M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was taken for hearing by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Accordingly, I have heard them. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has called in question the legality and correctness of the selection of respondents 4 and 5 made in notification, Annexure-D , No. Kmio/ac/1/92, dated 1-1-1992, for admission to m. ch. (surgical oncology) course for the year 1992-93. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is as follows: (A) grant him a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the selection notification No. Kmio/ac/1/92, dated 1-1- 1992 (Annexure-D) in so far as it relates to selection of 4th and 5th respondents for being admitted to the m. ch. (surgical oncology) course for the academic year 1992-93 ). (B) issue a writ of mandamus/any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to admit the petitioner to m. ch. (surgical oncology) course for the academic year 1992-93 or in the alternative to publish in the pre-asscssment marks list, marks secured in the written examination, conduct clinical examination and interview and then publish the selected list by an alien selection committee members, who should be other than the present selection committee members, who have issued Annexure-D , and (C) grant such other costs and reliefs, which this Hon'ble court may deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: respondent 1-institute has been offering several courses including m. ch. (surgical oncology) for the last few years. Similarly this year i. e. , 1992-93 also it issued notification calling for applications for admission to various courses including the course known as m. ch. (surgical oncology ). The said notification came to be issued on 13-11-1991. Prescribing the last date for submitting applications on 16-12-1991. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a surgeon by profession having passed m. b. b. s. , m. s. , in general surgery and m. n. a. m. s. he had been working earlier in st. John's medical college, Bangalore. Prescribing the last date for submitting applications on 16-12-1991. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a surgeon by profession having passed m. b. b. s. , m. s. , in general surgery and m. n. a. m. s. he had been working earlier in st. John's medical college, Bangalore. He also worked there as a lecturer, assis- tant professor and associate professor and was also recognised as one of the best surgeons at st. John's medical college hospital. According to him, he also worked as examiner for m. b. b. s. course of Bangalore university and m. s. course at the university at Madras. He further states that he is one of the recognised leading surgeons at mallya appollo hospital, yellamma dasappa hospital and at various nursing homes of Bangalore and he is also one of the consultants at medinova, Bangalore. According to him, he has operated many cases of oncology and he has got greatest aspiration and intention to become one of the best surgical oncologists. In pursuance of the notification dated 13-11-1991, he submitted his application well in time for m. ch. (surgical oncology) course. Annexure-A is the copy of the prospectus issued to him by respondent 1. It contains several details including method of selection for admission to various courses. The method of selection as indicated in prospectus would be depending upon the performance of the candidates in four phases (a) pre-assessment, (b) multiple choice questions entrance examinations, (c) viva voce examination and (3) clinical examination with viva voce. It is stated that even during the previous selection, the same method bad been adopted by respondent 1 and the norms adopted for the last selection would be the same for this year also i. e. , 1992. Accordingly, having regard to the method adopted last year, the marks allotted by respondent 1 for the purpose of selection were 25 for pre- assessment, 25 for multiple choice questionnaire entrance examinations, 25 for clinical examination and 25 for viva voce examination. In other words, the petitioner believed that the same method would be adopted this year also for the purpose of selection for admission to m. ch. (surgical oncology ). In other words, the petitioner believed that the same method would be adopted this year also for the purpose of selection for admission to m. ch. (surgical oncology ). The petitioner states that, according to the time schedule annexed to the official memorandum, annexurc-b, the date to announce the pre-assessment list on the notice board was 18-12-1991; but respondent 1 did not do so for the reasons best known to it. Even the written examination scheduled to be held on 26-12-1991 was postponed to 30-12-1991. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for the written test on 30-12-1991 when he was informed that he should appear for the interview for clinical test including viva voce on 31-12-1991. He has produced a copy of the interview intimation, Annexure-C , which states that the interview was scheduled to be held on 31-12-1991 in respondent 1-institute. Accordingly, the petitioner approached respondent 1, but, to his dismay and surprise, he was denied opportunity to participate in the cinical examination and viva voce. According to the petitioner, respondent 1 did not assign any reason for doing so. On the other hand, on the next day i. e. , on 1-1-1992 respondent 1 published the names of the selected candidates. A copy of the selection list is produced at Annexure-D. His name was missing in the list of selection. Hence this petition. ( 4 ) SOME of the grounds taken to assail the selection made by respondent 1 are as follows: i) respondent 1 did not conduct the selection of the candidates for admission to m. ch. (surgical oncology) as per the norms and regulations prescribed by the university and the procedure followed in the previous years. Therefore, the deviation from the earlier method of selection vitiates the selection of this year. Ii) the change of method of selection and also alteration in the marks allocated for each subject have been neither disclosed in the prospectus nor informed to the candidates. According to the statement of objections filed by respondent 1, the altered marks of each subject are as follows: i) pre-assessment 5 marks ii) performance of the candidate at the written examination 50 marks iii) clinical examination 25 marks iv) viva voce test 20 marks total 100 marks according to the petitioner, this change should have been mentioned in the prospectus and intimated to the candidates. Having failed to do so, respondent 1 violated the regulations of the university and the prescription of the above marks for m. ch. (surgical oncology) being the part of the regulations right from the beginning, violation of the same renders the selection ineffective, iii) though the petitioner was intimated by Annexure-C to appear for clinical and viva voce test on 31-12-1991, he was not allowed to appear for the examinations on that day. Hence, on this ground also, according to him, the selection vitiates. Iv) though, according to time schedule annexed to the official memorandum, annexure-b, issued along with the prospectus, annexure-a, the preassessment mark list was to be announced on the same day on 18-12-1991 on the notice board, it was not done and though the written examination was scheduled to be held on 26-12-1991, it was postponed to 30-12-1991. Thus, here also respondent 1 failed to comply with the rules and regulations as seen from the prospectus and the official memorandum, annexure-b, which is part of the prospectus. V) respondent 1 failed to assess the qualification and experience of the petitioner and if the pre-assessment of the candidates had been done in the method adopted in the previous years and as stated in the prospectus, the petitioner would have secured far more higher marks than that of respondents 4 and 5 and in order to favour respondents 4 and 5, intentionally respondent 1 deviated from the earlier method of selection and selected respondents 4 and 5 by adopting altogether a different mode of selection. Therefore, the selection was bad in law. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the petitioner has alleged mala fides against respondent 1 stating that the father of respondent 5 being one of the eminent oncologists in India and member of the all India medical association and one of the office bearers of the association of surgical oncologists in india, influenced respondent 1 to select respondent 5 and hence respondent 5 was selected out of the way, he has not impleaded Dr. Ananth, director of respondent 1-institute by name or any other person to prove the mala fides. In the absence of the persons against whom the mala fides have been alleged, it is not possible for this court either to consider them in this petition or to record a finding thereon. Therefore, I refrain from considering the said mala fides alleged. Ananth, director of respondent 1-institute by name or any other person to prove the mala fides. In the absence of the persons against whom the mala fides have been alleged, it is not possible for this court either to consider them in this petition or to record a finding thereon. Therefore, I refrain from considering the said mala fides alleged. ( 6 ) IN support of the grounds taken in the writ petition, the petitioner has produced certain documents. I perused them. ( 7 ) A detailed statement of objections has been presented on behalf of respondent 1 with an affidavit sworn to by Dr. Ananth, director of respondent 1-institute. In the statement of objections, respondent 1 has admitted that for the current year, there was deviation from the previous method of selection as the academic committee headed by the director of respondent 1-institute was of the opinion that there should be a change of allocation of marks and that accordingly, marks were allocated for each category as stated above instead of 25 marks for each category. It is further stated therein that this decision was taken earlier to the conduct of the examinations as it was felt necessary for proper objective assessment for the selection of candidates. To support this stand, Dr. Ananth has stated on oath that the procedure that was followed invariably from the year 1989 is that after pre-assessment and the written examination, a procedure of shortlisting had been followed viz. , the candidates would be called for interview in the proportion of 1:5 i. e. , if there are two scats to be filled up, 10 candidates would be called for clinical examination and viva voce based on the total number of marks secured in pre-assessment and written examination. He has stated that the same procedure had been followed for the year 1991. In the additional statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent 1, again it has been emphasised that the Bangalore university has not prescribed any guidelines and methods of selection for the oncology course, and hence reasonable process of selection had to be found in accordance with law by respondent 1. It is further stated that the method of selection as has been done in the instant case was decided by the academic committee on 19-10-1991 and the said decision was approved by the director of respondent 1-institute on 21-10-1991. It is further stated that the method of selection as has been done in the instant case was decided by the academic committee on 19-10-1991 and the said decision was approved by the director of respondent 1-institute on 21-10-1991. It is further stated that similar method has been followed by the prestigious institute like all India institute of medical sciences, New Delhi. The objective assessment, according to respondent 1, is that the faculty of the department shall judge the suitability of the candidates keeping in view the practical knowledge of the subject, ability to attain high academic level in a particular discipline and aptitude for research and teaching. Even in sanjay gandhi institute of medical sciences, lucknow and all India medical institute, chandigarh, the procedure of taking into consideration past performance viz. , pre-assessment has been altogether discontinued or has been relegated to a minor position. This is because it was found to be not an effective criterion for assessment of suitability and aptitude of a candidate for research institute of the present nature. Therefore, keeping in view this trend in the major institutes, the academic committee took a decision on 19-10-1991, which was approved by the director of the 1st respondent on 21-10-1991, to modify the previous method of selection regarding allotment of marks. ( 8 ) BUT very surprisingly, though a detailed statement of objections followed by additional statement of objections and a personal affidavit sworn to by the director of respondent-institute have been filed, respondent 1 has nowhere stated that the changed method of selection has been published as a part of the prospectus or intimated to the candidates concerned well in time. In other words, the method of selection having been changed for the first time this year, the same has not been communicated to the candidates muchless the petitioner. ( 9 ) RESPONDENTS 4 and 5 have supported the stand taken by respondent 1 in the arguments advanced opposing the writ petition. ( 10 ) SRI U. L. Narayana rao, learned counsel for respondent 1 mainly argued that the changed method of selection did not either vitiate the selection of the candidates or affect in any way the right of the petitioner for his non-selection. He has produced the original records relating to the proceedings of selection made by respondent 1. ( 10 ) SRI U. L. Narayana rao, learned counsel for respondent 1 mainly argued that the changed method of selection did not either vitiate the selection of the candidates or affect in any way the right of the petitioner for his non-selection. He has produced the original records relating to the proceedings of selection made by respondent 1. ( 11 ) SRI Naik, learned counsel for respondent 5 also argued that no such legal right of the petitioner was affected by the changed method adopted by respondent 1 in selecting the candidates. Sri Santhosh Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent 4 submitted that the legal right of the petitioner was not affected by the selection of respondents 4 and 5 and that the writ petition was not maintainable. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, Sri T. R. Subbanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, having taken me through several grounds taken by the petitioner and also the original records produced by respondent 1, vehemently argued that the selection having not been made by the approved method was vitiated. ( 13 ) IN view of the foregoing, the following two points arise for consideration: (1) whet her the selection of respondents 4 and 5 is vitiated for deviation from the method of selection prescribed under the prospectus issued to the petitioner. (2) whether the petitioner is able to make out a case to declare the selection of respondents 4 and 5 as a nullity. ( 14 ) IN order to appreciate the legal contentions urged in support of the writ petition and the specific stand taken by respondent 1, it is necessary for me to verify the prospectus issued by respondent 1, as per annexure-a. It bears No. 101 and was issued to the petitioner. It holds good for the academic year 1992. The introductory part of the prospectus discloses certain information regarding various branches of oncology including the object of the institute in offering several subjects of super specialisation. It also provides for eligibility of candidate applying for subjects including m. ch. (oncology) with which we are concerned in this writ petition. Number of seats allocated for this subject are two. The prospectus further provides minimum qualification for admission and other equipment necessary for a person to apply to one of the subjects. At page 5, paragraph iii it provides for method of selection. It reads: "iii. Method of selection: 1. (oncology) with which we are concerned in this writ petition. Number of seats allocated for this subject are two. The prospectus further provides minimum qualification for admission and other equipment necessary for a person to apply to one of the subjects. At page 5, paragraph iii it provides for method of selection. It reads: "iii. Method of selection: 1. A. Multiple choice questionnaire entrance examination will be conducted by the institute for the eligible candidates. B. A personnel interview will be conducted by the institute. The candidate marks will thus be a total of a and b. The list of selected candidates on the basis of total marks obtained will be announced on the institute notice board 24 hours after the selection process is completed. Selected candidates are required to join the course on the specified date after completing the prescribed admission formalities and paying the fees, signing the bond, etc. C. Final selection will be done depending upon the performance of the candidates in pre-assessment, multiple choice question examination, viva voce and clinical examination. These facts are very relevant to be noticed because the court will have to see how far the changed method of selection would affect the prospects of a candidates. ( 15 ) IT is not in dispute that for the last several years including the previous year, selection was based upon the approved method of allocating 25 marks for each of the four groups stated above. But, according to respondent 1, a new pattern of allocation of marks for each group as 5 marks for pre-assessment, 50 marks for performance of the candidate at the written examination, 25 marks for clinical examination and 20 marks for viva voce test, is adopted on the suggestion of the academic committee and is implemented by selection of respondents 4 and 5 for m. ch. (surgical oncology ). Therefore, the question is whether this method was properly adopted by a decision by the competent authority and if so, whether it was published and disclosed to the candidates. My reading is neither the prospectus, annexure-a, nor the official memorandum, annexure-b, muchless the original proceedings make out a case that the selection committee did disclose or publish this changed pattern of allocation of marks. It is nowhere asserted by respondent 1-institute in its statement of objections positively. ( 16 ) LET me examine this aspect with reference to the original records. It is nowhere asserted by respondent 1-institute in its statement of objections positively. ( 16 ) LET me examine this aspect with reference to the original records. Although Sri Narayana Rao has produced the records staled to be original records, these records do not contain the original proceedings of awarding marks and assessment of candidates. But, the order sheet maintained discloses the decision taken by the committee. ( 17 ) IN the additional grounds taken by the petitioner, it is asserted that on9-10-1991 the committee resolved to follow the same method as it was followed in the previous year and that therefore there was no reason why the present committee had to change the method of selection. This assertion of the petitioner is supported by the entry in the order sheet at page 5. It reads: "method of selection should be as per rules as it was done earlier". Again on 10-10-1991, the order sheet discloses: "to prof, and hod of pathology for urgent opinion". Thus the opinion came to be gathered and on 19-10-1991 the committee decided as follows as disclosed in the order sheet. "this subject was discussed at the meeting of the committee and decided to follow the following procedure. The marks indicated in the prospectus of the previous year as follows: pre-assessment 25, entrance 25, viva voce and clinical 25. With a view to make selection of better candidates, it was decided to adopt and reallocate the marks as noted below. Pre-assessment 5, entrance examination 50, clinical 25, viva voce 20. The above method may be adopted for the next selection of m. ch. (surgical oncology) to be made in December 1991. Approved. Sd/- xx sd/- xx director, 21-10-1991". this resolution is found to have signed by two persons and the same came to be approved by the director of respondent 1 on 21-10-1991. If this is the resolution or the decision taken by the committee, as stated in the statement of objections, I fail to understand why the resolution had not been signed by all the members of the committee and why this changed method or pattern of awarding marks for the purpose of selection is not approved by the university. These factors have not been made clear. Strangely enough, this new method has been adopted only in respect of m. ch. (surgical oncology) and not in respect of other subjects. These factors have not been made clear. Strangely enough, this new method has been adopted only in respect of m. ch. (surgical oncology) and not in respect of other subjects. The selection committee has been constituted under the regulations of the Bangalore university and therefore its selection must be in conformity with the regulations. Since respondent 1 deviated from the regulations in the selection of respondents 4 and 5, the university did not support it. Learned counsel appearing for the university vehemently argued that it was not open to respondent 1 to deviate from the regulations made by the university. ( 18 ) BY a perusal of the other papers in the original records, it is seen that there are six members in the committee including the director as chairman; but the resolution has not been signed by the rest of the members. At this stage, it is better to refer lo the university regulations for m. ch. (surgical oncology), a copy of which is produced by the university counsel. The regulations provide, amongst others, for admission at regulalion-3, which reads:"admission:admission to the course shall be through a selection committee duly constituted as per the university regulations. The selection is based on merit and may include a screening test followed by an interview". therefore, it is nobody's case that the Bangalore university has not provided regulations for the said purpose though there are no detailed regulations or rules as to the method of selection. Therefore, in their wisdom the university left it to the expert body of the committee. However, the question is whether it is open to respondent 1- institute to say that, to follow a system known as shortlisting or elimination process providing 1:5, number of candidates to be called for interview depends upon the number of scats offered and those candidates who have secured more marks comparatively in the written test and pre-assessment lest would be called for interview and not others. The question therefore that arises for consideration is whether the altering of marks i. e. ,5 in place of 25 allotted for pre-assessmcnt and 50 in place 25 for written test would tilt the balance. ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with a similar question in Liladhar v State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1981 SC 1777 . ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with a similar question in Liladhar v State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1981 SC 1777 . In that case arising under Rajasthan judicial services rules, their lordships were considering the selection made by the rajaslhan high court for the posts of munsiffs in the department of judiciary. Referring to the nature of selection made therein, their lordships observed as follows: "in the aforesaid view, the selection was also not open to challenge on the ground that marks were awarded in the interview-test in a single lot instead of sub-dividing and awarding them separately under various heads for the various matters tested in the interview. The rules themselves do not provide for the allocation of marks under different heads at the interview test. The criteria for the interview test have been laid down by the rules. It is for the interviewing body to lake a general decision whether to allocate marks under different heads or to award marks in a single lot. The award of marks under different heads may lead to a distorted picture of the candidate on occasions. On the other hand the totality of the impression created by the candidate on the interviewing body may give a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality. It is for the interviewing body to chose the appropriate method of marking at the selection to each service. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods of marking employed by interviewing bodies unless it is proven or obvious that the method of marking was chosen with oblique motive". ( 20 ) AGAIN indirectly this question arises in a different form before the Supreme Court in P. K. Ramachandra Iyer and others v Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 541 . The main question arose for consideration there was whether the agricultural scientists recruitment board had power to prescribe minimum 40 marks for being qualified in viva voce in place of 100 marks prescribed earlier. Dealing with this question with reference to the relevant rules, their lordships held as follows:". . . . . The main question arose for consideration there was whether the agricultural scientists recruitment board had power to prescribe minimum 40 marks for being qualified in viva voce in place of 100 marks prescribed earlier. Dealing with this question with reference to the relevant rules, their lordships held as follows:". . . . . THE additional qualification which asrb prescribed to itself namely, that the candidate must have a further qualification of obtaining minimum marks in the viva voce test does not find place in rules 13 and 14, it amounts virtually to a modification of the rules. By necessary inference, there was no such power in the asrb to add to the required qualifications. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reasons that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. It however docs not appear in the facts of the case before us that because of an allocation of 100 marks for viva voce test, the result has been unduly affected. We say so for want of adequate material on the record. In this background we are not inclined to hold that 100 marks for viva voce test was unduly high compared to 600 marks allocated for the written test. But the asrb in prescribing minimum 40 marks for being qualified for viva voce test contravened Rule 14 inasmuch as there was no such power in the asrb to prescribe this additional qualification, and this prescription of an impermissible additional qua! Ification has a direct impact on the merit list because the merit list was to be prepared according to the aggregate marks obtained by the candidate at written test plus viva voce test. Once an additional qualification of obtaining minimum marks at the viva voce test is adhered to, a candidate who may figure high-up in the merit list was likely to be rejected on the ground that he has not obtained minimum qualifying marks at viva voce test. To illustrate, a candidate who has obtained 400 marks at the written test and obtained 38 marks at the viva voce test if considered on the aggregate of marks being 438 was likely to come within the zone of selection, but would be eliminated by the asrb on the ground that he has not obtained qualifying marks at viva voce test. This was impermissible and contrary to rules and the merit list prepared in contravention of the Rule cannot be sustained". ( 21 ) IN the observations made by the Supreme Court in the portion extracted above, emphasis may be laid on a particular portion: "in this background we are not inclined to hold that 100 marks for viva voce test was unduly high compared to 600 marks allocated for the written test. But the asrb in prescribing minimum 40 marks for being qualified for viva voce test contravened Rule 14 inasmuch as there was no such power in the asrb to prescribe this additional qualification and this prescription of an impermissible additional qualification has a direct impact on the merit list because the merit list was to be prepared according to the aggregate marks obtained by the candidate at written test plus viva voce test". Two aspects arise from the said emphasis for consideration in this case. Firstly, in the absence of a specific Rule or Regulation providing for deviation from the prescribed method of selection and in the absence of approval by the university of such a deviation, deviated method of selection has clearly affected the prospects of the petitioner, because, as already stated in the preceding paragraphs, in place of 25 marks allotted for pre-assessment, only 5 marks came to be awarded and in place of 25 marks awarded for written examination, 50 marks were allotted. No reasons are assigned to do so. ( 22 ) IT is true that there is no Rule or Regulation provided by the university and there fore it is left to the discretion of the expert body. Indeed, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that the expert committee is the best judge to either alter or modify the method of selection intending to have the objective assessment of the candidate in a particular subject. While doing so, it is the bounded duty of the committee to follow the acceptable method based upon logic or reason. As I have already observed, not all the members of the committee of selection are parties to the resolution dated 19-10-1991 which came to be approved by the director on 21-10-1991. Secondly, the decision or resolution resulting in change of pattern of awarding marks does not disclose any logical conclusion or object sought to be achieved. As I have already observed, not all the members of the committee of selection are parties to the resolution dated 19-10-1991 which came to be approved by the director on 21-10-1991. Secondly, the decision or resolution resulting in change of pattern of awarding marks does not disclose any logical conclusion or object sought to be achieved. Thirdly, this change of pattern of selection has not been disclosed to the candidates. This deviation from the existing known method of selection by putting 5 marks for pre-assessment in place of 25 and 50 marks for written examination in place of 25 has really tilted the balance. As I have already observed, the court does not have the benefit of the original proceedings of selection including the marks sheet. Therefore, I may not venture to say anything about this. However, one thing is clear that had the selection committee followed the earlier procedure or method of selection, as contended by the petitioner, the prospects of the petitioner would have been better when compared to the performance of respondents 4 and 5 in respect of groups 1 and 2. The reason is this. As I have already observed referring to the averments of the writ petition, the petitioner is a gold medalist having first rank in general surgery. He has to his credit m. b. b. s. , m. s. in general surgery and m. n. a. m. s. in addition to the academic qualifications, he has a long practical experience as a surgeon in the field of oncology. If the selection committee had taken into account the experience behind the petitioner and his academic qualifications as also the marks secured by him in the pro-assessment and the written test bearing in mind the method of selection earlier to the deviation, its selection would have been definitely different. ( 23 ) THE Supreme Court in jaghnath v Union of India and another, AIR 1992 SC 126 had the occasion to deal with this question directly. Referring to seniority-cum-merit and experience for the purpose of classification of employees, it held as follows:"academic pursuit and experience are two primary sources of learning. A compositor'sjob in a printing press is a skilled job requiring special technique. In such a job it would be reasonable to measure the standards of skill by length of experience". Referring to seniority-cum-merit and experience for the purpose of classification of employees, it held as follows:"academic pursuit and experience are two primary sources of learning. A compositor'sjob in a printing press is a skilled job requiring special technique. In such a job it would be reasonable to measure the standards of skill by length of experience". ( 24 ) I refer to this judgment because Regulation 2 (i) (c) of the Bangalore university regulations for m. ch. (surgical oncology), provides:"preference shall be given to those who have worked for 2 or more years in the field of surgical oncology in any regional cancer centre and to the candidates worked/working in the armed forces medical services". as stated earlier, the petitioner has, apart from academic qualifications, vast practical experience and according to him, he has operated many cases of oncology and he has got greatest aspiration and intention to become one of the best surgical oncologists. Where as respondent 5 is far junior to the petitioner and has just completed his m. s. course (general surgery) in 1991 and has joined as a resident surgeon in k. g. medical college, lucknow from 20-11-1991. This goes to show that he has just come from portals of the university after obtaining m. s. course, not even one month earlier to the filing of his application for selection. ( 25 ) IN this connection, I may quote the ruling of this court in state of karnatakav Dr. B. t. tukol and others, ILR 1979 (1) kar. 1225 as follows:"the possession of higher academic attainment is by itself, in our opinion, an evidence of superior suitability and superior efficiency. Some observation of this court in Ajjappa v The state of Mysore, 1967 ILR Mysore 809 is also to, the same effect. It was stated therein that a higher academic qualification is generally a dependable index of superior merit which endows in its turn suitability in many spheres. Consistent with this truism, the Rule making authority has imputed superiority to candidates possessing such higher qualifications. This important factor cannot be bye-passed or whittled down; nor the selecting authority should be allowed to undervalue its importance and superiority. It mustnecessarily dominate the mind of the selection authority while awarding marks to such candidates. Consistent with this truism, the Rule making authority has imputed superiority to candidates possessing such higher qualifications. This important factor cannot be bye-passed or whittled down; nor the selecting authority should be allowed to undervalue its importance and superiority. It mustnecessarily dominate the mind of the selection authority while awarding marks to such candidates. In other words, when there is a presumptive superiority of intellectual calibre and suitability for higher academic qualifications provided by the cadre rules, there shall be corresponding obligation on the part of the selection authority to take that into account as a factor in itself in favour of such candidates while awarding marks in the interview. That appears to be the only method to accomplish the object of the cadre rules". therefore, the selection authority in the instant case should have taken into account the higher academic qualification and practical experience etc. , of the petitioner and if it had done so, it would have certainly selected him rather than respondents 4 and 5. ( 26 ) FURTHER, regarding allocation of marks, this is what the Supreme Court hasheld in A. Perikaruppan v State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 SC 2303 . "admission to medical college rules requiring selection committee to assess candidates on basis of certain specified objective tests in absence of specific provision in rules, committee must distribute total marks equally on various items giving marks in lumpsum and not on itemised basis is illegal Section committee cannot also consider matter falling outside scope of specified items. "while ruling so, the Supreme Court referred to the observations of this court in D. G. Visliwalwth v Chief secretary of Mysore, AIR 1964 Mysore 132:"it is true that Annexure-I v does not specifically mention the marks allotted for each head. But from that circumstance it cannot be held that the government had conferred an unguided ppwer on the committees. In the absence of specific allocation of marks for each head, it must be presumed that the government considered that each of the heads mentioned in Annexure-I v as being equal in importance to any other. In other words, we have to infer that the intention of the government was that each one of those heads should carry 1/5 tb of the interview marks". ( 27 ) THUS, the academic committee's resolution to alter the marks earlier allottedis illegal and cannot be sustained. In other words, we have to infer that the intention of the government was that each one of those heads should carry 1/5 tb of the interview marks". ( 27 ) THUS, the academic committee's resolution to alter the marks earlier allottedis illegal and cannot be sustained. ( 28 ) FURTHER, according to the earlier method of selection as provided in the prospectus at page 5, par 3, marks obtained by a candidate from (a) and (b) i. e. , from multiple choice questionnaire entrance examination and personal interview will be announced on the notice board of the institute 24 hours after the selection process is completed. This has not been done. Again, final selection of a candidate will depend upon, as stated in the prospectus at para iii (l) (c), the performance of the candidates in all the four groups viz. , pre-assessment, multiple choice question examination, viva voce and clinical examination. In the instant case, respondent 1 has violated the requirement of selection as stated in the prospectus. The alteration of marks allotted to the four categories is not in tune with the programme for the assessment found in para 3. Further, viva voce test is different from the interview as held by this court in Vivekananda v Mysore Public Service Commission, W. P. No. 334/1966 (Mysore), and therefore each category must have equal marks. Further, even after the intimation was issued to petitioner to appear for viva voce and clinical examination on 31- 12-1991, he was not allowed to take such examination. ( 29 ) CONSIDERING the validity of the proceedings resulting in change of pattern of selection of candidates for m. ch. (surgical oncology), the word 'proceedings' is defined as follows:"proceedings includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. The word in its general acceptation is a term of wide amplitude and means a prescribed course of action for enforcing or protecting a legal right as also including the necessary steps to be taken whether procedural or substantive. The expression also means forms in which relief is sought before courts of law or before other authorities, determining rights and liabilities and in which actions are brought and defended and the manner of conducting them and the mode of deciding them". The expression also means forms in which relief is sought before courts of law or before other authorities, determining rights and liabilities and in which actions are brought and defended and the manner of conducting them and the mode of deciding them". therefore, the proceedings in regard to the selection of candidates for the posts offered by respondent 1 must be able to answer the above definition. The records produced by Sri U. L. Narayana rao pertaining to the selection of respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be original records. As I have already observed, the method adopted by the two members of the committee who have signed the resolution dated 19-10- 1991 and approved by the director on 21-10-1991, is not in accordance with the procedure to be followed for the purpose of selection of candidates for m. ch. (surgical oncology), inasmuch as the other members of the committee are not signatories to the resolution. The change of method of selection has not been approved by the competent authority. The resolution in question is of no assistance because it does not become part of the prospectus in the absence of its publication and intimation to the candidates. When the petitioner was denied opportunity to appear for viva voce and clinical examination carrying 45 marks according to the method now adopted, he was also denied opportunity to show his performance. He was tested as against only 55 marks allotted for pre-assessment and written examination. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of Sri Narayana Rao that for the purpose of elimination process, it would be enough to apply the above two tests and deny the other two viz. , clinical examination and viva voce. Though it is open to the authority to apply shortlisting or elimination process, there is no hard and fast Rule to adopt a particular proportion. It can be varied if the circumstances necessitate for doing so. For doing Justice the authority may even call the candidates for interview in the proportion of 1:8 or 10 and it may not be illegal as held by this court in Dr. B. T. Tukol v State of Mysore, 1974 (1) kar. L. j. 136. Thus, it is clear that the new method now adopted by respondent 1-institute will certainly have a direct impact on the merit list. B. T. Tukol v State of Mysore, 1974 (1) kar. L. j. 136. Thus, it is clear that the new method now adopted by respondent 1-institute will certainly have a direct impact on the merit list. That itself is a lacuna found in the new pattern of selection. ( 30 ) ONE more aspect which requires to be considered is the word 'may' used inregulation 3 of the regulations of the Bangalore university for m. ch. (surgical oncology ). It says:". . . . . THE selection is based on merit and may include a screening test followed by an interview". the question is whether the word 'may' used therein could be construed as 'shall'. The word 'may' is often read as 'shall' or'must' when there is something in the nature of the thing to be done which makes it the duty of the person on whom the power is conferred to exercise that power. In the instant case, when the selection committee is conferred with the power of selection, a duty also is cast upon it to exercise that power for the benefit of the persons with regard to whom a definition is supplied. Therefore, it is the bounden duly of the selection committee to conduct a screening test followed by interview i. e. , viva voce and clinical examination which have been denied so far as the petitioner is concerned. In this view also, the selection of respondents 4 and 5 cannot be sustained. ( 31 ) IN view of the above discussion, I have no alternative but to hold that the selection of respondents 4 and 5 does not stand the test of law and is therefore iiable to be quashed. ( 32 ) IN the result, I make the following:order this writ petition is allowed. The selection of respondents 4 and 5 under Annexure-D for admission to m. ch. (surgical oncology) for 1992-93 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that it is open to respondent 1 to conduct fresh selection in terms of the prospectus, annexure-a, and in accordance with law. No costs. The petitioner is entitled to costs. --- *** --- .