JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal and R.K. Gulati, JJ. - Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Dr. S.P. Singh and Dr. S.K. Gupta have sought, amongst others, the following reliefs - (i) for quashing the examination held in November 1986 in M. S. Orthopaedics Course of the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad ; (ii) for mandamus to hold a fresh examination in M. S. Orthopaedics Course, and (iii) for directing respondents 1 and 2, that is, the Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad University and Dean Faculty of Medicine Principal, M. L. N. Medical College, Allahabad, not to give effect to the result of M.S. Orthopaedics Course Examination held in November 1986. 2. The petitioner No. 1, after passing M.B.B.S. examination, did one year of internship and thereafter one year of house Job in Orthopaedics. Fie was thereafter, admitted in M. S. Orthopaedics Surgery Course in January 1985 session. The petitioner No. 2 also, after passing M.B.B.S. Examination, did one year of internship and one year of house job in Orthopaedics. He was also thereafter admitted in Orthopaedics Surgery Course in 1985 Session. 3. Both of these petitioners were qualified to appear at the Post Graduate Examination of the year 1986 in M.S. Orthopaedic Surgery. For the examination of the year 1986, examiners were appointed by the Allahabad University. There are two versions with regard to the examiners. One version has been given by the petitioners, which is supported by Dr. R.C. Gupta, Professor and Head of the Department of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College in Orthopaedics, and the other version is given by Dr. Jayant Bajpai, Respondent 7. Dr. R. Gupta stated that the Board of Studies, which was headed by Dr. R.C. Gupta, Professor and Head of Department in the meeting held on 9-8-10-1985 decided for M. S. Orthopaedics Surgery Examination of 1986 that all the examiners would be teachers and doctors of out of the State, and, therefore, it recommended the following names: 1. Dr. S.K. Ray, Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College, Ratna. 2. Dr. S.S. Yadav, Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi. 3. Dr. V.P. Verma Professor and Head of Department of Medical College, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 4. Dr. R.N. Mittal, Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, 4. Dr. S.K. Ray, Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College, Ratna. 2. Dr. S.S. Yadav, Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi. 3. Dr. V.P. Verma Professor and Head of Department of Medical College, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 4. Dr. R.N. Mittal, Professor and Head of Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, 4. This proposal was sent to the Faculty of Board of Medicine and was approved by passing a resolution, which was to the following effect: (2) The Faculty Board considered the recommendation of the various Boards of Studies under the Faculty of Medicine with regard to the appointment of Examiners for 1986 Examinations. It was resolved that the recommendation of the Board of Studies which were available at the time of the meeting be accepted and the names of Examiner for the 1985 had 1986 examination be recommended to the Academic Council. It was further resolved that the Dean, Faculty of Medicine be authorised to accept the recommendation of such Board of Studies which were not available at the time of meeting and recommend to the Academic Council. It was also resolved that the clarification be sought from MCI with regard to the appointment of a L ensurer as a Examiner for the Examinations under Faculty of Medicine." 5. Dr. R.C. Gupta, however, stated that through the letter dated 8-11-1985, the Principal of the M. L N. Medical College, Allahabad, asked him for holding of another meeting of the Board of Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery, Dr. R.C. Gupta was dismayed by receiving the aforesaid letter. Before anything could be done, he received another letter dated 16-11-1985 from the Principal for sending of the names of the examiners for the year 1986 afresh. In this letter, with regard to the earlier resolution of the Board of Studies, it was stated by by the Principal that Dr. Jayant Bajpai. Respondent 7 who was Reader in the Orthopaedic Department was not agreed that all the examiner should be from outside the State. 6. On 5-5-1986, a letter was written to Professor R.P. Misra, Vice-Chancellor. Allahabad University, by Dr. R.C. Gupta, The relevant fact with regard to this controversy is mentioned at page 2 of Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit of Dr. R.C. Gupta. 6. On 5-5-1986, a letter was written to Professor R.P. Misra, Vice-Chancellor. Allahabad University, by Dr. R.C. Gupta, The relevant fact with regard to this controversy is mentioned at page 2 of Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit of Dr. R.C. Gupta. It reads as follows : "The Principal (not the dean Faculty Medicine) wrote me two letters to convene the meeting of Board of Studies in Orth, again. The opinion of Board of Studies was again the same (all external)." 7. On 3-4-1986 the Principal wrote a letter to the Registrar that the recommendation of the Board of Studies, discussed above, had been turned down by the Faculty, and the Faculty had asked him to revise the recommendation. Accordingly, the recommendation of the Principal was : "It is, therefore recommended to the University to reject the same and appoint Dr. J. Bajpai, 111 Reader in Orthopaedist as 2nd Internal Examiner for M.S. (Orth) and 3 other External as follows : 1. Professor J.N. Backkar, Head of Deptt. of Orthopaedics, K.G. Medical College, Lucknow. 2. Professor Satyanand, Head of Deptt. of Orthopaedics, G.S.V. Medical .College, Kanpur. 3. Professor U.S. Misra, Head of Deptt. of Orthopaedics B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. The papers may be got and moderated accordingly." 8. The petitioners counsel, who was supported by Sri R.P. Goel, appearing for Dr. R.C. Gupta, urged that the appointment of the examiners through the letter dated April 3, 1986, was illegal. It was urged that the Faculty of Medicine did not have power under the Statutes of the Allahabad University to make appointment of the examiners. That had to be initiated by the Board of Studies and had to be finalised by the Academic Council. It was contended that in fact, no meeting of the Faculty took place in which the examiners, mentioned above, had been appointed, and that the letter dated 3rd April, 1986, was not written in pursuance of any resolution. 9. Sri J.N. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 7, and Sri S.N. Upadhyaya, appearing for the Allahabad University, supported the stand of the respondents. 10. 9. Sri J.N. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 7, and Sri S.N. Upadhyaya, appearing for the Allahabad University, supported the stand of the respondents. 10. We witnessed a bitter battle between the two sides in this case and are unhappy to state that academicians of the status and position of the Principal of Medical College and the Head of the Department should have different version and different stands on the appointment of examiners, it is common knowledge that the endemic malaise of confront a list politicking has robbed many Universities of even the modicum of the intellectual temper involved in the pursuit of their basis educational mandate teaching and research. The fostering of vexatious disputes in a University or a Medical College often benumb the educational activity on the campus. It is our regret that there should be a dispute even with regard to the appointment of examiners. This can be due to absence of mutual respect among the teachers for each other. Lack of mutual respect is the root of crises. Teachers are supposed to subserve, and not sabotage, the educational system. However, we do not wish to give our judgment on the controversy as to which of the two versions relating to appointment of the examiners was correct, particularly when the decision on this controversy is not called for or required in the circumstances of the present case. 11. The petitioners appeared at the 1986 examination but could not succeed. They have not made only allegation of mala fide against the examiners. The controversy, therefore, whether they were examined by the examiners who were required to be appointed by the Board of Studies, is immaterial. Mere vague, flimsy, illusive suspicions cannot be permitted to form a ground of decision. The petitioners thus having appeared at the 1986 examination without any faintest objection, cannot be given the relief prayed for, 12. It may be stated here that at the time of hearing the petitioners' counsel conceded that he was not interested in getting the results of those who succeeded at the examination quashed. He conceded that this Court cannot also by acting at a super examination body declare the petitioners having passed the examination. It may be stated here that at the time of hearing the petitioners' counsel conceded that he was not interested in getting the results of those who succeeded at the examination quashed. He conceded that this Court cannot also by acting at a super examination body declare the petitioners having passed the examination. The only satisfaction which the petitioners thought they would get was that the examination of the year 1987 in which they are appearing may by order of the court be described as that of the year 1986. We find absolutely no justification for doing so. We wish to note a rule of warning given by the Supreme Court in J.P. Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University, AIR 1980, SC 2141 : 1981 UPLBEC 1 (SC) in the matters of interference of academic controversies that: "While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that Court should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. If the Chancellor or any other authority lessor in level decides a academic matter or an educational question the Court keeps its hands off " 13. We wish to note that despite the order of this Court dated 10-2-1987, neither has the University nor the Principal produced a copy of the resolution of the Faculty of Medicine on the basis of which appointment of examiners has been attempted to be justified. Non production of the resolution leads one to think that the letters were written by the Principal without any resolution having been passed by the Faculty of Medicine. It may be that the Principal was the Chairman of the Faculty of Medicine, but he could not make appointment of examiners without a resolution to that effect having been passed by the Faculty of Medicean. 14. We are constrained to observe that the Principal, Dr. S.R. Singh, caused the examiner's list suggested by the Board of Studies without following the procedure prescribed. This led to the confrontation in between himself and Dr. R. C. Gupta from the Head of the Institution. It is expected that such a situation should be avoided in the interest of all concerned. 15. We are informed at the time of hearing that the petitioners were appearing at. the 1987 examination. We find that the writ petition, in fact, has become infructous. R. C. Gupta from the Head of the Institution. It is expected that such a situation should be avoided in the interest of all concerned. 15. We are informed at the time of hearing that the petitioners were appearing at. the 1987 examination. We find that the writ petition, in fact, has become infructous. Neither could the relief of quashing the examination of the year i 9B6 be given nor that the results of the said examination be not given effect to. The only other relief claimed was that Respondents 1 and 2 be directed to hold a fresh examination in M. S. Orthopaedic Course. That has already been done. 16. We consequently, dismiss the writ petition under Chapter XXII, Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court.