JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The petitioner in this case was working on ad hoc basis as Principal of Sri Varshney Degree College, Aligarh, hereinafter called as 'the College'. He prays for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to the effect that if there is any order of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 resusing to interview the petitioner, that may be quashed and by a writ of mandamus the respondents be directed to hold interview of the petitioner for selection on the post of Principal of Post-graduate College in pursuance of advertisement No. 11 dated 14-2-1987 and after considering the candidature of the petitioner declare the result of selection thereafter. 2. The facts are put in brief compass. The petitioner's case is that he was called for interview for the post of Principal of Post-graduate College by the Commission but was not interviewed and without interviewing the petitioner interview of other candidates was concluded. The result of not holding his interview was that the petitioner was refused to be considered for the post of Principal. It is stated that interview had commenced from 6-9- 988 and ended on 13-9-1988. The Selection Committee is said to have submitted a list of selected candidates to the Secretary. The petitioner also was summoned to appear at the interview but on the date when he came for interview he is said to have filed an application to interview him on 13-9-1988 because on the appointed date he was said to be not feeling well. His request was granted and he was directed to appear on 13-9-1988 at 11 a.m. but on that date he was not interviewed. 3. The petitioner's case is that despite being fully qualified for consideration he was refused consideration and the respondents' case is that he was not qualified for being considered and therefore, he could not be interviewed though inadvertantly he was called for interview, 4. One Raj Kumar Upadhyaya had moved an application for being added as a respondent to the present petition. He is a selected candidate for the post of Principal. He had given option for being appointed in Sri Varshney College, Aligarh but his option was not considered and he was appointed in Ballia district. He is said to have filed a writ petition, being writ petition No. 6016, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8. 2. 1990. He had given option for being appointed in Sri Varshney College, Aligarh but his option was not considered and he was appointed in Ballia district. He is said to have filed a writ petition, being writ petition No. 6016, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 8. 2. 1990. It was held by the Division Bench that the Commission is not bound by the choice given by a particular candidate and it has its discretion to recommend a candidate for appointment in a College other than the one communicated by him. The choice given by Mr. Raj Kumar Upadhyaya was not enforceable as it would not cast any obligation on the Commission to appoint him in the College of his choice. In view of the order of the Division Bench it is not necessary to make Raj Kumar Upadhyaya as a party to the writ petition. His posting as a principal is a matter between him and the Commission and that matter is not before the Court in this writ petition. Therefore, I reject his application for being impleaded as a party as that will embarrass those proceedings because the scope of these proceedings is very limited as to whether the petitioner was qualified for being interviewed and as to whether his non-consideration for the post of Principal has affected his rights. 5. For appointment to the post of Principal the qualifications are laid down in the Statutes which are framed under the State Universities Act. Statute 11.14 (2) lays down the qualification for appointment of Principal for Post-graduate College. The Statute reads as under : "11.14 (2) Post-graduate College. 5. For appointment to the post of Principal the qualifications are laid down in the Statutes which are framed under the State Universities Act. Statute 11.14 (2) lays down the qualification for appointment of Principal for Post-graduate College. The Statute reads as under : "11.14 (2) Post-graduate College. - (a) consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record of all assessment throughout the academic career of a candidate) with first or high second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 per cent marks) Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college ; and (b) a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the college, with 7 years experience of teaching post-graduate classes or five years experience of principalship of a degree college: Provided that if a candidate possesses 10 years experience of teaching post-graduate classes or 20 years or more experience of teaching degree classes or seven year's experience of principalship of a Degree College or if he is or has been confirmed Principal of five years or more standing of any post-graduate college, the selection Committee may relax the requirement of doctorate degree : Provided further that 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 (a) " 6. It lays down educational qualification as also qualification of teaching experience. The academic qualification which is envisaged by the Statute must be had by a candidate which would indicate that throughout the academic career a candidate has a consistently good academic record with first or second class, that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54% marks, Mastet's Degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college. So by virtue of Statute 11.14 (2) (a) a candidate must have a consistently good academic record with first or high second class, that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54% marks and secondly he must have a Master's Degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college. So by virtue of Statute 11.14 (2) (a) a candidate must have a consistently good academic record with first or high second class, that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54% marks and secondly he must have a Master's Degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college. The academic qualification is relaxable 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 (a). There is no scope of relaxation of qualification in sub-clause (b) of Statute 11.14 (2). 7. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner that he was qualified for being appointed as Principal or that there was any relaxation granted in his favour. They also denied that the petitioner has the requisite teaching experience of 24 years. 8. It is stated that the petitioner has not passed his Intermediate examination but has wrongly manipulated to get a certificate with a view to mislead the respondents. It was argued that the petitioner has committed fraud and by fraud he has obtained a duplicate certificate of Intermediate though he has not passed Intermediate examination. The petitioner's case is also that after he had failed in Intermediate examination in 1958 he joined the Aligarh University in B.A. I, which was permissible and obtained the marks certificate of B.A. I. which was equivalent to Intermediate. In all academic records the petitioner's marks are less than 54% and in Intermediate/B. A. I. they are less than 47%. The petitioner has placed a long list of documents on record to show that he is sufficiently qualified to hold the post of Principal and could be considered for the said post. He submits that he only seeks consideration at this stage and would not pray for being selected. The respondents are said to have denied him a right of being considered which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, a writ of mandamus is also sought. 9. In the advertisement notice it was stated that candidates for the post of Principal must possess qualifications as prescribed under the' Statutes framed under the State Universities Act. The respondents are said to have denied him a right of being considered which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, a writ of mandamus is also sought. 9. In the advertisement notice it was stated that candidates for the post of Principal must possess qualifications as prescribed under the' Statutes framed under the State Universities Act. In the the bio-data form contained in Annexure-2, the petitioner has given his academic qualifications, research specialisations, the posts which he has held, teaching experience, research accomplishments and all the details in respect of the honours which he has received as a qualified person and a research scholar. Annexure-2 consists of a list of publications said to have been authored by the petitioner. Annexure-3 is advertisement notice. Among other conditions there is a condition which lay down that if there is no proof for qualification furnished by a candidate he would not be allowed to appear in the interview. Annexure-4 is the form submitted by the petitioner in pursuance.of the advertisement notice. His academic record is 46.9% marks in B. Sc. Part I, 51.5% marks in B.Sc., 522" in M.Sc. The petitioner has appended a chart giving his teaching experience. He has calculated his teaching experience as 24 years nine months. He claims the benefit of Agra University Statutes which prescribe that one years's teaching experience in Post-graduate Courses will be treated as one year ten months experience for degree courses. This is said on the basis of Agra University Hand-book, copy whereof is Annexure-8-k to the writ petition. He is said to have been a research officer for some years but he relies on Annexure-9 which is purported to be a decision of the Chancellor whereby the research scholar's job experience has been treated as teaching experience. The petitioner has while arguing the case stated there was implied relaxation in the qualifications which were prescribed by Statute 11.14 (2) (a) inasmuch as he was called for interview after the screening of the candidates was done by the Commission. Having been found qualified for being called for interview there Was a relaxation in the qualification. Therefore, he was entitled to be considered and if he was not considered the respondent Commission was bound to give reasons for not considering him. Mr. Having been found qualified for being called for interview there Was a relaxation in the qualification. Therefore, he was entitled to be considered and if he was not considered the respondent Commission was bound to give reasons for not considering him. Mr. Misra appearing for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner has not the qualification as provided under Statute 11.14(2) (a) because his academic record showed that he had not obtained 54% marks throughout his academic career but because he was called for interview, therefore, the Commission will be deemed to have relaxed his qualification in regard to the consistantly good academic record and refusing to interview him was arbitrary because no reason was given by the Commission for not interviewing him. The respondent Commission has filed two counter affidavits in the writ petition. In one affidavit it is stated that the petitioner had not the requisite teaching experience of 24 years. Therefore, he was not interviwed. The Commission is said to have directed the petitioner to produce a certificate in support of 24 years teaching experience in degree class and 15 years teaching experience in Post-graduate class. The petitioner is said to have requested the Commission to give him three years' credit of teaching to which the Commission did not agree. The petitioner had produced a certificate in which he had given 21 years teaching experience, which was delivered to the Commission on 13-9-1988. The rest of the paras are denied. It is stated that the petitioner was not qualified for being interviewed. In the other counter affidavit filed by the Commission it was stated that the petitioner does not fulfil the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Principal. In paragraph 3 a table is given showing his marks obtained in Intermediate/B.Sc. I.B. Sc. and M.Sc. Classes, which are definitely below the/prescribed marks envisaged under the Statute. The respondent Commission has relied on the Statutes of Agra University, which govern the seniority of the teachers. 10. The contention of the petitioner that by calling him for interview it would be presumed that the qualification in respect of his constantly good academic record of 54% stands relaxed is not pleaded in the writ petition. More stress is laid in the writ petition on the petitioner's teaching experience than the petitioner's constantly good record in his academic career. The contention of the petitioner that by calling him for interview it would be presumed that the qualification in respect of his constantly good academic record of 54% stands relaxed is not pleaded in the writ petition. More stress is laid in the writ petition on the petitioner's teaching experience than the petitioner's constantly good record in his academic career. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that by issuing interview letter to the petitioner there was an implied relaxation of any of his qualifications under Statute 11.14 (2)(a) of the Statutes. If there was a relaxation, the petitioner was not prevented to say so in the writ petition. Moreover, there cannot be implied relaxation unless the plea of relaxation is brought before the Commission and the Commission passes an order in express terms relaxing any of the qualifications of a candidate. Only one qualification was to be relaxed. That was consistantly good academic record of his educational career and for ordering relaxation the Commission had discretion- it was not obliged to relax any qualification. It could in its discretion relax the qualification provided the Selection Committee was of the view that research work of a candidate as evident from his published work was of a very high standard. So, for judging the standard of his published work the Commission was the sole Judge and not the Court. 11. It is very well settled that Court will not arrogate to itself the functions of selection committee or functions of an expert. The selection committee and the expert associated with it are enjoined to judge and assess the merits of candidates on the basis of their overall academic qualification and that qualification may be relaxed in its discretion, if in their opinion the published work of a candidate is of a very high standard. So the discretion which belongs to the selection committee or the expert cannot be encroached upon by the Court. The petitioner wants to presume that relaxation was given in his favour in respect of qualification of consistantly good academic record throughout his academic career. That presumption would not arise in this case nor is there any basis laid down in the writ petition on which such a presumption could be drawn. It is not known whether the petitioner had applied for relaxation of his qualification or not. That presumption would not arise in this case nor is there any basis laid down in the writ petition on which such a presumption could be drawn. It is not known whether the petitioner had applied for relaxation of his qualification or not. He Was asked to appear before the Selection Committee with his eyes open but he was not interviewed. He was conscious of the Statute also. Therefore, he was bound to seek relaxation and if the relaxation was refused without any basis or that question was not considered, the action of the Commission could be assailed if the Commission's action was contrary to the proviso to Statute 11.14 (2). But without his applying for relaxation and without having made a request for relaxation of his qualification this Court cannot presume that the petitioner's qualification with regard to the consistantly good academic record throughout his academic career was relaxed, which is a far-fetched inference that the petitioner wants this Court to draw. It is now well settled that if there are a number of candidates, power of the selection committee to screen the candidates and to invite the best among the lot has remained intact. In fact this power is recognised by the regulations also. 12. Regulation 6 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Procedure For Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983, empowers the Commission to hold preliminary screening on the basis of academic record and teaching and administrative experience in the case of post of Principal. 13. By having invited the petitioner to appear for interview it cannot be said that the procedure under Regulation 6 was followed by the-Commission. Atleast that is not stated in the writ petition. Therefore, no screening appears to have been done insofar as the petitioner's case was concerned by the Commission before a latter of interview was sent to him. It is stated that the interview letter was despatched to the petitioner inadvertantly. Even if any interview letter was sent to the petitioner that would not give him any right to seek consideration nor would that letter make him eligible for being interviewed if he did not have consistantly good academic record throughout his academic career. The petitioner does not base his claim consistantly good record. Even if any interview letter was sent to the petitioner that would not give him any right to seek consideration nor would that letter make him eligible for being interviewed if he did not have consistantly good academic record throughout his academic career. The petitioner does not base his claim consistantly good record. He is conscious that he does not have consistantly good academic record throughout his academic career but he has tried to rely on implied relaxation because a letter of interview was despatched to him. As already stated, this inference cannot be drawn because there is no factual basis laid down in the writ petition for drawing such an inference. It is nobody's case that preliminary screening under Regulation 6 of the selection procedure was conducted and thereafter interview letter were despatched to various candidates for being interviewed for the post of Principal. This was a factual plea which should have been asserted if the petitioner wanted to rely on this. Had this plea been raised, it would have provided an opportunity to the Commission to meet the plea and explain their point effectively. This Court cannot issue a direction to the Commission to relax any of the qualifications of the petitioner because it is the discretion of the Commission to do so in suitable cases after making their own assessment and judgment. As to which are the cases in which the Commission should relax the qualifications cannot be spelled out by this Court because that function belongs to the Commission. The Court would not tread upon a path which is not meant for its reading. The Court cannot be asked to make an entry into a arena which does not belong to it. However, that would not prevent this Court to make a direction to the Commission to consider the desirability of granting relaxation on the basis of over-all assessment and judgment of the published work of the petitioner. The discretion belongs to the Commission but the Court can only ask them to consiser the question in its discretion. 14. As to in which case qualification can be relaxed is a matter to be considered by the Commission. The discretion belongs to the Commission but the Court can only ask them to consiser the question in its discretion. 14. As to in which case qualification can be relaxed is a matter to be considered by the Commission. The selection conducted by the Commission with regard to the post of Principal cannot be said to be bad but whether the petitioner is eligible for being interviewed or not would depend upon the exercise of discretion by the Commission. They have first to consider the desirability of granting relaxation in regard to the qualification of consistantly good academic record of the petitioner. It is incorrect to say that the Commission has refused to relax the qualification or relaxed the qualification, In fact this point has not been considered by the Commission because the petitioner does not seem to have approached the Commission for relaxation of his qualification with regard to consistantly good academic record. 15. From the facts which emerge from the writ petition it can safely be held that the question of grant or relaxation in any of the qualifications under Statute 11.14 (2) (a) lies in the discretion of the Commission. That discretion is to be exercised after judging the relevant facts and circumstances of the case including the standard of the published work of a candidate. This Court cannot impose an obligation on the Commission to relax any of the qualifications under the said Statute in favour of any of the candidates in order to make him eligible for being considered. The interview letter addressed to the petitioner did not give him any right to appear in the interview if he was not eligible for being interviewed nor did it create any vested right in the petitioner to appear in the interview. The petitioner's non-consideration is not violative of his rights because he is not equally placed with those who have been accorded consideration from 6-9-1988 to 13-9-1988 by the Commission. He is a class apart whose academic record is not consistantly good throughout his academic career. He could have complained of discrimination if any person similarly circumstanced with him was granted consideration by the Commission for the post of Principal. The selection made by the Commission would not be bad merely because the petitioner was not interviewed. He is a class apart whose academic record is not consistantly good throughout his academic career. He could have complained of discrimination if any person similarly circumstanced with him was granted consideration by the Commission for the post of Principal. The selection made by the Commission would not be bad merely because the petitioner was not interviewed. Statute 11.14 cannot be given a go-by merely because the petitioner has been a good teacher after completion of his academic career and has visited foreign countries or has published many books. That may entitle him to claim preference over his equals but the basic qualification which the petitioner must have for consideration is provided in the Statute 11.14 of the Statutes. 16. The petitioner's teaching experience is also doubted by the respondents. However, it is for the Selection Committee to consider his case on relevant material and on the basis of the relevant statute whether credit for teaching experience can be given to him on account of his having been a teacher at post-graduate level is to be seen by the Commission. The Handbook of Agra University on which reliance is placed by the petitioner has been over-ruled but that Hand-book was in force till 1977. So from 1947 to 1977 whatever experience the petitioner had gained under that Hand-book whether that can be counted for teaching experience in the manner in which the petitioner wants it to be counted is to be considered by the Commission. 17. I would, therefore, without making any direction to the Commission leave it open to the petitioner to make a representation before the Commission for relaxation of his basic qualification under Statute 11.14 (2) (a) of the Statutes and substantiate his claim for having had 24 years of teaching experience. Such representation, if made before the Commission, may be considered by the Commission and after judging the case on the relevant material placed before it, the Commission may exercise discretion if in its opinion the requirements of the relevant Statute are satisfied. The discretion for assessing the standard on published work is that of the Commission. The teaching experience of 24 years as claimed by the petitioner also can be ascertained by the Commission on the relevant date or material which the petitioner is entitled to place before the Commission. The discretion for assessing the standard on published work is that of the Commission. The teaching experience of 24 years as claimed by the petitioner also can be ascertained by the Commission on the relevant date or material which the petitioner is entitled to place before the Commission. The Commission may decide the representation within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. 18. For the reasons stated above the writ petition is finally disposed of. No writ or direction in the nature oi certiorari or mandamus is issued to the Commission. However, if any representation is made by the petitioner before the Commission, that may be given consideration on merits in accordance with the relevant rules and law. If the Commission in its discretion relates any of the qualifications of the petitioner which renders him eligible under the relevant statute to seek consideration for selection to the post of Principal, he may be accorded such consideration by interviewing him within one month from the date of the decision given by the Commission on his representation. 19. No order as to costs.