JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. THE Teaching and Administrative Staff Association, Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, through its Vice- President challenges the constitution of the Selection Committee, convened for interviewing those applying for the post of the Professors, Readers and Lecturers, in the various subjects within the Faculty of Engineering. THE contention is, to the effect, that the Selection Committee as constituted with special reference to three experts, referred to in the bye-laws, there is a stipulation that one of them will be from outside the State and the panel of experts would be drawn by the Board of Governors selected by the Principal. THE context of this is referred to in clause 3, sub-clause 4 (a) (6). It reads : "(6) Three experts one of which should be from outside the State from the panel of experts drawn by the Board of Governors to be selected by the Principal preferably in rotation : Provided that the Selection Committee shall not be deemed to be duly constituted unless all the experts have been given due notice of the meeting and at least two of them are present : Provided also that the Selection Committee shall not be deemed to be unconstitutional if more than the required number of experts attend a particular Selection Committee". 2. ON this it is pointed out that the experts who were to be on the Selection Committee are the Professors from the G. B. Pant Mechanical Engineering Department, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology Pant Nagar, Mechanical Engineering Department, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Lucknow and two from the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee. The contention is that as there is no expert from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Selection Committee is irregularly constituted and the selections which may be made of teachers by such a Selections Committee will also be vitiated. 3. THE Court has heard Mr. A. K. Yog, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad. 4. THIS Court is not making any comments on merits as referred in the writ petition. Broadly, the Court is only considering two aspects of the matter. 3. THE Court has heard Mr. A. K. Yog, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad. 4. THIS Court is not making any comments on merits as referred in the writ petition. Broadly, the Court is only considering two aspects of the matter. First, in the absence of a representative from outside the State on the Selection Committee, notwithstanding that this may be an irregularity should the High Court interfere in the process of selection of teachers in its writ jurisdiction ? Second, if there be a complaint of a generality as has been made out by the staff association, ought not such a matter be examined by the learned Chancellor under Section 68 of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. On the first submission, the Court was not addressed academically except the technicality of the absence of an expert from outside the State. 5. EVEN otherwise the Court finds that under the first proviso which refers to the Selection Committee making a reference to an expert from outside the State, the Committee would be validly convened if all the members of the Selection Committee have notice of the meeting but only two of them are present. This in itself implies that if all the experts have been intimated of the meeting, then those who are present, notwithstanding that they may be within the State, the Selection Committee would be validly convened. In other words, should all the experts have notice of the meeting and the expert from outside the State does not attend, those who remain, though from the State, would not invalidate constitution of the Selection Committee. In these circumstances, at best, a member on the Selection Committee from the outside the State not having been called, could, at best, be an irregularity with which the Court ought not to interfere. 6. ON the second aspect the submission was, to the effect, that on the constitution of the Selection Committee, if illegal, a representation to the Chancellor, under Section 68 of the Act would not lie. The Court is not inclined to agree with the submissions on]behalf of the petitioner. 6. ON the second aspect the submission was, to the effect, that on the constitution of the Selection Committee, if illegal, a representation to the Chancellor, under Section 68 of the Act would not lie. The Court is not inclined to agree with the submissions on]behalf of the petitioner. Having examined the scheme of the Act and finding that an 'associated college' is referred to under the definition clause of the Act, and it is not denied that the Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, is an associated college and it is also not denied that it is a faculty of engineering as many other faculties of the University of Allahabad, the Selection Committee in context is for the purpose of the University. It is an ex-officio body constituted for carrying out the functions of the University. Also not to be ignored is the reference to a 'Principal' and a 'teacher' of an 'associated college' in the definition clause. The only exception which remains is that the statutes in reference to Allahabad and Lucknow Universities, in so far as they may be inconsistent with the Memorandum of Association of an associated college, would not apply. The Selection Committee has been constituted, the Court is intimated under the Memorandum of the Association and no inconsistency has been pointed out in reference to any statute of the Allahabad University. 7. THUS, the Court is of the opinion that the Selection Committee, in its ex officio personality constituted under the bye laws in the circumstances of this case, cannot be treated as alien to the purposes and functions of the University. Its function is to select Teachers, Readers and professors in the various disciplines of the Faculty of Engineering. In these circumstances in the absence of any personal right of any person who may have actually been aggrieved, if yet there is a cause which needs to be examined that the Selection Committee may have been constituted irregularly, it would be appropriate that the petitioner, the Teaching and Administrative Staff Association, Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, may address their grievance before the Chancellor, under section 68 of the Act, aforesaid. 8. THUS, this Court declines to interfere in this writ petition by issuing a writ on it and consigns it to the record as dismissed on the ground of an alternate remedy. There will be no order on costs. 8. THUS, this Court declines to interfere in this writ petition by issuing a writ on it and consigns it to the record as dismissed on the ground of an alternate remedy. There will be no order on costs. Appeal dismissed.