JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The Chancellor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. Varanasi, received certain complaints against the then Vice-Chancellor of the said University, containing allegations relating to irregularities which were stated to have been committed in matters of appointment of certain teachers. It was alleged in those complaints that some of the teachers, including the petitioners, did not possess even the requisite mandatory' minimum qualifications and that the appointments have been made on extraneous considerations. The Chancellor caused a preliminary examination of those cases to be made. He obtained from the University details of the qualifications possessed by those teachers and the subjects to teach which they had been appointed. The preliminary examination disclosed, according to the Chancellor, that some of the teachers including the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed by the applicable Statutes. The Chancellor, therefore, decided to initiate action suo motu under S. 68, U. P. State Universities Act. A show cause notice was thereupon served on the petitioner, a true copy whereof is annexure 7 to the writ petition. In this notice, it was pointed out to the petitioner that he held the degree of Acharya in Navya Vyakaran and not in Prachin Vyakaran, the subject in which he was appointed as a Reader. It was further pointed out that under the relevant Statutes of the University, it was mandatory that the candidate must possess a Master's degree in the subject concerned. The petitioner submitted his reply, to the aforesaid show' cause notice. In the reply, it was asserted that the Master's degree possessed by the petitioner in the subject of Navya Vyakaran endowed him with sufficient learning an proficiency in the subject of Prach Vyakaran and that the knowledge of the later development of thought of a certain branch of learning pre-supposed knowledge of the earlier thought thereof. The burden of the reply was that the Master's degree held by the petitioner in the subject of Navya Vyakaran was equivalent to the Master's degree in the subject of Prachin Vyakaran. 2. On the receipt of the reply of the petitioner and the comments of the Vice-Chancellor. The burden of the reply was that the Master's degree held by the petitioner in the subject of Navya Vyakaran was equivalent to the Master's degree in the subject of Prachin Vyakaran. 2. On the receipt of the reply of the petitioner and the comments of the Vice-Chancellor. the Chancellor appears to have consulted a panel of experts consisting of two professors for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of the plea raised by the petitioner, namely, that his knowledge in Navya Vyakaran was sufficient to enable him to teach the subject of Prachin Vyakaran and that a Master's degree in the former subject was equivalent to that degree in the latter. The experts seem to have expressed the view that the contention of the petitioner was not right. Thereupon, the Chancellor passed the impugned order. He held that the petitioner did not possess the requisite minimum qualification of having a Master's degree in the subject concerned which was mandatory according to the Statutes. On the ground that there was a violation of the Statutes, the Chancellor quashed the selection and appointment of the petitioner by the impugned order and directed that the post be readvertised. 3. Broadly two contentions were raised in support of this petition. 1. That in view of the Doctorate degree possessed by the petitioner in the subject of Vyakaran it was open to the selection committee to waive the qualification of a Master's degree in the subject concerned and inasmuch as, the selection committee had recommended the petitioner's name for the post of Reader, the appointment of the petitioner could not be said to have been made in breach of any Statute. 2. That the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, in that the opinion of the experts was a material which was used by the Chancellor without making the same available to the petitioner. 4. We will take up the first point first. In order to appreciate the submission, it is necessary to have the relevant Statute extracted here. 11.01. (1) In the case of the Faculties of Veda - Vedanga, Sahitya, Sanskriti, Darshana, Shramana Vidya and Adhunika Njans, Vijanana, the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer, in the University namely. In order to appreciate the submission, it is necessary to have the relevant Statute extracted here. 11.01. (1) In the case of the Faculties of Veda - Vedanga, Sahitya, Sanskriti, Darshana, Shramana Vidya and Adhunika Njans, Vijanana, the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer, in the University namely. (a) a doctorate in the subject of study concerned or a published work of a high standard in that subject and. (b) consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record of all assessments throughout the academic career of a candidate), with first class or high second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 per cent marks) Master's degree in the subject concerned or equivalent degree of a foreign University in such subject. (2) Where the Selection committee is of opinion that the research work of a candidate as evidenced either by his thesis or by his published work, is of a very high standard, it may relax any of the requirements specified in sub-cl. (b) of cl. (1)." 5. The next relevant Statute is Statute No. 11.02 which runs thus : - 11.02 (1) No teacher appointed before the commencement of these Statutes shall be deemed to be qualified for appointment to the post of Reader or Professor if he does not possess the qualification prescribed in Statute 11.01 provided that where the Selection Committee is of opinion that the research work of a candidate as evidenced by his thesis or by his published work is of a very high standard, it may relax any of the requirements specified in sub-cl. (b) of Cl. (1) of Statute 11.01. (2) In addition, a candidate for appointment to the post of Reader or professor shall fulfil any other qualification laid down in the Ordinances of the University. 6. An examination of the aforesaid Statutes shows that the degree of Acharya prescribed under Statute No. 11.01 under Cl. (b) has to be in the subject concerned. In the Calendar of the University among the subjects prescribed for Master's degree both Navya Vyakaran and Prachin Vyakaran have been separately mentioned. They are separate subjects of study. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the Master's degree in Prachin Vyakaran. The relaxation which is permissible under para. (b) has to be in the subject concerned. In the Calendar of the University among the subjects prescribed for Master's degree both Navya Vyakaran and Prachin Vyakaran have been separately mentioned. They are separate subjects of study. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the Master's degree in Prachin Vyakaran. The relaxation which is permissible under para. 2 of Statute No. 11.01 contemplates a relaxation in regard only to the requirement of the candidates possessing First class or High Second Class degree (with an aggregate of more than 54 per cent of marks). It cannot, in our opinion, be available where the candidate does not possess the Master's degree in the subject concerned at all. Furthermore, from a perusal of the report of the selection committee (vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition) also it does not appear that the selection committee was relaxing the qualifications mentioned in cl. (b) of Statute No. 11.01 (1) on the ground of any thesis or published work of the petitioner in the subject concerned. All that the selection committee had to say was that as among the candidates who appeared before it none possessed the degree of Acharya in Prachin Vyakaran, the names of those holding the degree of Acharya in Navya Vyakaran were considered. From amongst these the petitioner was selected unanimously by the selection committee and recommended for appointment. This does not, in our opinion, amount to the selection committee having acted under para 2 of Statute No. 11.02. It may be noted here that even the doctorate which the petitioner possessed was in Vyakaran and not in Prachin Vyakaran. We, therefore, find no substance in the first point. 7. Coming to the second point, the position is that admittedly the petitioner did not possess the Master's degree in Prachin Vyakaran. In his written reply to the show cause notice, however, he raised a plea that the knowledge of Navya Vyakaran necessarily implied and pre-supposed knowledge in the subject of Prachsin Vyakaran also. The plea raised by the petitioner was highly technical one pertaining to pure academics. The Chancellor had to deal with this plea. Instead of consulting the authorities and texts on the subject himself he thought it, in our opinion quite rightly, proper to consult a few experts on the subject. The plea raised by the petitioner was highly technical one pertaining to pure academics. The Chancellor had to deal with this plea. Instead of consulting the authorities and texts on the subject himself he thought it, in our opinion quite rightly, proper to consult a few experts on the subject. Such an exercise undertaken by the Chancellor was neither more nor less than consulting the written texts or authorities on the subject to enable him to arrive at a proper decision in regard to a plea of such an academic nature as that raised by the petitioner. The opinion so obtained by the Chancellor was not an adverse evidential material which the principles of natural justice might have required to be communicated to the petitioner. As mentioned above the exercise undertaken by the Chancellor tantamounts to his consulting some textual authorities on the subjects. The petitioner had already been apprised in the show cause notice of the objection against his appointment namely that he did not possess the Master's degree in the subject concerned. The petitioner was free to meet this objection by giving such material as he might have had in support of his plea that though the petitioner did not possess the Master's degree in the subject concerned itself, the degree which he possessed was equivalent to the degree in the subject in question. In the premise, it must follow that the petitioner had been provided with full opportunity. 8. In support that the principles of natural justice were violated learned counsel for the petitioner cited three decisions reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379 : ( AIR 1981 SC 136 ); AIR 1957 SC 882 (paragraph 10) and 1967 SC 1269. These decisions were cited in support of the contention that the principles of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of not only adducing such evidence he relies but that the materials on which the opponent relies should also be made available to him so that he may have an opportunity of explaining the same. We have examined these decisions but find them of little assistance. The proposition enunciated in these authorities is well known, but it has ho application to the facts of the present case as, in our opinion, the Chancellor has not used any evidential material against the petitioner without apprising him of the same. 9. We have examined these decisions but find them of little assistance. The proposition enunciated in these authorities is well known, but it has ho application to the facts of the present case as, in our opinion, the Chancellor has not used any evidential material against the petitioner without apprising him of the same. 9. No other point was urged in support of this petition. 10. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but we make no orders as to costs.