of selection constituted for the purpose. Sub sec. (2) thereof provided for the constitution of a selection committee. Sub-section (3) empowered the committee to make selection and to make recommendations to the Syndicate, the names of persons considered suitable for the post arranged in the order of merit. Sub-section (4) empowered the Syndicate to make selection among the persons so recommended. The proviso below the said sub-section however required the syndicate to record its reasons if the syndicate were to select a candidate otherwise than in accordance with the merit arranged by selection committee. For the proposal of the syndicate for. making such a departure, the sanction of the Chancellor was necessary. (II) S. 26 of the Mysore University act provided that appointment to the staff of the University shall be made in accordance with the rules made by the Chancellor in consultation with the Syndicate. For the proposal of the syndicate for. making such a departure, the sanction of the Chancellor was necessary. (II) S. 26 of the Mysore University act provided that appointment to the staff of the University shall be made in accordance with the rules made by the Chancellor in consultation with the Syndicate. Sub-section (2) of S. 26 provided for the constitution of a Board of appointment for making appointments for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. Under sub-section (3) the decision of the Board was to have effect only after its approval by the Chancellor. (III) Under S. 22 (2) (a) of the bangalore University Act, the Syndicate was given the power to make appointments inter alia for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. S. 28 provided for the constitution, of board of appointment as prescribed in the said section. Sub-section (5) (a) of S. 28 required the Board of appointment to consider and submit its recommendations to the Syndicate. Sub-section (5) (b) of that section provided that if the Syndicate considered that the recommendations of the Board were not acceptable to it, it should record its reasons and submit the case to the chancellor for orders and the order of the Chancellor shall be final. (2) The aforesaid three enactments were repealed and the Act as is evident from its preamble, was enacted as an uniform law to govern the constitution and organisation of all the three universities in the State. S. 49 of the act regulates the appointment for the posts of Professors, Librarians, readers and Lecturers in the Universities. The relevant part of the said section reads:"49. Appointments of Teachers, etc. ~ (1) There shall be a Board of Appointment for selecting persons for appointment as Professors, Librarian, Readers and Lecturers in the University. S. 49 of the act regulates the appointment for the posts of Professors, Librarians, readers and Lecturers in the Universities. The relevant part of the said section reads:"49. Appointments of Teachers, etc. ~ (1) There shall be a Board of Appointment for selecting persons for appointment as Professors, Librarian, Readers and Lecturers in the University. (2) Every such Board shall consist of,-- (a) for selections to the post of professors and to the post of librarian- (i) the Vice-Chancellor-Ex-Officio chairman; (ii) the Head of the Department concerned, if he is a Professor and if he is not a Professor, a Professor from any other University in the State, nominated by the Chancellor; and where no such Professor is available in any University within the State, such Professor in the concerned Department from a Central Institute within the State or from a University in any other State, nominated by the chancellor; (iii) three experts nominated by the Chancellor, two of whom from a panel furnished by the University grants Commission and the other from amongst persons serving in any other university in the State; (b) for selection to the posts of readers and Lecturers - (i) the vice-Chancellor - Ex-officio Chairman; (ii) two experts nominated by the chancellor; (iii) the Head of the Department concerned if he is a Professor, and if he is not a Professor, a Professor in the concerned Department of any other University in the State nominated by the Chancellor and where no such Professor is available in any university within the State such Professor in the concerned department from a Central Institute within the state or from a University in, any other state nominated by the Chancellor; (iv) one Professor from any other university in the State nominated by the Chancellor and where no such professor is available in any University within the State, such Professor in the concerned Department from a university in any other State, nominated by the Chancellor. (3) The Registrar shall act as the secretary of the Board of Appointment (4) Every post of Professor, Librarian, Reader or Lecturer to be filled by selection shall be duly and widely advertised together with the minimum and other qualifications, if any, required, the emoluments and the number of posts to be filled, and reasonable time shall be allowed within which the applicants may apply. (5) The quorum for a meeting of the board of appointment shall be four of whom in the case of selections to the posts of Professors and Librarian at least two shall be the experts and in the case of selections to the other posts at least one shall be the expert. (6) The Board shall interview, adjudge the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised and prepare a list of persons selected arranged in the order of merit. It shall forward the list to the Chancellor who shall make appointments in accordance with the same. ' (underlining by me) sub-section (2) of S. 49 of the Act provides for the constitution of the board for selection for appointment of professors and Librarian. Sub-section 2 (b) of the said section provides for constitution of a Board for making selection for appointment to the posts of Readers and Lecturers. Sub-section (4) requires that due publicity shall be given for the notification inviting applications for appointment to these posts which is obviously intended to make the selection competitive by ensuring the receipt of applications from all the qualified and intending candidates and also to ensure the right to equality and equal, opportunity in matters relating to appointment under the State guaranteed under Art. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. Sub- sec. (5) prescribes the quorum for the meeting as four, but at the same time prescribes that two of those persons shall be experts in the case of selection for the posts of Professors librarian and in the case of selection for the posts of Readers and Lecturers the presence of one expert is made mandatory. This provision is also obviously intended to ensure that a proper selection is made with the aid of the concerned expert. First part of sub-section (6) requires the Board to interview the candidates and adjudge the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications prescribed and to prepare a list of persons selected arranged in the order of merit. The second part of the sub-section provides that the Board shall, forward the list of the selected candidates to the Chancellor who shall make appointments in accordance with the same. The second part of the sub-section provides that the Board shall, forward the list of the selected candidates to the Chancellor who shall make appointments in accordance with the same. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that each of the petitioners had been selected by the board, for appointment, to the post to which he had applied and the select list was forwarded to the Chancellor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in view of their selection by the Board, the petitioners had a right to be appointed for the post to which they were selected and the Chancellor was under a duty to appoint them in view of the language of sub-section (6) of S. 49 of the act. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate-General appearing for the Chancellor per contra contended as follows: (I) The selections made by the Board was only in the nature of a recommendation, and it was for the Chancellor either to accept the recommendation and make the appointment or to reject the recommenda ion and not to make the appointment. (II) In any event, if the Chancellor was of the opinion that the selection made by the Board was not in accordance with law, he could refuse to make appointment and the language of section 49 (6) of the Act is not such as to compel the Chancellor to appoint a person even if it was found that his selection was contrary to law. In support of the first contention, he submitted that the provisions of S. 49 of the Act were analogous to the provisions of Art. 233 of the Constitution which provided for appointment of district Judges on the recommendation made by the High Court and as Art. 233 of the Constitution has been interpreted to mean that wherea,s the governor cannot appoint a person as District Judge unless recommended by the High Court, the article does not compel the Governor to appoint a person recommended by the High court, see M. . S. Jain v. State of haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276 . S. 49 (6) should also be construed accordingly. ( 6 ) IF the wording of S. 49 (6) of the act was similar to the wording of Art. 233 of the Constitution, the contention urged by the learned Advocate general would have been unexceptionable. But the difference in, language is too obvious. They read: art. S. 49 (6) should also be construed accordingly. ( 6 ) IF the wording of S. 49 (6) of the act was similar to the wording of Art. 233 of the Constitution, the contention urged by the learned Advocate general would have been unexceptionable. But the difference in, language is too obvious. They read: art. 233 (2) of the Constitution. A person hot already in the service of the Union or of the State shall only be eligible to be appointed as district Judge if he has been for not less than seven years as an advocate or a pleader and is recommended by the high Court for appointment. S. 49 (6) of the Act. The Board shall interview, adjudge the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised and prepare a list of persons selected arranged in the order of merit. It shall forward the list to the Chancellor who shall make appointments in accordance with the same. According to Art. 233 (2) an advocate with seven years' practice becomes eligible to be appointed as district judge when recommended by the High court for such appointment. It does not state that the Governor shall appoint the person recommended for appointment as district judge by the high Court. But S. 49 (6) provides that when a list of selected candidates is forwarded by the Board, the chancellor shall make appointments in accordance with the same. The language of S. 49 (6) indicates that the selection made by the Board constituted in the manner prescribed under S. 49 (2) of the Act whose membership consists of eminent educationists and experts is final and binding on the appointing authority, and is not merely recommendatory. ( 7 ) THE Legislative intention to give finality to the selections made by the board is also evident from the Legislative changes brought about on this aspect. (1) The first and significant change brought about is about the composition of the Board. Under S. 20 of the bangalore University Act the Syndicate was given power. to nominate both the experts to the Board. Under S. 26 (1) of the Mysore University Act, one of the two experts had to be nominated by the Syndicate, the other by the Chancellor. Under S. 44 of the karnataka University Act, the Chancellor was given power to nominate one person to the selection committee. to nominate both the experts to the Board. Under S. 26 (1) of the Mysore University Act, one of the two experts had to be nominated by the Syndicate, the other by the Chancellor. Under S. 44 of the karnataka University Act, the Chancellor was given power to nominate one person to the selection committee. But under S. 49 (2) except the Vice- chancellor and the Head of the Department if he were to be a Professor, all other members of the Board which includes experts are required to be nominated by the Chancellor. Two out of the three experts for the Board constituted for making selecton for the post of Professors have to be selected from among persons included. in the panel prepared by an independent agency, viz. , the University grants Commission. Further, quorum for the meeting of the Board is fixed at four and presence of two out of three experts for the purpose of making selection for the posts of Professors and one out of two experts for the purpose of making selection for the posts of Readers and Lecturers is made essential. (2) The next and the most important change brought about is as follows: under S. 44 of the Karnataka University Act, the Syndicate was empowered to make final selection, but it had to record its reasons for making a departure from the recommendation of the selection committee, which had to be approved by the Chancellor. Under S. 28 of the Bangalore University Act also the position was similar. Under s. 26 (4) of the Mysore University act, the decision of the Board of appointment was to become final only on its approval by the Chancellor. The Legislature could have, if it so desired, worded S. 49 (6) in such a manner so as to make the selection made by the Board final only on its acceptance by the Chancellor. But unlike the provisions in the Acts repealed, the wording of S. 49 (6) of act is such as to treat the selection made by the Board final as it is neither made subject to the approval of the syndicate nor the approval of the chancellor. It confers no power on the Syndicate or the Chancellor to reject or modify the selection made by the Board even by recording reasons. It confers no power on the Syndicate or the Chancellor to reject or modify the selection made by the Board even by recording reasons. On the other hand, it provides that the Chancellor shall make appointments in accordance with the list of persons selected by the Board. The Legislative changes indicate that under S. 49 of the Act while the power to nominate all the members of the Board except the Vice-Chancellor and the concerned Professor and head of the Department is conferred on the Chancellor, the decision of the board so constituted regarding selection of persons for appointment is made final under S. 49 (6) by requiring the Chancellor to make appointments in accordance with the selections made by the Board. Therefore, in my opinion there is no reason to cut down the effect of the imperative language designedly used by the Legislature in s. 49 (6 ). This does not however mean that if in a given case the selection of a person made by the Board is found to be in contravention of law by the chancellor, he is bound to appoint such person. A selection to be valid under S. 49 of the Act, has to be made in strict obedience to the law governing the selection. If it is made in contravention of law it cannot be regarded as a selection made as required under s. 49 (6) and consequently the person selected derives no right, by such selection and the Chancellor is under no obligation to appoint such person. For instance, if in the case of a selection made by the Board, there was no advertisement as required S. 49 (4) of the Act, or the required number of members or experts were not present when the selection was made as prescribed under S. 49 (5) or other eligible candidates who had submitted their applications, had not been called for interview, or a. person, who did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post or a person who was disqualified for appointment according to rules prescribing the conditions of eligibility was- selected, the selection cannot be regarded as lawful and, therefore, it would be competent for the Chancellor to decline to make the appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioners also fairly conceded that the Chancellor has such power. Learned counsel for the petitioners also fairly conceded that the Chancellor has such power. But in the absence of any illegality which vitiates the selection, the Chancellor cannot sit in judgment over the merits of the selection made by the Board and take a contrary view regarding the suitability of a candidate selected by the board for appointment as the power to adjudge the suitability of a candidate for appointment is exclusively vested in the Board. ( 8 ) THE above construction of S. 49 (6) also receives support from an amendment made to S. 49 (6) by karnataka State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1980) which came into force on 10th september 1980 during the pendency of these writ petitions. By this amendment an explanation was added below section 49 (6 ). It rea,ds: "explanation.-Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as requiring the Chancellor to make appointments in accordance with the list where he is of the opinion that it does not satisfy the provisions of this Act or the statutes relating to such appointments. " (Underlining by me) the explanation makes the scope of the power of the Chancellor, which was implicit in the language of S. 49 (6), explicit. He can refuse to appoint a person selected by the board, if he is of the opinion that the selection does not satisfy the requirement of the provisions of the Act or the statutes governing the. appointments. Therefore the second contention urged by the learned Advocate General has to be accepted. ( 9 ) 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. ( 10 ) HAVING demarcated the scope of S. 49 (6) of the Act, I shall now proceed to consider the facts of each case to find ou', whether the Chancellor lawfully declined to appoint the petitioner in each of the petitions. ( 10 ) HAVING demarcated the scope of S. 49 (6) of the Act, I shall now proceed to consider the facts of each case to find ou', whether the Chancellor lawfully declined to appoint the petitioner in each of the petitions. (i) W. P. No. 3779 of 1979:-The petitioner is a Reader in History. His qualifications are B. A. (Hons), II class, M. A. , II Class and M. A. , of the columbia University and also a doctorate degree (Ph. D), of the karnatak University. He applied for the post of Professor in Medieval Indian history, in respect of which applications were invited. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Professor were as follows: **** there were three applicants for the post. Only two of them, namely, the petitioner and another B. Muddachary appeared. The Board selected the petitioner in preference to Muddachary, who has filed W. P. No. 2037 of 1979 challenging the selection of the petitioner herein which was heard along with this writ petition and which is being disposed of by a separte order. After the selection of the petitioner by the Board, the Chancellor has declined to issue the order of appointment. The contents of the resolution of the board and the decision to the Chancellor, which was communicated to the Registrar, copies of which have been filed along with a memo dated 1-1-1981 read as follows;"resolution of the Board. The committee interviewed all the candidates who were present for the interview. The committee unanimously recommends that Dr. A. V. Venkataratnam be appointed as Professor of History in the Post Graduate Dept. of History manasagangotri, Mysore, after considering his qualifications, experience and performance in the interview. Protection of pay has also been recommended as per rules. The committee further recommends that probationery period may be waived in this case. Decision of the Chancellor. With reference to your letter No. RP/boa /ii/his. Prof. /77-78 dt. 14-2-79 on the above subject, I am desired to state that as the BOA do not appear to have made the selection to the post on the basis of merit, the Chancellor has been pleased to order re-advertising the vacancy after classifying it according to reservation orders of the State Government. "as can be seen from the decision of the Chancellor, in his view, the Board had not made the selection according to merit. "as can be seen from the decision of the Chancellor, in his view, the Board had not made the selection according to merit. As pointed out earlier, the power to adjudge the merit of the candidates is exclusively vested in the Board under S. 49 (6) of the Act. No violation of the provisions of the act or statute has been made the ground for declining to issue the order of appointment to the petitioner. Therefore the decision of the Chancellor is unsustainable. (ii) W. P. 5269 of 1979 * * * he was an applicant for the post of lecturer in Kannada at B. R. Project, shimoga. There were in all six applicants, but only five of them appeared for interview. After interviewing all the five applicants, the Board selected the petitioner. The resolution of the board and the order of the Chancellor declining to appoint the petitioner read as follows: - resolution of the Board. The Board interviewed all the candidates who were present for selection to one post of Kannada. University P. G. Centre, B. R. Project Shimoga. The Board unanimously recommends that Sri H. J. Lakkappa gowda be appointed against the advertised post. Sri H. J. Lakkappa gowda is about to submit his thesis for Ph. D. and has a number of publications to his credit which are of very high order. His pay may be protected in the scale of Rs. 1200-1900 in view of his service as Lecturer in Kannada in the post graduate dept. , of Kannada, mangalagangotri, Konaje, Mangalore. Further he belongs to Backward Caste (Kuruba ). The committee also took into consideration his performance in the interview and other accomplishments. The following candidates are placed as the 2nd and 3rd place in the order of merit by the committee; 2. Dr. T. N. Shankara narayana 3. Dr. B. N. Chandriah. Decision of the Chancellor. With reference to the correspondence resting with your letter No. RP)BOAj ii/kan/77-78 dt. 9-4-79 on the above subject, I am desired to convey approval of the Chancellor to- 1. readvertise the post of Reader in kannada, University of PG Centre b. R. Project, Shimoga, since better qualified candidates have been ignored by the BOA and the recommendation made by the BOA is not acceptable. 9-4-79 on the above subject, I am desired to convey approval of the Chancellor to- 1. readvertise the post of Reader in kannada, University of PG Centre b. R. Project, Shimoga, since better qualified candidates have been ignored by the BOA and the recommendation made by the BOA is not acceptable. ** ** ** ** ** ** again in this case also, the Chancellor resorted to review the decision of the board which had made the selection after interview and considering the case of all the candidates on merit though the Board alone is the repository of the power to adjudge the suitability of the candidates for appointment. No violation of the provisions of the Act or the statutes has been made a ground for declining to make the appointment. In the circumstances, the Chancellor had no power to refuse to appoint the petitioner. (iii) W. P. No, 5934 of 1979: The petitioner holds M. A. , Degree II Class in Ancient History and Archaeology as his special subject. He had also attended the Archaeological explorations and Excavations conducted by the Department of Post-graduate studies and Research in Ancient history and Archaeology of University of Mysore. He applied for the post of Lecturer in Ancient History and archaeology. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer were as follows:- * * * there were in all 13 applicants for the post. Only 9 of them appeared for the interview. The petitioner was selected by the Board. The resolution of the Board and the decision of the chancellor declining to appoint the petitioner read as follows:"resolution of the Board. After interviewing all the candidates who were present, the committee unanimously recommends, in the order of merit, the following candidates for selection to the post of the Lecturer in Ancient History and Archaeology, post Graduate Dept. of Ancient history and Archaeology, Manasagangotri, Mysore in the scale of pay of rs. 700-1600 after considering their qualifications, experience and performance in the interview. 1. Sri M. V. Krishnappa (BC) 2. Sri H. R. Raghunath Bhat. Sri M. V. Krishnappa is preferred because of his experience and performance in the interview. The committee relaxes the qualification of B plus in respect of Sri Krishnappa; as he has got only 50% in view of the fact that he has completed his research work and will be shortly submitting his thesis for doctorate. Sri H. R. Raghunath Bhat. Sri M. V. Krishnappa is preferred because of his experience and performance in the interview. The committee relaxes the qualification of B plus in respect of Sri Krishnappa; as he has got only 50% in view of the fact that he has completed his research work and will be shortly submitting his thesis for doctorate. The committee also unanimously recommends protection of pay to the candidate selected as per rules. Decision of the Chancellor (iii) Readvertise the post of lecturer in Ancient History and archaeology in the Post Graduate dept. advertised on 29-9-78 as Sri m. V. Krishnappa recommended by the BOA for the post does not possess specialisation in Archaeology which is an essential qualification and which the BOA has no power to relax, and * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the decision of the Chancellor is based on the ground that the petitioner did not possess specialisation in Archaeology which was an essential qualification and which the Board had no power to relax. From the resolution of the Board, it is clear that the Board had not relaxed the qualification of specialisation in Archaeology. The board had only relaxed the requirement of High II Class (B+) Master degree in the relevant subject which means, as explained at the time of hearing, that the candidate should have secured more than 55% of marks in M. A. Degree. It is competent for the Board to do so in view of Note-2 to the general qualifications which provides that if the Board 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 As far as the requirement of specialisation in Archaeology, which is an essential additional qualification prescribed for the post, the petitioner has asserted that he did possess the said qualification. The petitioner has stated in para-1 of the petition that he had attended the Archaeological explorations and excavations conducted by the Department of post-graduate Studies and Research in ancient History and Archaeology of University of Mysore. The petitioner has stated in para-1 of the petition that he had attended the Archaeological explorations and excavations conducted by the Department of post-graduate Studies and Research in ancient History and Archaeology of University of Mysore. The petitioner has also staled in para-5 of the petition that in reply to the direction of the Chancellor referred to above, the university office wrote back to the chancellor stating that the objection raised by the Chancellor in respect of the qualification of the petitioner was not correct and the petitioner did possess all the qualifications including the prescribed experience and specialisation and requested the Chancellor to issue the appointment order to the petitioner. In the statement of objections filed for the Chancellor at paras 5 and 7 it is stated as follows: " ** The Chancellor after perusing the entire records had no option but to conclude What the board of Appointment had failed in its ultimate task of adjudging the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised and had failed in its duty. The Chancellor had found that the list prepared by the Board of appointment was not a list based on the comparative merits of the candidates. ** The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioner did not qualify for the appointment by possessing the essential qualifications as required and that the Board of appointment had no power to relax. "the assertion made by the petitioner that he did possess the essential qualifications and in particular Archaeological experience and it was so certified by the office of the University, has not been controverted. As pointed out earlier, 1he Board had also not purported to relax the essential qualifications. If in fact the petitioner did not possess the said essential qualification and the Board had proceeded to relax the qualification, his selection would have been without authority of law and the Chancellor would have been right in declining to appoint the petitioner, but factually it is established that no such relaxation had been made in favour of the petitioner. Obviously the relaxation made in respect of (B+) Master degree, which the Board was competent to make has been misread to mean that there had been relaxation of the essential qualification. Therefore, the decision of the Chancellor cannot be upheld. Obviously the relaxation made in respect of (B+) Master degree, which the Board was competent to make has been misread to mean that there had been relaxation of the essential qualification. Therefore, the decision of the Chancellor cannot be upheld. (iv) W. P. No. 6055 of 1979: the petitioner in this writ petition was an applicant for the post of eeader in law. He is a Lecturer in the Department of Law in the Mysore university. The petitioner applied for selection for the post. The general qualifications prescribed f6r the post of Reader are the same as set out earlier in respect of W. P. No. 5269 of 1979. The additional qualification prescribed for the post was as follows:"i or II Class in M. A. Degree in international Law and or Constitutional Law in lieu of the qualification under (a) and (b ). " (under lining by me) the petitioner holds Master's Degree in International Law and Constitutional Law and had teaching experience of over 8 years including 4 years of Post-Graduate teaching experience and was also doing research for the ph. D. , Degree in Law. Therefore he possessed the prescribed academic qualification and experience. The petitioner was the only applicant for the post. The Board selected the petitioner for appointment. The resolution of the Board and the decision of the Chancellor read as follows: "resolution of the Board. The only candidate sri T. Devi Das who appeared for the interview has been unanimously recommended to be appointed Reader in Law, Post Graduate Dept. of Law manasagangotri, Mysore, in the scale of pay attached to the post, after considering his qualification, experience and performance in interview. This candidate does not have a doctorate degree. But in view of the fact that he will be completing his Ph. D. thesis shortly, the above condition is relaxed in his case. He should complete his Ph. D. within two years from the date of his appointment as Reader. He is kept on probation for the above period. "decision of the Chancellor. The response to the advertisement for the post was very poor, the only candidate who appeared before the boa has been recommended for appointment to one of the two posts of Readers. Apparently, adequate publicity has not been given by the university. He is kept on probation for the above period. "decision of the Chancellor. The response to the advertisement for the post was very poor, the only candidate who appeared before the boa has been recommended for appointment to one of the two posts of Readers. Apparently, adequate publicity has not been given by the university. The Chancellor has there- fare been pleased to order that both the posts be readvertised, if necessary in some prominent newspapers of New delhi, with a view to attract wider response and then make fairer selection. "the only reason given by the Chancellor to decline the appointment to petitioner is the inference drawn by him to the effect that no adequate publicity had been given to the notification inviting applications on the basis that only one application had been received for that post. If the inference drawn by the Chancellor was correct, the decision had to be upheld as it amounts to contravention of subsection (4) of S. 49 of the Act, but i find that the inference cannot be sustained. The advertisement in question was a common advertisement for various posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. There was no separate advertisement for the post of Reader in Law. In this behalf the petitioner has stated in his reply as follows:" ** I learn that the notification in exhibit C was published in 6 editions of the Indian Express viz. , those published from Bangalore, Madurai, cochin, Madras, Hyderabad and vijayawada editions. It is also learnt that apart from Prajavani and samyuktha Karnataka Dailies it was published in the Deccan Herald also. The notifications inviting applications were also sent to the registrars of all the Universities in the country as well as to the indian Institute of Science, Indian institutes Technology, Secretary of the Association of Indian Universities, with a view to give wide publicity to the notification as most of the posts that have been advertised required the candidates to haye teaching experience. Therefore, there is full and sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 49 (4 ). 2. The petitioner also submits that the objection that there has been no sufficient compliance has no substance as the respondent had made appointment in respect of the same notification for various other posts. Therefore, there is full and sufficient compliance with the requirements of section 49 (4 ). 2. The petitioner also submits that the objection that there has been no sufficient compliance has no substance as the respondent had made appointment in respect of the same notification for various other posts. As can be seen from Exhibit-C, a total number of 133 posts were notified in the post-graduate Department of Manasa Gangotri in Mysore, post Graduate Centre at Konaje, mangalore, and Post-Graduate department Centre, B. R. Project, shimoga. In addition to these 133 posts in the Post Graduate Department of the University, 20 posts in under-Graduate Colleges (University Colleges) and 35 posts in the institute of Correspondence Course and Continuing Education had been notified in Exhibit C. The above posts in Post Graduate appointments consisted of 22 posts of Professors, 44 posts of Readers and 67 posts of lecturers. From enquiries made by the petitioner, readvertisement that has been ordered by the 1st respondent is in respect of 5 posts of Professors, 11 posts of Readers and 13 posts of Lecturers. In respect of 100 posts recommendations of the Boards of Appointments were acted upon, (underlining by me)"the above facts have not been controverted on behalf of the Chancellor. Therefore it is clear that there had been wide publicity to the advertisement inviting the applications. Large number of persons have been selected for various posts pursuant to the above advertisement and there have been appointments by the Chancellor. The same advertisement cannot be considered as having given adequate publicity for all other posts, and just because in respect of one post only one application had been received, it cannot be held that there has been no adequate publicity and consequently there has been contravention of s. 49 (4) of the Act. It is also beyond doubt that the Board of Appointment was not obliged to select a candidate just because there were no other applicants. Whether more applications are received or only one application is received against one post advertised, the selection by the Board must be based on merit and in fact the Board has selected the petitioner after interview and after adjudging that he is suitable to be appointed to the post of Lecturer in Law. Therefore the decision of the Chancellor to decline to appoint the petitioner and directing re-advertisement of the post cannot be sustained. Therefore the decision of the Chancellor to decline to appoint the petitioner and directing re-advertisement of the post cannot be sustained. (v) W. P. No. 7804 of 1979: The petitioner applied for the post of lecturer in Mathematics. There were in all 17 applicants for the three posts advertised. The general qualifications prescribed for the post are the same set out earlier in respect of W. P. No. 5934 of 1979 and no additional qualifications are prescribed. The petitioner holds M. Sc. , Degree I Class in Mathematics, but he did not possess another essential qualification, i. e. , teaching or research experience of not less than two years as on the last date for receipt of applications or as on the date when he was interviewed by the Board. Nevertheless the Board selected the petitioner for appointment. The Chancellor declined to appoint the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess teaching or research experience of not less than two years. It is not disputed by the petitioner himself that he did not possess the said essential qualification. There can be no doubt that the recommendation of the Board was not in, accordance with law and therefore the petitioner acquired no right on that basis and the Chancellor was right in declining to appoint the petitioner for the post to which he was selected by the board. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order: (1) In W. Ps. Nos. 3779, 5269, 5934 and 6055 of 1979: (A) Rule made absolute. (B) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the 1st respondent to appoint each of the petitioners for the post to which he had been selected by the Board of appointment constituted under section 49 of the Karnataka State universities Act, 1976. (C) No costs. (2) In W. P. No. 7804 of 1979: (a) Rule discharged. (b) Writ petition dismissed. (c) No costs. --- *** --- .