H. K. Sema, J.— The petitioner passed M. Sc. in Agricultural Engineering from Allahabad University in the year 1976. He was appointed and posted as Lecturer in Agricultural Engineering, College of Agricultural at Medziphema with effect from 16.2.1981. At present he is working as Lecturer in Agricultural Engineering, School of Agricultural Sciences and Rural Development (for short 'SASRD') at Medziphema. It is stated that during 1988 a Workshop, on 'Land Conservation for Future Generation' was held at Bankok and the petitioner being invited by the Organising Committee of the International Workshop attended and participated in the said Workshop. Petitioner also submitted two papers "Designing Bench Terraces in North Eastern Hill Region of India" and "Land Use Capability Classification - A Numerical Approach" and the same were published in the proceeding of the Workshop in 1988. It is further stated in the petition that during the year 1989 an International Workshop on "Conservation Farming on Hill Slopes “was held at Taiwan, in which the petitioner alone from India attended the Workshop. Petitioner also submitted the paper on "Land Use Planning in North Eastern Region of India* which was published as a part of a book by Soil and Water Conservation Society, Lowa, United States of America. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner bad an intensive knowledge in his own field of Soil Conservation Engineering and had many publications in various journals to his credit. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement by the North Eastern Hill University (hereinafter NEHU) for the various Teaching and Non Teaching in the different Departments including posts of Readers in Soil Conservation pertaining to SASRD, Medziphema, the petitioner had applied for the post of Reader. Thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Interview Board at IIPA New Delhi along with other candidates on 19th and 20th January, 19891 The Interview Board was consisted of Vice Chancellor of NEHU as Chairman and sk other members including three experts, Head of the Department Soil Conservation, and one nominee of the Visitor and Pro-Vice Chancellor, Nagaland Campus. The petitioner was duly selected by the Interview Board for the post of Reader in Soil Conservation and the same was approved by the Executive Council of the NEHU in its 65th meeting held on 5th February, 1989 at New Delhi. The petitioner was duly selected by the Interview Board for the post of Reader in Soil Conservation and the same was approved by the Executive Council of the NEHU in its 65th meeting held on 5th February, 1989 at New Delhi. However, the petitioner was not appointed in the said post as the Executive Council in its subsequent meeting held on 24th February, 1989 reviewed the earlier decision and resolved that the post be re-advertised on the ground that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Reader is doctorate degree and the petitioner did not possess this requisite qualification. Hence this petition. 3. Respondents entered appearance and filed affidavit-in-opposition. That the Selection Board selected the petitioner and recommended for appointment, that the Executive Council approved the selection of the petitioner in its 65th meeting held at New Delhi on 5.2.1989 and that in its subsequent meeting held on 24th Feb' 89 the Council resolved to re-advertise the posts are all admitted in paragraphs 7 of the counter of the respondents. 4. We have heard Mr. RS Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Biswajit, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Mr. Bedi urged two points before us - (i) the Executive Body having approved the selection of the petitioner has no power to review its decision under the statutes, (ii) in case the Executive Council dis-agree with recommendation made by the Selection Committee it has to record its reasons for doing so and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders, but the Executive Council has no authority to pass the final orders. 6. Before we advert further to the other points we may at this stage refer to resolution passed by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 24th Feb 89 which has been annexed as Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition which runs as under :- "Soil Science : Since the advertisement laid down the prescribed qualifications and doctorate degree is an essential qualification for the post of Reader, the Council resolved that the posts may be re-advertised." 7. The North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973 (No. 24 of 1973) was passed by the Parliament in the 24th year of the Republic of India. Amongst others it provides in the statutes. Statute of the Universities are provides schedule appended to the Act. Statute 13 deals with the powers and function of Executive Council. The North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973 (No. 24 of 1973) was passed by the Parliament in the 24th year of the Republic of India. Amongst others it provides in the statutes. Statute of the Universities are provides schedule appended to the Act. Statute 13 deals with the powers and function of Executive Council. We may refer to statutes 13 (2) (ii) which is relevant for our present purpose and runs as under :- "to appoint such Professors, Lecturers and other acadenic staff, as may be necessary, and Principals of Colleges and Institutions maintained by the University on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and to fill up temporary vacancies therein..” (emphasis supplied) Further, statute 20 deals with the power of Selection Committee and states that there shall be a Selection Committee for making recommendations to the Executive Council for appointment to the Posts of Professors, Reader, Lecturer, Librarian and Principal of Colleges and Institutions maintained by the University. Provision has been made in clause 6 of statute 20 that "If the Executive Council is unable to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders." (emphasis supplied). A fascicule reading of the above statutes it clearly poses that once the recommendation has been made by the Selection Committee the Executive Council has no authority to pass the final orders and substitute the power of the Selection Committee by its own order. It can either appoint as enjoined under statute 13 (2) (ii) or in a case if it is unable to accept the recommendation made- by the Selection Committee, shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders. In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that the resolution passed by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 24th Feb 89 is clearly in violation of the provision of clause 6 of statute 20. This apart, the Council having approved the recommendation of the Selection Committed in respect of the petitioner in its 65th meeting held on 5th Feb'89, it was not open to the Council in its subsequent meeting on 24th Feb'89 to review its own order as under the statutes no powers has been vested with Executive Council to review its own order. 8. 8. Besides, we are not happy with the resolution of the Executive Council in its subsequent .meeting held on 24th Feb' 89 and the reasons assign therein. In the advertisement (Annexure 2) to the petition the post applied for by the petitioner the essential qualification of which has been prescribed as under : "(i) Doctorate in the subject or equivalent (ii) 5 years teaching experience with at least 3 years of teaching PG Classes or 7 years including 5 years of Honours Classes or 5 years of post Doctoral Research." This shown requisite qualification for the post as mentioned in the advertisement is the doctorate in the subject or equivalent (ii) 5 years teaching experience with at least 3 years of teaching PG Classes or 7 years including 5 years of Honours Classes or 5 years of Post Doctoral Research. It is specifically stated by the petitioner that he fulfill the requisite qualification mentioned in the advertisement. This apart, the Board constituted for the purpose are the members of high academician and includes the expert in the department and recommendation and selection of the petitioner are based on expert opinion. Therefore in our opinion the reasons assigned by the Executive Council in its subsequent meeting held on 24th Feb 89 are perverse and liable to be invalidated. 9. Mr. Biswajit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly concedes that the Executive Council has no power to pass final orders, he however straneously urged that the matter can be re-apprise again by the Executive Council and the provision made in clause 6 of statute 20 may be resorted to. We find ourselves extremely difficult to accept this submission of learned counsel for the respondents. As said earlier, we are of the firm view that the reasons assigned by the Executive Council in its subsequent meeting held on 24th Feb'89 in disagreeing with the recommendation of the Selection Committee are wholly perverse. In the result the resolution passed by the Executive Council in its subsequent meeting held on 24th Feb 89 in so far with regard to the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Reader within a period of one month from today. The petition in allowed. No order as to costs.