JUDGMENT : Ravi S. Dhavan, J. The petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 are at issue* as to who ought to hold the post of Lecturer in (the department of Military Science at a College, in Azamgarh known as Shivli National College. The issue then i" if teachers are not qualified would not faith in higher education itself be eroded. 2. There was a leave vacancy at the aforesaid College on the post of a lecturer in Military Science. The person who held the post of lecturer, substantively was Ansar Khan. He would not be available for a period of three years. For this period the Committee of Management of this College set about to make an interim arrangement though the Committee of Management was totally conscious of the fact that the interim arrangement even could only be made provided the candidate holds the requisite qualifications in reference to the Statutes which were applicable. The College is affiliated lo the Gorakhpur University. The Statutes in reference to the context are under the head; ' Qualifications and appointment of teachers in Affiliated Colleges '. These ate foamed u/s 49 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The Statute in reference to the context is 11.13 and is reproduced below: 11.13 (1) In the case of any college affiliated with the University, the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts (except the Department of Pine Arts and Music) and the Faculties of Commerce and Science; namely: (a) An M. Phil degree or a recognised degree or a recognised degree beyond Masters level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work; and (b) Consistently good academic record with at least first or high second class Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University, in a relevant subject. 3. Four persons applied for the post totally conscious of the fast that the post itself was for a specified period. The Selection Committee considered and recommended the Respondent No. 4, Abdul Qayam. 4. The recommendation of the Selection Committee of 14 March 1986 was awaiting the approval or disapproval of the Vice Chancellor under sub Clause (11) ("> of Section 31 of the Act. The Selection Committee considered and recommended the Respondent No. 4, Abdul Qayam. 4. The recommendation of the Selection Committee of 14 March 1986 was awaiting the approval or disapproval of the Vice Chancellor under sub Clause (11) ("> of Section 31 of the Act. The Management of the College in accordance with sub Clause (b) of the aforesaid section is obliged to submit the recommendation of the Selection Committee with other relevant documents to the Vice Chancellor for approval. Cm this aspect the Vice Chancellor must convey his disapproval within one month otherwise the proviso to Sub-section (11) (p) aforesaid mentions that should the Vice Chancellor not convey disapproval within a period Of ode month from the date of receipt of document or does not express anything in reference to such an appointment then it would be deemed that approval has been accorded. On this technicality, the entire writ petition and the defence of the Respondent is based. 5. Section 31, in reference to the context of Sub-section (11) is reproduced below: 31. Appointment of Teachers (1)--(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (a) No teacher recommended by the; Selection Committee shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government) unless prior approval of the Vice Chancellor has been obtained. (b) The Management shall, as soon as possible, after the meeting of the Selection Committee, submit the recommendations of the Committee, along with other relevant documents to the Vice Chancellor for approval. (c) The Vice Chancellor, if he is satisfied that the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee does not possess the minimum qualifications or experience prescribed, or that the procedure laid down in the Act for the selection of the teacher has not been followed, shall convey to the Management his disapproval: Provided that if, the Vice Chancellor does not convey his disapproval within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the documents referred to in Clause (b) or does not send to the Management any intimation in connection therewith, he shall be deemed to have approval of the proposal. 6. 6. The petitioner contends that in reference to the qualifications which the contesting Respondent possesses and in comparison to what he possesses there is hardly any doubt as to who is better qualified to hold the post and if merits were actually to be considered then it is inconceivable that he could be rejected so lightly. 7. While this Court does not desire to recommend on who ought to be selected but it cannot help appreciating what the petitioner contends and his plea is not such that it could be rejected outright. There is much in what the petitioner has to contend in regard to the qualifications which he possesses as opposed to the qualifications which the contesting Respondent has. The qualifications of the two, the petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 along with the other candidates who were considered at that time are as below: s . n o. Name High School Inter B.A./B. Sc. M.A./M. Sc. Ph. D. 1. Abdul Qayum III 1/51% II/40% II/48% Nil 2. S.H. Rizve I 60% II 57% II 61% II 55% 2 Yrs Exp. 3. Km. Sheba Hasan I 63% II 56% II 51% I 61% Topper 4. Dr. Arun Kumar Rai I 63% II 51% II 55% II 53.8% Ph. D. (As given in Annexure VIII to the writ petition) 8. It is on record that while the Selection Committee selected the contesting Respondent, the Vice Chancellor disapproved the decision of the Selection Committee. The Act has conferred such a discretion on the Vice Chancellor for no other reason than that the standards of higher education are to be maintained; If this was not the intention then the legislature would not have conferred; in effect, a power of veto over the Selection Committee, in the Vice Chancellor. 9. On a technicality that the Vice Chancellor's approval did not reach within one month of the receipt of the record by him, there was a circumstance of deemed approval and the contesting Respondent with qualifications which do not meet with the standards prescribed, received an appointment letter. It is on record that Members 'of the Legislative Assembly also expressed their views to the Chancellor that they were not satisfied in the manner in which the appointment letter was issued to the contesting Respondent. 10. It is on record that Members 'of the Legislative Assembly also expressed their views to the Chancellor that they were not satisfied in the manner in which the appointment letter was issued to the contesting Respondent. 10. Against the decision of the Selection Committee the petitioner made a representation to the learned Chancellor of the University of Gorakhpur u/s 68 of the Act, aforesaid. The representation does not say under which section it was laid, but it could be under no other. The date of representation is 23 July, 1986 and is Annexure 8' to the writ petition. Against the decision of the Selection Committee, the petitioner, in his representation in effect submitted that as the Vice Chancellor has disapproved of the selection made, in reference to the context, the appointment so made may be quashed and a fresh selection ought to be considered. The petitioner specifically contended that on a mere technicality of a deemed approval under Sub-section (11) (c) the proviso, the Respondent No. 3 could not hold an appointment when in fact the Vice Chancellor had disapproved it. The Manager of the College apprehending that the disapproval of the Vice Chancellor may hold, also filed a representation before the Chancellor. The Manager of the College desired that the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 ought not to be upset and the Vice Chancellor's disapproval, ignored. 11. The matter came up before the learned Chancellor of the University of Gorakhpur. The issue was not considered on merits, and this is clear from the record. Before the learned Chancellor the issue ought to have been debated on the merits of the qualifications of candidates. The purpose of giving the Vice Chancellor, the over-riding powers and discretion to disapprove is in the interests of higher education to keep a check on the quality of teaching in higher education. The Vice Chancellor, in such matters is entitled to have his views considered on merits when a matter such as this is before the Chancellor. The period of one month obliges a Vice Chancellor to act on his disapproval, if indeed he has to, and if he does not permit the Selection Committee to push its appointment. 12. The Vice Chancellor, in such matters is entitled to have his views considered on merits when a matter such as this is before the Chancellor. The period of one month obliges a Vice Chancellor to act on his disapproval, if indeed he has to, and if he does not permit the Selection Committee to push its appointment. 12. On technicalities the learned Chancellor was of the view that the comments from the Vice Chancellor not having been received, and the disapproval having been set on record two days beyond one month as provided in the proviso to Sub-section (11) (c) as aforesaid, the decision of the Selection Committee must stand. 13. The decision is technical, but not in the interests of higher education and may set bad precedent.' What caused the delay of two days was not enquired and it is not that the Vice Chancellor did not have views. Evidently the two days delay was occasioned with every possibility that the Vice Chancellor's disapproval may be faulted on a technicality. Should the learned Chancellor have considered on merit, of the lis between the, two candidates before him, it would have been in keeping with the purpose of maintaining standards of higher education and compatible with the intention of Section 31 of the Act. In the appointment of a teacher and in the context of the entirety of Section 31, the Vice Chancellor has a very important position to play and has a say. The proviso to Sub-section (11), aforesaid, needs to be read in its entirety to appreciate that any communication in reference to the recommendations of the Selection Committee adverted to in Sub-clause (b) to Sub-section (11) aforesaid does not necessarily have to be disapproved. The Vice Chancellor may have a comment or advice or a caution to suggest. It is for this reason that the proviso gives the latitude to the Vice Chancellor to express beyond the technical 'disapproval' when it prescribes "or does not send to the management any intimation in connection therewith....". The reference to the words 'intimation' and 'therewith' is significant, it is regarding disapproval in Clause (b) of Sub-section (11). 14. Thus, though the Vice Chancellor ought to send his disapproval within a period of one month, this on the other hand ought not to be so strictly construed so as to prevent the Vice Chancellor from expressing something other than disapproval. 14. Thus, though the Vice Chancellor ought to send his disapproval within a period of one month, this on the other hand ought not to be so strictly construed so as to prevent the Vice Chancellor from expressing something other than disapproval. This opportunity to the Vice Chancellor to communicate is for the sole purpose of maintaining the standards of teaching and to ensure that there is no let in higher education. The dominant purpose is to uphold the quality of teaching and education and to prevent inordinate delay in the appointment of qualified teachers, Faith in the quality of higher education cannot be permitted to be shaken when there may be an issue that a candidate may not have been qualified to teach but continues to do so. 15. Thus, in the interest of justice and for faith in quality education if qualifications have been prescribed then they are meant to be adhered to. While this Court will not go into the process of selecting candidates but the merits of the controversy have gone unresolved and it cannot be said that the petitioner is without a stat able case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, a delay of two days at the hands of the Vice Chancellor is not so fatal that his disapproval can be ignored, so lightly. 16. The order of the learned Chancellor dated 30th March, 1987 (Annexure XI to the writ petition) is quashed. 17. This Court, thus, directs that the matter be remanded to the learned Chancellor, Gorakhpur University and notwithstanding the issue that the disapproval of the Vice Chancellor may be two days late, the learned Chancellor may reconsider the entire matter and on merits between the two candidates, and render his decision accordingly. 18. As the post itself is for an interim arrangement and is not likely to last beyond June, 1988 it would be appropriate if the learned Chancellor finds it convenient to render his decision within one month of the certified copy of this judgment being placed before him. Between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 4, if they so desire, it would be in keeping with the rule of natural justice that personal hearing be accorded to them by the learned Chancellor. 19. Between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 4, if they so desire, it would be in keeping with the rule of natural justice that personal hearing be accorded to them by the learned Chancellor. 19. One thing, however, is made clear that Respondent No. 4 whatever may be the reason, in pursuance of the decision of the Selection Committee, has discharged his functions as a teacher. It has been contended on behalf of the Respondent that since this issue had been before the Chancellor previously he has been denied salary. It is clarified that there is hardly any occasion to deny salary to the said Respondent. Thus, till the date of this decision the said Respondent is entitled to his salary, if he has taught. Thereafter, the person better qualified upon the Chancellor's decision will receive the requisite emoluments on discharge of functions. 20. In the light of the observations made above the petition succeeds, but as it is an order of remand and the Respondent has also received a clarification to his advantage for the payment of basic salary, there will be no order on costs.