JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - By a writ of certiorari the petitioner seeks to have the orders of the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor quashed. 2. Ganna Krishak Maha Vidyalaya, Degree, College, Shahganj, (hereinafter College for short) is affiliated to the University of Gorakhpur. A vacancy to the post of a Lecturer in the Department of Geography had not been filled up by a permanent incumbent since 1977. According to the U.P. State Universities Act, no appointment of Lecturer can be made without advertisement of the vacancy in at least three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in the State. Consequently the vacancy in question was duly notified and a Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with Section 31(4)(d) of the Act including two experts nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. The interview Was held on 15-3-1981. Although the petitioner did ,not possess the requisite minimum qualification but it was relaxed in his case by the Selection Committee under statute 11.13 (5) and his name was recommended for appointment. 3. The College forwarded necessary papers to the Vice-Chancellor for approval along with letter, dated 26-3-1981 which was duly received in the University on 9-4-1981. According to the petitioner, since no disapproval had been received from the University within a period of one month his appointment must [be deemed to have been approved in view of the proviso to Section 31(1)(c) and he was duly appointed as lecturer. The University sent the first letter in this connection only on 14-5-1981 which was followed by a few others. However, the Vice-Chancellor ultimately conveyed his disapproval on 17-8-1981. An attempt to seek its review met with failure on 2-1-1982. The petitioner then made a reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 which too was rejected after usual exchange of versions of the parties. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up with a prayer that the orders passed by the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor be quashed. 4. The two main grounds on which the validity of these orders is challenged are: - (i) The appointment of the petitioner must be deemed to have been approved because the Vice-Chancellor did not disapprove the appointment within one month. (ii) The Vice-Chancellor acted beyond his powers in reviewing the opinion of the experts and the Selection Committee as regards grant of relaxation of minimum qualification to the petitioner. 5. (ii) The Vice-Chancellor acted beyond his powers in reviewing the opinion of the experts and the Selection Committee as regards grant of relaxation of minimum qualification to the petitioner. 5. I must acknowledge the able assistance which the learned Counsel for the parties provided in analysing the various provisions involved in the case. 6. On the first question as to whether any letter had been sent by the University on 24-4-1981, the matter can be disposed of making a short reference to the own admission of the management which admitted having received such letter from the University in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit sworn by Paras Nath Yadava, Secretary of Committee of Management of the College in question. The petitioner on his part filed a photostat copy of the letter dated 11-8-1982 to the Principal of the College enquiring if the college had received letter No. 18023 at 24-4-1981 from the University. There are three endorsements on the left hand bottom portion of the letter, the first of which appears to have been made under the signatures of the principal asking the Head Clerk to report about the letter. The second endorsement below it purports to be the Head Clerk., report that no such letter had been received. The last one is merely the signature with Principals seal below it. The signature below the report was obviously meant to endorse the report. All the three were made on the name day viz., 11-8-1982. However, it is curious to find that while on the first endorsement the Principals signatures are in Hindi, the last one just above the principals seal is in English, The Principal or the Head clerk of the College have not filed any affidavit but since the Secretary of the Management Committee himself admits the receipt of this latter, it lends generous support to the stand of the University. There is another aspect of the matter. The intimation which the Vice-Chancellor is required to send under the proviso to Section 31(11) is to the Management of the institution and not to the Principal. It must, therefore, have been received by the Management and the Secretary was the proper authority to either admit or deny its receipt. 7. There is another aspect of the matter. The intimation which the Vice-Chancellor is required to send under the proviso to Section 31(11) is to the Management of the institution and not to the Principal. It must, therefore, have been received by the Management and the Secretary was the proper authority to either admit or deny its receipt. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that even in the subsequent letter of the University, dated 14-8-1981 there is no mention at all of the earlier one and this strongly suggest that letter of 24-4-1981 was not sent at all. It is true that normally when letters on a subject are sent in succession it is usual to refer to the earlier ones but this is not an inflexible rule. This fact alone is not enough to prove that University had not sent any letter on 24-4-1981. To resolve any doubt in the matter, during the hearing of the petition. I had directed the University to file a supplementary counter-affidavit annexing all the relevant documents so as to put this controversy at test. The University consequently filed an affidavit on 23-3-1988 annexing photostat copies of various documents and of the relevant nothings etc., made from time to time. The original record was also brought to the Court and was made available for perusal by the learned Counsel for the parties also. From these documents it appears that on receipt of recommendation of the Selection Committee it was discovered that the documents sent had several deficiencies. After obtaining necessary sanction from the higher authorities, a draft letter was prepared and sent for dispatch and it was letter No. 18032, dated 24-4-1981. In the meantime the Principal of the College happened to come to the University and he was asked to remove the deficiencies which he did. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged that there was some discrepancy in the dispatch number of the letters and he has referred to one letter in connection with some other candidate which is of a subsequent date but bears an earlier dispatch number. However, the original dispatch registrar was seen from which it is amply explained that the date in that letter had been wrongly mentioned on account of some clerical mistake which was the stand taken by the University. 9. However, the original dispatch registrar was seen from which it is amply explained that the date in that letter had been wrongly mentioned on account of some clerical mistake which was the stand taken by the University. 9. Thus, on a consideration of all the above facts, it is difficult to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor had the record before them and it cannot be said that any of the two orders impugned herein suffer from any illegality on this ground. 10. Coming now to the second ground which is more contentions. The submission is that under Section 31 (11) (c), the Vice-Chancellor has a very limited jurisdiction when disapproving appointment of a candidate recommended by the Selection Committee, and he can neither look into the question of relaxation granted to a candidate by the Selection Committee nor can he sit in judgment over its assessment about the quality of his published work. 11. Before proceeding further, it would be convenient to have the relevant port ions of the Sections itself first. "31. Appointment of Teachers. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the teachers of the University and the teachers of .an affiliated or associated college (other than a college me attained exclusively by the State Government) shall be appointed by the Executive Council or the management of the affiliated or associated college, as the case may be, on the recommendation of a Selection in the manner hereinafter provided. 4 (a) The Selection Committee for the appointment to other teachers of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government) shall consist of - (i) the Head of the Management or a member of the Management nominated by him who shall be the Chairman : (ii) the principal of the college and are other teacher of the college nominated by the principal : (iii) two experts to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. Provided that in the case of a college where there is no principal or other teacher available for berm a member of the Selection Committee sub-clause (ii), the remaining members referred to in this clause shall constitute such Selection Committee : Provided further that in me case of College established and administered by a minority referred to in clause ( I) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the experts shall be nominated by the Management from out of a panel of five experts suggested by the Vice-Chancellor. 5 (b) The Board of each Faculty shall maintain a standing panel of sixteen or more experts in each subject of study, and every expert to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (4) shall be person whose name is borne on the panel. (6) No recommendation made by a Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (4) shall be considered to be valid unless one of the experts had agreed to such selection. (7) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), the majority of the total membership of any Selection Committee shall form the quorum of such Committee-. (6) No recommendation made by a Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (4) shall be considered to be valid unless one of the experts had agreed to such selection. (7) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), the majority of the total membership of any Selection Committee shall form the quorum of such Committee-. (8) (a) In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University, if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his decision shall be final : Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a decision on the recommendations of the Si lection Committee within a period of four months from the date of the meeting of such Committee, then also the matter shall stand referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be final: (b) In the case of appointment of a teacher of an affiliated or associated college, if the Management does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Management shall refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his decision shall be final : Provided that in the case of appointment of a teacher of an affiliated or associated college established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, if the Management does not agree with the recommendation made by a Selection Committee, the Management shall have the right to appoint another Selection Committee and the decision of that Committee shall be final; (10) No selection for any appointment under this section shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at least three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. 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. (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 approved of the proposal. 12. What Sri Jain has submitted is that the power of the Vice-Chancellor in a situation of this kind is very limited. He has jurisdiction to disapprove the recommendation only on Selection Committee did not possess minimum qualifications by the experience as prescribed a the procedure laid down for Selection of a teacher had not been followed. In the instant case, however, we arc not concerned with the second aspect. The entire argument rests on the question whether the Vice-Chancellor had the power to reappraise and reexamine the question of minimum qualification of the selected candidate. 13. Minimum qualifications are prescribed by the University statutes, which may be extracted below : - "11.13 (1) In the case of any college affiliated with the University, the following shall be the minimum qualifications tor the post of a Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts (except the Department of Fine Arts and Music) and the Faculties of Commerce and Science, namely ; (a) an M.Phil, degree or a recognised degree beyond Maarwea level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work; (b) consistently good academic record with at least first or high second class Masters degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University, in a relevant subject. (2) .............(deals with appointment of Lecturer in the Faculty of Education) Note be me 14. (2) .............(deals with appointment of Lecturer in the Faculty of Education) Note be me 14. Statute 11.0 (7) (d) defines the expression "consistently good academic record thus : "a candidate (other than a candidate tor Lectureship in the Faculties of Education and Law) having obtained either an average of 55 per cent marks in the two examinations prior to Masters degree that is to say Intermediate and Bachelors degree examination (irrespective of the marks obtained in any of the two examinations), or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations, separately, is said to have consistently good academic record. 15. Statute 11.13 (5) deals with the power of the Selection Committee to relax the minimum qualifications and is as under : - "If the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high standard, it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or sub-clause (b) of clause (1) as the case may be. 16. Thus from the above it will appear that for Selection post of a teacher in a Degree College, the candidate must possess : (a) M.Phil degree ; or a degree beyond Masters level ; or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work ; and (b)(i) consistently good academic record with at least first or high second class masters degree ; or (ii) an equivalent degree of a foreign University in a relevant subject. What is necessary therefore, is that the candidate must possess both the qualifications (a) and (b) above and if he does not possess any one of them, he would not be qualified for the post. Now, in the instant case, it remains undisputed that the petitioner neither possessed M Phil degree nor a recognised degree beyond Masters level. We are, therefore, left to consider only the third alternative i.e., published work indicating his capacity for independent research work. 17. Similarly for clause (b) there are two alternatives; i.e., either a consistently good academic record with at least first or high second class Masters degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in the relevant subject. The petitioner does not profess to possess any degree of a foreign University. 17. Similarly for clause (b) there are two alternatives; i.e., either a consistently good academic record with at least first or high second class Masters degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in the relevant subject. The petitioner does not profess to possess any degree of a foreign University. The petitioner himself admits that he did not possess a consistently good academic record in terms of Statute 11.01 (7) (d) since he had secured only 49-40 per cent marks in the lntermedidate Examination and in aggregate also he could not manage 55 per cent marks. He, however, admittedly possessed a high second class Masters degree. 18. In order to establish that the petitioner possessed the requisite minimum qualification, he must establish that he had to his credit published work indicating his capacity for independent research work, for purposes of sub-clause (a) and that he had a consistently good academic record for sub-clause (b). The petitioner, however, maintains that the Selection Committee had relaxed the minimum qualification in his case in view of very high standard of his published work as provided under Statute 11.13 (5). The said provision only authorises the Selection Committee to relax the prescribed minimum qualification for the purposes of sub-clause (b) of clause (1). The Committee however has no power to relax the of sub-clause (a) which remain inviolable. The candidate must, therefore, possess either of the three alternative qualifications as prescribed in that sub clause. Curiously the Selection Committee has nowhere mentioned that the published work of the petitioner, was such as indicated his capacity to do independent research work. The recommendation of the Selection Committee merely refers to the relaxation granted by it in respect of clause (1) (a) i.e., regarding consistently good academic record. Thus the fact that the petitioner did not possess any of the three alternative qualifications laid down in Statute 11.13 (l)(a) would be fatal as the petitioner cannot claim that he was possessed of requisite minimum qualifications even if we assume that he did possess the qualification laid down in sub-clause (b) in the face of relaxation granted to him. 19. The law also requires that the Vice-Chancellor should satisfy himself that the candidate recommended be the Selection Committee was possessed of minimum qualification or experience as prescribed i.e. both under clause (a) and clause (b) of the Statute. 20. 19. The law also requires that the Vice-Chancellor should satisfy himself that the candidate recommended be the Selection Committee was possessed of minimum qualification or experience as prescribed i.e. both under clause (a) and clause (b) of the Statute. 20. It is urged that once the relaxation has been granted by the Selection Committee, it is not open to the Vice-Chancellor to examine that matter ever again. Sri Jain has advanced two arguments in support of this contention. Firstly, he contends that at least two experts are nominated on the Selection Committees and they are supposed to be experts in the same field in which the Selection is to be made. Even though the Vice-Chancellor may be a man of great achievements and academic accomplishments and though admittedly he occupies a very high position in the field of academics yet education being a very vast area every person is neither supposed to know all nor is he expected to be an expert in every discipline of education. He cannot, therefore, sit in judgment over the view of the two experts, one of whom at least must have agreed with the recommendation made. According to him when the experts are placed on a panel, it is after scrutiny and only when they have been found to possess profound knowledge of subject that their names are empanelled. The assessment made by those experts about the quality of research done by a candidate must, therefore, carry a lot of weight and the Vice-Chancellor can have no jurisdiction to reverse the same. Secondly Sri Jain submits that the procedure adopted by the Vice-Chancellor in reappraising the published work was not in accordance with law because he could not seek the assistance of any expert outside the panel for this purpose. 21. So far as the first submission is concerned, the argument has but a limited merit On examination of various provisions of Section 31 we will discover that the , Chancellor possesses much wider powers than that the petitioner contends that he possesses. Section 31 envisages two situation after a name is recommended by the Selection Committee. In the first situation the Committee of Management may disagree with the recommendations made. Section 31 envisages two situation after a name is recommended by the Selection Committee. In the first situation the Committee of Management may disagree with the recommendations made. In that case, Section 31(8)(b) would apply which provides that the Management shall refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor along with the reasons for which it disagrees with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, in that event, the Vice-Chancellor shall decide the question and his decision will be final. What kind of objections can be raised by the Management is not prescribed but a plain reading of the above provision will show that it can take every possible kind of objection for its disagreement. Such disagreement can be on the question of minimum qualification possessed, relaxation being granted on sufficient grounds or in some cases on the basis of suppression of material facts etc. If the Managements objection is that relaxation in minimum qualification had been wrongly granted and there were other better qualified persons available then, in that event, the Vice-Chancellor will have to go into that question and to do so his will also have to reappraise the quality of published work of the candidate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was, however, unable to reply to a query on this point from the Court during arguments. 22. The second situation can be when the management agree with the recommendation. In that case also, the papers have to be sent to the Vice-Chancellor along with the recommendation and other relevant documents for his approval under Section 31 (1)(b) of the Act. when these papers have been received, the Vice-Chancellor is required to satisfy himself (1) that the candidate possesses minimum qualification and experience, and (2) that the procedure laid down for the selection has been followed. While examining the first question, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor will have to look into the qualifications possessed by a recommended candidate in the light of the minimum qualification as laid down by the University Statute. Obviously in a case of this nature, if a candidate does not possess minimum qualification but his name has been recommended by the Selection Committee and accepted by the Management, the Vice-Chancellor will be within his powers to disapprove the same. This is not disputed by the petitioner. Obviously in a case of this nature, if a candidate does not possess minimum qualification but his name has been recommended by the Selection Committee and accepted by the Management, the Vice-Chancellor will be within his powers to disapprove the same. This is not disputed by the petitioner. However, in a case where the recommend candidate acquired minimum qualifications on the basis of certain relaxation granted by the Selection Committee the question will again arise whether the Vice Chancellor can look into it or not In my opinion, the Vice-Chancellor will be fully justified and will have full authority to look into the question whether the candidate possessed minimum qualification and in doing so he may also have to look into the question whether the relaxation granted to him was justified considering the quality of candidates published work. It is certainly true that the Vice-Chancellor is not an expert in all the fields of academic pursuits, but certainly he occupies an important position and legislature has reposed faith in him that in discharge of his duties he will act in accordance with the best of his ability. It cannot, therefore, be said that merely because in the opinion of the two experts on the Selection Committee, the work of the petitioner was found to be of such a standing as to entitled him to relaxation in his minimum qualifications, the same cannot be reversed by the Vice-Chancellor on a reappraisal of the quality of published work. It is certainly a matter of propriety and I have no doubt that the Vice-Chancellor must have considered it while deciding to have the matter reappraised before disapproving the appointment. 23. In a similar situation, in the case of appointment of a University teacher, Justice B.D. Agarwal had occasion to say this in the case Dr. Mathura Prasad Singh v. The Chancellor, 1984 UPLBEC 68 : "The submission that the recommendation of the Selection Committee is so sacrosanct that this may not be touched even by the Chancellor despite his conviction that the assessment is faulty, is unsupported either by the text of the Statute or the spirit thereof. The Chancellor is at the apex of the body corporate, that is, the University. He is assumed to be the Export of experts and the law reposes unmixed confidence in his decision which, of course, remains subject to the supervisory writ jurisdiction of the Court. The Chancellor is at the apex of the body corporate, that is, the University. He is assumed to be the Export of experts and the law reposes unmixed confidence in his decision which, of course, remains subject to the supervisory writ jurisdiction of the Court. In the legitimate exercise of his jurisdiction the Chancellor may very well decline to accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee." 24. It may be mentioned here that the Chancellor in the case of a University teacher occupies the same position as a Vice-Chancellor vis-a-vis appointment of a teacher of a College affiliated to the University. The principle enunciated in that case, therefore, is fully applicable in the present case in so far as the appointment of the petitioner was concerned. 25. We may now proceed to the second argument. In R.Y. Shukla v. Chancellor, 1982 UPLBEC 599, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the provision under Section 31 of the Act observed as under "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 be thought it, in our pinion 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 to his consulting some textual authorities on the subjects." 26. In the present ease also the said observations are very relevant because here also the Vice-Chancellor consulted other experts in order to form an opinion as to whether the published work of the petitioner was of such a quality as to entitle him to seek relaxation in the minimum qualification prescribed. 27. In the present ease also the said observations are very relevant because here also the Vice-Chancellor consulted other experts in order to form an opinion as to whether the published work of the petitioner was of such a quality as to entitle him to seek relaxation in the minimum qualification prescribed. 27. To put the matter differently, according to the comparative statement about the qualification of various candidates called for the interview, the petitioner was outside the field of eligibly since he did not possess the minimum qualification on prescribed by Statute 11.13 (1) (b). It was only by virtue of relaxation granted to him that the petitioner became eligible. The act of granting relaxation could not be said to be an independent act because from out of the list of candidates called for interview, only those were entitled to be considered as possessed the minimum qualification. Since the petitioner was outside the, field or eligibility initially and was included only because of relaxation, the Vice-Chancellor cannot be procured from considering whether , or not relaxation given by the Selection Committee was justified on the basis of the quality of his published work. 28. The point canvassed by the petition if accepted would lead to an analogous situations because while under Section 31 (8)(b) the decision of the Vice-Chancellor is final, yet, in a slightly different situation is, when the Management Committee agrees with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Powers of the Vice-Chancellor will stand drastically reduced. In both the situations the Vice-Chancellor's decision has been given finitely. The scope of the Vice-Chancellor's powers cannot stand curtailed in cases falling under clause 11(c) when considering whether the candidate possessed the minimum qualification or not. If the Vice-Chance for can look into the reason for granting relaxation under clause 8(b) he can certainly do the same in the cases covered by sub-clause (11)(c). I do not see any good or plausible reason for making any distinction of the kind suggested. To me, therefore, it appears that when the Vice-Chancellor has the necessary power to satisfy himself that the candidate possessed minimum qualification, and in doing so he can also examine whether the Selection Committee had granted relaxation on proper grounds even though this may involve appreciation or re-appraisement of his published work. 29. Thus in view of what has been said above. 29. Thus in view of what has been said above. I am clearly of the view that firstly the petitioner was not possessed of the qualifications laid down in Statute 11.13 (l)(a) and secondly the Vice-Chancellor was competent to reassess quality of his published work and would differ from the view of the Selection Committee is this regard. 30. During the arguments, an attempt was made to urge that no papers had been published by the petitioner and that only typed copy had been submitted by him. An attempt was also made to point out that the research work attributed to the petitioner was in fact the joint work of several and was not an independent work. Since these points were not raised earlier. I do not think it appropriate to permit the parties to address on these points. 31. On the question as to what importance should be attached to the recommendations of the Selection Committee the petitioners learned Counsel referred to my own decision in Dr. R.C. Pantle v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, 1982 UPLBEC 669, particularly to an observation made therein in Paragraph 27 of the Report. In that case the question that arose was that the candidate did not possess doctorate degree but he had equivalent published work to his credit. The question was as to who will decide whether a particular published work of the candidate is equivalent to doctorate degree. It was in this context that it was held that the Selection Committee alone is competent to decide this because it consists of experts on that very subject. It was further observed that it is only where it is possible to draw a distinct line on the basis of minimum qualification laid down that it may be possible for one to say that the person possesses minimum qualification or not. But where this is not possible, the Selection Committee alone should be held to be the final authority to decide whether the candidate possessed the minimum qualification. 32. However, it must not be forgotten that in that case the Court was considering the powers of the Chancellor under Section 68 which are couched in a different language than the powers which are exercised by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 31(11). 32. However, it must not be forgotten that in that case the Court was considering the powers of the Chancellor under Section 68 which are couched in a different language than the powers which are exercised by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 31(11). Under Section 68, the Chancellor can exercise the power in cases (a) where any person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be (i) member of any authority or (ii) member of any other body of the University. He can also see whether any decision of (i) any authority, or (ii) officer of the University is in conformity of the Act or statute, Ordinance made from time to time. These powers are not exactly the same which the Vice-Chancellor exercised in the aforementioned provision. The case relied upon, therefore, does not really help the petitioner in this case. 33. From the above discussion, it is thus clear that the Vice-Chancellor did have power to took into the question as to whether the petitioner did possess minimum qualifications, for being selected and in doing so he could also look into the question whether the relaxation in respect of minimum qualification had been rightly made by the Section Committee. Since the Vice-Chancellor has acted within his powers conferred upon him. I no dot find that the orders impugned herein suffer from illegality or manifest error of law. 34. In the result, the writ petition, fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties however, are left to bear their own costs.