Judgment :- K.A. Swami C.J. W.A.No.1221 of 1994 is preferred against the common order dated 19. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.12233 and 12479 of 1994, by the petitioner in W.P.No.12233 of 1994, which is the Madras University Teachers Association. In W.P.No.12233 of 1994 it has sought for a direction to the first respondent to exercise his powers under Sec.11(1) of the Madras University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and appoint a person to the office of the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University within a time-limit to be specified by the court. Learned single Judge has held as follows: (1) On the date when the Second Search Committee comprising of respondents 2 to 4 submitted a panel of three different names, namely on 22. 1994, the Chancellor had before him a full complement of three persons all of whom were willing and available to be appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University. (2) The Second Search Committee comprising of respondents 2 to 4 had therefore become functus officio because they had submitted a panel of three persons all of whom were willing and available on the date of their submissions of the panel. (3) The Chancellor has not yet appointed one of the three persons in the said panel in accordance with the Proviso to Sec.11(1) of the Act notwithstanding the consultative process that he had undertaken with Dr.Abdul Kalam, Ministry of Defence and the Hon’ble Prime Minister. (4) Therefore, the first respondent Chancellor has to exercise his power under the Proviso to Sec.11(1) of the Act and appoint any one of the three persons found in the panel sent to him by the Second Search Committee. (5) If the appointee of the Chancellor is unable to take up the post for some reason or other, I hold that the Chancellor does not owe a duty to make a second appointment because such a course is not contemplated under the Proviso to Sec.11(1) of the Act. (5) If the appointee of the Chancellor is unable to take up the post for some reason or other, I hold that the Chancellor does not owe a duty to make a second appointment because such a course is not contemplated under the Proviso to Sec.11(1) of the Act. (6) After the first respondent chancellor acts in accordance with any directions contained in clauses 3 and 4 above, if the impasses continues, the parties will act in accordance with law." In W.P.No.12479 of 1994 filed by a Chartered Accountant, the very relief is sought on the ground that the Second Search Committee was not constituted in accordance with law, therefore, the panel of three names submitted by that Committee was not valid. Learned single Judge has dismissed that writ petition holding that the Second Search Committee was properly constituted. 2. W.P.No.16779 of 1994 is filed by the appellant herein seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against the first respondent and others to make an appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of the Madras University from among the remaining two members of the panel submitted by the Second Search Committee on 22. 1994. Therefore, we directed the writ petition alsoo to be brought up along with the writ appeal and accordingly heard both the writ appeal and the writ petition together. 3. Having regard to the contentions urged and the directions issued by the learned single Judge, following points arise for our consideration: .(1) Whether the Second Search Committee was constituted in accordance with law? .(2) Whether the Second Search Committee had submitted an effective panel of three names to be considered for appointment as Vice Chancellor of the Madras University by the Chancellor of the said University? .(3) Whether the Second Search Committee, on submission of the panel of three names, became functus officio? .(4) Whether the Chancellor was justified in law in directing the Second Search Committee to submit an effective panel of three names? .(5) What is the effect of the order of appointment issued by the Chancellor on 19. 1994 appointing Dr.Abdul Kalam as Vice Chancellor pursuant to the order under appeal? .4. Facts necessary for determining the aforesaid points are no more in dispute. The term of the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University expired on 211. 1993. As per Sec.11(2) of the Act, on 211. 1994 appointing Dr.Abdul Kalam as Vice Chancellor pursuant to the order under appeal? .4. Facts necessary for determining the aforesaid points are no more in dispute. The term of the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University expired on 211. 1993. As per Sec.11(2) of the Act, on 211. 1993 a Search Committee was constituted consisting of three persons, one each nominated by the Senate, the Syndicate and the Chancellor to submit a panel of three names to enable the Chancellor to appoint one of them as Vice Chancellor. The nominee of the Chancellor by name Dr.B.P.Rajan was the Chairman of the Search Committee. The Other two members were Dr.C.E.Ramachandran and Mr.S.R.Karuppannan, being the nominees of the Senate and the Syndicate respectively. This Search Committee (hereinafter referred to as the First Committee), was constituted on 211. 1993. The First Committee considered 48 names and submitted a panel of three names in December, 1993 to the Chancellor. However, the Chancellor did not approve any one of them and rejected the panel and a sent a communication dated 112. 1993 to the Registrar of the Madras University for constituting another Search Committee for submitting a fresh panel of three different names. Accordingly, the Senate nominated Thiru S.R.Karuppannan, the Syndicate nominated Dr.C.E.Ramachandran and the Chancellor nominated Thiru Cho S.Ramaswamy. An order was issued on 31. 1994 by the Chancellor, Madras University constituting the Second Search Committee with the aforesaid members and Thiru Cho S.Ramaswamy as Chairman. The Second Search Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Second Committee), considered 54 names and submitted a panel of three names consisting of (1) Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, (2) Dr.T.Nagarajan and (3) Dr.P.K.Ponnusamy, on 22. 1994. .5. On receiving the fresh panel of three different names, the Chancellor wrote a letter to Dr.Abdul Kalam on 3. 1994 stating that the Search Committee has proposed a panel of suitable candidates and that he was considering his name for appointment as Vice Chancellor,.and before finalisation, he would like to have his consent in the matter and also information as to when it would be possible for him to take charge. 1994 stating that the Search Committee has proposed a panel of suitable candidates and that he was considering his name for appointment as Vice Chancellor,.and before finalisation, he would like to have his consent in the matter and also information as to when it would be possible for him to take charge. At this stage, it may be pointed out that Thiru Cho S.Ramaswamy has filed an affidavit stating that the bio-data of Dr.Abdul Kalam was forwarded, after ascertaining his willingness over telephone, therefore, we can proceed on the basis that when the panel of names was submitted by the Second Committee, Dr.Abdul Kalam had expressed his willingness for considering his name for appointment as Vice Chancellor. On 4. 1994, the Minister of State for Defence, Government of India, wrote a letter to the Chancellor that Dr.Abdul Kalam, who is a Scientific Adviser, would not be spared, therefore, another person may be considered for appointment as Vice Chancellor of the Madras University. In the light of this letter, the Chancellor addressed a communication dated 14. 1994 to the Chairman of the Second Committee stating that as one of the names suggested by the Second Committee, namely, Dr.Abdul Kalam, is not available for consideration for appointment as Vice Chancellor, the Second Committee may submit a panel of three effective names as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, we may point out here, a letter was written by the Prime Minister of India on 14. 1994 to the Chancellor expressing the inability to relieve Dr.Abdul Kalam from the present assignment. Purusant to the letter dated 14. 1994 Thiru Cho S.Ramaswamy, Chairman of the Second Committee, addressed a letter to the other two members of the Committee on 24. 1994 requesting them to deliberate over the matter and submit an effective panel of three names to the Chancellor. However, the other two members took a different view. Thiru S.R.Karuppannan was of the view that the Committee had become functus officio on submitting the panel of names, whereas Dr.C.E.Ramachandran was of the view that the panel submitted by the Committee was a valid one and further the Committee also ceased to exist on the submission of the panel. It was in this situation W.P.Nos.12233 and 12479 of 1994 came to be filed. We have already extracted the conclusions reached and the directions given by the learned single Judge. 6. It was in this situation W.P.Nos.12233 and 12479 of 1994 came to be filed. We have already extracted the conclusions reached and the directions given by the learned single Judge. 6. Purusant to the aforesaid directions issued by the learned single Judge, as per the records produced before us, the Chancellor issued an order on 19. 1994 appointing Dr.Abdul Kalam as the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University. The records produced also consist of the proceedings of the Chancellor dated 19. 1994 selecting Dr.Abdul Kalam for appointment as Vice Chancellor. Dr.Abdul Kalam in turn has informed the Chancellor by his letter dated 19. 1994 as follows: "I sincerely thank you for having appointed me as the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University. I also wish to thank you for the sentiments expressed in your letter. Though, I have expressed my willingness to the Search Committee, in view of subsequent developments, I am now, not in a position to assume as Vice Chancellor, pursuant to my appointment. I very much hope that I will be able to render some service at a later period, in the field of education, particular to the State of Tamil Nadu, I regret my inability to take up the appointment." Thereafter, the Chancellor directed for constitution of another Search Committee. Accordingly, the Senate and the Syndicate are to meet on 10. 1994 for nominating one representative each. The matter stands at that. 7. Point No.1: Sec.11 (1) and (2) of the Act, which is relevant for our purposes, reads thus: "11(1) Every appointment of the Vice Chancellor shall be made by the Chancellor from out of a panel of three names recommended by the Committee referred to in Sub-sec . (2). Such panel shall not contain the name of any member of the said Committee. Provided that if the Chancellor does not approve any of the persons in the panel so recommended by the Committee, he may take steps to constitute another committee, in accordance with Sub-sec.(2), to give a fresh panel of three different names and shall appoint one of the persons named in the fresh panel as the Vice Chancellor. .(2) For the purpose of Sub-sec.(1), the Committee shall consist of three persons of whom one shall be nominated by the Senate, one shall be nominated by the Syndicate and one shall be nominated by the Chancellor. .(2) For the purpose of Sub-sec.(1), the Committee shall consist of three persons of whom one shall be nominated by the Senate, one shall be nominated by the Syndicate and one shall be nominated by the Chancellor. Provided that the person so nominated shall not be a member of any of the authorities of the University." For the purpose of the case on hand, Sub-secs.(3) to (5) of Sec. 11 are not relevant, hence those subsections are not extracted. At this stage itself, it may be pointed out that the proviso to Sub-sec. .(l) of Sec.11 was added by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1983. .8. Sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec. 11 of the Act provide as to how and in what manner a person is selected for appointment as Vice Chancellor of Madras University and by whom he is appointed. The Chancellor is the authority in whom the power is vested to make the appointment of Vice Chancellor. He cannot appoint any person as Vice Chancellor. A Committee consisting of one nominee of the Senate, one nominee of the Syndicate and one nominee of the Chancellor has to be constituted. That Committee has to recommend a panel of three names for appointment as Vice Chancellor, and out of those three names, the Chancellor has to select one. In case the Chancellor rejects all the three names, the proviso to Sub-sec.(1)to Sec.11 provides that another Committee has to be constituted in the same manner in which the first committee is to be constituted. This another Committee, which is otherwise known as Second Search Committee, has to give a fresh panel of three different names. The Chancellor is required to select one out of the three names in the fresh panel and appoint that person as the Vice Chancellor. No option or discretion is left with the Chancellor in the case of the panel of three names recommended by the Second Committee as he has to select one person out of the second panel. This has been specifically provided in the proviso only with a view to avoid long delay in the appointmennt of Vice Chancellor and also to ensure that the office of the Vice Chancellor does not remain vacant for a long time. This has been specifically provided in the proviso only with a view to avoid long delay in the appointmennt of Vice Chancellor and also to ensure that the office of the Vice Chancellor does not remain vacant for a long time. Consequently, it also follows that the panel of three names suggested either by the first committee or by the second committee should be an effective panel of three names. In other words, all the three persons recommended by the first committee or by the second committee must be available for appointment and must be in a position to assume the office of the Vice Chancellor. If, on the date of consideration of the panel of names by the Chancellor, any one of them is not available for any reason whatsoever, the panel becomes incomplete and the Chancellor can ask the very same Committee to make it a complete panel of three names. The other aspects of Sub-secs.(l) and (2) of Seel 1 will be considered while dealing with point Nos.2 to 4. .9. The contention is that in the event of rejection of the names submitted by the First Committee, another Search Committee has to be constituted and that another Search Committee shall consist of persons different from those who constituted the First Committee; whereas, the Second Committee, in the instant case, consisted of very same persons, namely, Dr.C.E.RamachandranandThiruS.R.karuppannan, though the nominee of the Chancellor was a different person, as such, it cannot be considered as another Search Committee. Learned single Judge has rejected this contention. It may be pointed out that there is no restriction imposed on the powers of the Senate, Syndicate and the Chancellor to nominate one each to first and Second Committee that their nominees in the Second Committee must be different from those nominated to the First Committee. The wordings contained in Sec.11(1)(2) of the Act do not support such a contention. The Second Committee has to be constituted in the same manner in which the First Committee has to be constituted. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the Senate and the Syndicate ought to nominate different persons to the Second Committee. The wordings contained in Sec.11(1)(2) of the Act do not support such a contention. The Second Committee has to be constituted in the same manner in which the First Committee has to be constituted. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the Senate and the Syndicate ought to nominate different persons to the Second Committee. Of course in the instant case, it has so happened that in the First Search Committee the person nominated by the Syndicate has now been nominated by the Senate and vice versa, whereas the Chancellor has nominated a different person viz.: Thiru Cho S.Ramaswamy. Looked from this angle also, it is not possible to hold that the Second Committee is the same as that of the First Committee: firstly, the Chairman of the Second Committee is different from the one who chaired the First Committee; Secondly, the nominees of the Senate and Syndicate are not the same are as already pointed out; and thirdly, there is no such restriction placed by Sec.11 (1) and (2) of the Act on the powers of the Senate and the Syndicate as also on the powers of the Chancellor in constituting a Second Committee that the nominees must be different persons who constituted the First Search Committee. Stressing on the words “another committee” occurring in the Proviso to Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.11 of the Act, it was contended that unless the Second Committee consists of different persons, it cannot be “another committee”. In the context in which the word ‘another’ occurs, it can only mean ‘one more’, ‘some or any other’, or ‘another of the same sort’, what is important is the purpose and the object of the committee. Whether the another committee consists of the very same persons or different persons is not a vital factor because as per the aforesaid proviso, another committee (Second Committee) has to submit a fresh panel of three names. Therefore, the Second Committee cannot include any of the names included in the panel submitted by the First Committee. Thus, the purpose and object of the Second Committee is to submit a fresh panel of three different names. That being so, if the Second Committee consists of the same persons, it does not matter much and it does not affect its constitution. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention has to be negatived. It is accordingly negatived. Thus, the purpose and object of the Second Committee is to submit a fresh panel of three different names. That being so, if the Second Committee consists of the same persons, it does not matter much and it does not affect its constitution. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention has to be negatived. It is accordingly negatived. Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. 10. Point No. 2: We have already pointed out that the Second Committee had submitted a panel of three names for appointment as Vice Chancellor. As per Sec.11(1) of the Act and also the proviso thereto, it is incumbent upon the Chancellor to appoint any one of them as the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University; whereas in the case of panel of three names submitted by the First Committee, it is open to the Chancellor to reject all the names in the panel and call for a fresh panel from the Second Committee or otherwise known as another Committee. So in the case of the panel of three fresh different names submitted by the Second Committee, there is no such discretion left with the Chancellor to reject all the three names. The proviso specifically says that the fresh panel should consist of three different names and the Chancellor shall appoint one of the persons named in the fresh panel as the Vice Chancellor of the University. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is as to when the discretion of the Chancellor is taken away to approve or not to approve any one of the names from the panel of three fresh names and he has to approve and appoint one from out of the three names recommended by the Second Committee, whether it is necessary that all the three names must be available to the Chancellor for selection and appointment. We are of the view that all the three persons named in the panel must be available for consideration and if any one of them becomes unavailable for consideration for some reason or the other, the panel becomes incomplete. Therefore, the Second Committee and for that matter even the First Committee must take care and ensure that the three persons recommended are avail -able, free and are willing to accept the appointment. .11. Therefore, the Second Committee and for that matter even the First Committee must take care and ensure that the three persons recommended are avail -able, free and are willing to accept the appointment. .11. Learned single Judge has held that as Dr.Abdul Kalam has not expressed his inability to accept the assignment, it cannot be held that the Chancellor has exercised his authority as per the proviso to Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.11 of the Act. Learned single Judge has also held that as no appointment has been made it is not possible to hold that the effective panel of three names was not available. We find it difficult to accept this finding of the learned single Judge. It may be pointed out that the Second Committee recommended the panel of three fresh names and submitted the same to the Chancellor on 22. 1994. When the Chancellor tried to as certain from Dr.Abdul Kalam, one of the names recommended, he was informed by the Minister concerned that his services could not be spared. We have also referred to the letter written by the Prime Minister to the Chancellor in this regard. Learned single Judge appears to have taken an exception for the letter written by the Chancellor to Dr.Abdul Kalam in order to find out his availability. Learned single Judge has stated that it was not at all necessary for the Chancellor to do so and he should have straightaway issued the order of appointment. It may be pointed out here that by doing so, the Chancellor cannot be said to have exceeded either his authority or propriety. There is nothing wrong in ascertaining the availability of a person, who is going to be appointed as Vice Chancellor and that too in the context in which it was being made, viz., the first panel had failed and for a long time the post of Vice Chancellor has been vacant. Therefore, in order to ensure that the appointment should not become infructuous, if the Chancellor had tried to ascertain the availability of Dr.Kalam by addressing a letter on 3. 1994 he cannot be held to have committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. As Dr.Abdul Kalam was not available for being appointed as the Vice Chancellor, the panel became incomplete. Therefore, the Chancell or requested the Second Committee to submit an effective panel of three names. 1994 he cannot be held to have committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. As Dr.Abdul Kalam was not available for being appointed as the Vice Chancellor, the panel became incomplete. Therefore, the Chancell or requested the Second Committee to submit an effective panel of three names. In this regard, we have already pointed out that the panel of three names to be submitted by the Search Committee should be of those persons, who must be available for appointment; then only the panel can be said to be an effective and complete panel of three names. The three names should be available to the Chancellor to select one of them for appointment as Vice Chancellor. If any one of the persons named in the panel becomes unavailable the panel becomes incomplete. We have pointed out earlier that when the Chancellor took up the matter for consideration for appoint-ingone of them as Vice Chancellor, Dr. Abdul Kalam was not available. Therefore, to that extent the panel submitted by the Second Committee became incomplete. 12. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chancellor, V.S.V.V. v. J.Narain, A.I.R. 1969 All. 378, considered the provisions contained in Subclause (ii) in Clause (c) of Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.12 of the U.P.V.S.V.V. Act, 1956. The said provisions are as follows: “(ii) The Committee shall, as far as may be at least thirty days before the date on which a vacancy in the office of the Upakulapati is due to occur by reason of expiry of term or resignation under Sub-sec.(2), and also whenever so required by the Kulapati, submit to the Kulapati the names of three persons suitable to hold the office of Upa-Kulapati. The Committee shall, while submitting the names, also forward to the Kulapati a concise statement showing the academic qualifications and other distinctions of each of the said three persons, but shall not indicate any order of preference.” While considering the aforesaid provisions it was held as follows: “Under clause (ii) of Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.12 the Selection Committee has to recommend three names at least 30 days before the date on which a vacancy is likely to occur. In the present case, there was going to be a vacancy on 12. 1966. In the present case, there was going to be a vacancy on 12. 1966. If the Chancellor had called upon the Selection Committee at any time between the 2nd and the 9th of December, 1966 to submit a panel of three names, the Committee would have found it impossible to comply with the requirements of clause (ii) of Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.12 of the Act. Such a situation was the result of the unexpected refusal of Dr.Gauri Nath Shastri to accept the appointmennt as Vice Chancellor. Considering that it became impossible to comply with clause (ii) of Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.12 of the Act, one can look upon the situation as a case of emergency. It can also be said that the Chancellor could not make an appointment by 12. 1966 in accordance with the provisions of Sub-secs.(1) and (4) of Sec.12 of the Act. The case could be brought under either of the two categories contemplated by Sec.12(6) of the Act. The Chancellor’s order dated 12. 1966 passed under Sec. 12(6) of the Act is valid. The two writ petitions should have been dismissed.” It was also pointed out that the Chancelllor was entitled to have the names of three suitable persons submitted by the Committee before exercising the power to appoint a Vice Chancellor under Sec.12(1) of the aforesaid U.P.V.S.V.V. Act, that in any case the Chancellor’s choice having been limited to two persons only he became entitled to have three names submitted by the Committee again before making an appointment under Sec.12(1) of the U.P.V.S.V.V. Act. 13. In the instant case also, Dr. Abdul Kalam became unavailable at the time when the names were considered appointment though he was available at the time when the Second Committee submitted its panel of three names including Dr.Abdul Kalam. The panel of three names was not available to the Chancellor for appointing any one out of the three as Vice Chancellor. 14. We are of the firm view that the three persons named in the panel must be available for appointment, then only the appointment can take place; if one of the persons names in the panel becomes unavailable for one reason or other, to that extent, the panel would be incomplete. 14. We are of the firm view that the three persons named in the panel must be available for appointment, then only the appointment can take place; if one of the persons names in the panel becomes unavailable for one reason or other, to that extent, the panel would be incomplete. We are of the view that as Dr.Abdul Kalam became unavailable at the time of appointment as Vice Chancellor, the panel submitted by the Second Committee ceased to be a complete panel. Point No.2 is accordingly answered in the negative. 15. Point No.3: We have already held under point No.2 that the panel to be submitted by the First or the Second Committee should be an effective one containing three names, who should be available until the appointment takes place. But in the instant case one of the persons recommended, namely, Dr. Abdul Kalam, became unavailable. Under the circumstances, whether it was open to the Chancellor to ask the Second Committee to submit an effective panel and whether the Second Committee became functus officio on submitting the panel of three names, are the questions to be considered. 16. As long as it is the duty of the Second Committee to submit an effective panel of three persons who would be available for consideration by the Chancellor for appointing one of them as the Vice Chancellor, it is not possible to hold that the Second Committee became functus officio, no sooner it submitted a panel of three names for consideration for appointment of any one of them as Vice Chancellor. The Proviso to Sec.11(1) came to be inserted with an avowed object to ensure that no vacuum is created in the matter of appointment of Vice Chancellor. The object of introducing such proviso is as follows: “According to Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.11 of the Madras University Act, 1923 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1923), the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from out of the panel of three names recommended by the Committee constituted under Sub-sec.(2) of that section. Under Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.12 of the Annamalai University Act, 1928 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1929), the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of three persons recommended by the Founder. Under Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.12 of the Annamalai University Act, 1928 (Tamil Nadu Act I of 1929), the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of three persons recommended by the Founder. There is no provision in the said Acts enabling the Chancellor not to approve any of the persons in the panel so recommended by the Committee or, as the case may be, the Founder and to take steps to constitute another Committee in the case of Madras University to give afresh panel of three different names or in the case of Annamalai University to call for a fresh panel of three different names from the Founder for appointment as the Vice Chancellor. The Government have, therefore, decided to make a specific provision for the above purpose and to amend the aforesaid Acts suitably.” [Italics supplied] As Sec.11 of the Act did not contain any provision to the aforesaid affect as stated in the italics portion of the statement of objects and reasons the proviso to Sub-sec.(1) of Sec. 11 came to be added by the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1993 empowering the Chancellor to take steps to constitute another committee in accordance with Sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 11 to give a fresh panel of three different names, in the event he does not approve any of the persons named in the panel recommended by the First Committee, and further to give a mandate to the Chancellor that he shall appoint one of the persons named in the fresh panel by the Second Committee as the Vice Chancellor. The proviso contains in clear terms the aforesaid objects. The proviso makes it mandatory to the Chancellor to appoint any one of the three persons recommended by the Second Committee and there is no discretion left to him. In these circumstances, it becomes necessary that all of the three persons recommended by the Second Committee must be available for appointment. If it is held that on the submission of the panel, the Second Panel ceases to exist or it becomes functus officio, it would be making the statute unworkable. One of the principles of interpretation of statute, is that the interpretation should harmonise with the object of the statute and effectuate the object with which the Legislature has passed the statute. One of the principles of interpretation of statute, is that the interpretation should harmonise with the object of the statute and effectuate the object with which the Legislature has passed the statute. If it is to be held that the Second Committee ceased to exist whether the names recommended by that committee were available for appointment or not, it will not only defeat the very object of the proviso and it will lead to a very anamolous situation inasmuch as it is not clear from the statute as to what should be done in such a situation. Further, even if it is construed that in such a situation, everything has to start afresh, then the Search Committee that would be appointed would become the First Search Committee and the Chancellor would, then, be entitled to reject all the three names. It is thereafter, that the Second Search Committee has to be constituted and the process will be never ending, with the result, the office of the Vice Chancellor will remain vacant for a long time and the administration of the University will suffer. It is to avoid such a situation, the proviso came to be introduced. Therefore, we are of the view that the Second Committee ceases to exist or be-comes functus officio only when the appointment of Vice Chancellor takes place pursuant to the recommendation made by it. In the present situation, as already pointed out when out of the three, one person was not available for considering his name along with the other two names for appointment as Vice Chancellor; the stand taken by the Chancellor that the Second Committee must furnish a panel of effective three names cannot be held to be incorrect, or, opposed to the provisions contained in Sec.11 (1) of the Act. However, we would like to make it clear that to the extent the panel becomes incomplete or defective, the Second Committee has to supply that deficiency. If out of the three names suggested by the Second Committee, one of them becomes unavailable at the time of considering the names for appointment only one more name has to be recommended by the Second Committee and not all the three fresh and different names. That being the position, we are of the view that the Second Committee was not justified in refusing to give an effective panel of three names. That being the position, we are of the view that the Second Committee was not justified in refusing to give an effective panel of three names. Out of the three names recommended by the Second Committee, two names are available and the third name, in place of Dr. Abdul Kalam, has to be recommended. We are of the view that the Second Committee has failed to discharge its obligation under the statute. The Second Committee, which is discharging the public function, is a statuutory Committee, therefore, it continues to exist until the effective appointment of Vice Chancellor takes place. 17. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in G.K.Harihara Rajan and R.Ragupathy v. The Chancellor, University of Madras and others, W.P.Nos.657 and 1028 of 1988 and other connected petitions dated 7. 1988. In that decision, learned single Judge has considered several points. But, for our purpose, Points 2(a), (b) and (c) are relevant, which are as follows: “(2) What is the scope of Sec.11 of the Madras University Act with regard to — .(a) function of the committee? .(b) the status of committee on submission of panel? .(c) the extent and scope of the Chancellor’s power to appoint the Vice Chancellor? In the aforesaid decision, it has been held by the learned single Judge that the function of the Committee is recommendatory, that the power of appointment of the Vice Chancellor being independent, the committee becomes functus officio, once it submits the panel of names; it does not continue to exist till the actual appointment of the Vice Chancel- lor, as the specific purpose allocated to the Committee is fulfilled once the panel is submitted and it cannot have any further existence, nor is there, any scope for such an existence. On the question as to the extent and scope of the Chancellor’s power to appoint the Vice Chancellor, it has been held that ‘ ‘Sec.11(1) confers the power to select, which power would include the selection of one or not even one, if the situation so warrants, once there is non-selection of any one of the three the power under Sec.11(1) again could be exercised. One need not have resort to Sec.13 of the General Clauses Act....”. One need not have resort to Sec.13 of the General Clauses Act....”. We find it difficult to agree with the aforesaid conclusions reached by the learned single Judge on points 2(a), (b) and (c) as raised in the aforesaid Writ Petition Nos.657 and 1028 of 1988. The decision on the aforesaid points has lost its relevancy because of the amendment affected to Sec.11 of the Act, by Tamil Nadu Act No.1 of 1993, as pointed out above. We have also pointed out that the Search Committee is statutory and its function is statutory function and the Second Committee continues to exist until the appointment of the Vice Chancellor takes place. The power of the Chancellor to appoint the Vice Chancellor is restricted as pointed out earlier. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision of the learned single Judge in G.K.Harihara Rajan and R.Ragupathy v. The Chancellor, University of Madras and others, W.P.Nos.657 and 1028 of 1988 and other connected petitions dated 7. 1988, insofar as it relates to points 2(a), (b) and (c) raised therein cannot be held to lay down the law correctly, nor can it be held to continue to hold the field in the light of the amendment effected to Sec.11(1) of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is overruled insofar as it relates to points 2(a), (b) and (c) raised in the above writ petitions which have also been extracted above. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the negative. 18. Point No.4: In the light of the findings recorded on points 2 and 3, this point is answered in the affirmative. 19. Point No.5: In the light of the findings recorded on point Nos.1 to 4, the exercise made by the Chancellor pursuant to the order under appeal cannot be held to be valid, because the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot at all be approved in the light of the findings recorded on points 2 to 4. Therefore, we are of the view that the proceedings that have taken place pursuant to the directions contained in the order under appeal shall have to fall to the ground. Consequently, the proceedings of the Chancellor dated 19. 1994 have to be set aside. Similarly, the order dated 19. Therefore, we are of the view that the proceedings that have taken place pursuant to the directions contained in the order under appeal shall have to fall to the ground. Consequently, the proceedings of the Chancellor dated 19. 1994 have to be set aside. Similarly, the order dated 19. 1994 issued by the Chancellor, appointing Dr.Abdul Kalam as Vice Chancellor, has also to be set aside, as being not in accordance with Sec.11 of the Act and the findings recorded by us, because Dr.Abdul Kalam was not available at the time when the Chancellor was to consider the names recommended by the Second Committee. Point No.5 is answered accordingly. 20. In the light of the findings recorded by us point Nos.1 to 5, the writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of in the following terms: .(a) The order dated 19. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. .(b) The panel submitted by the Second Search Committee became incomplete on the date when the names included in the panel were to be considered for appointment by the Chancellor inasmuch as Dr.Abdul Kalam was not available for. appointment. .(c) The Second Search Committee has not be-come functus officio, as the panel submitted by it is not complete. Accordingly, the Second Search Committee is directed to submit one another name to make it a panel of three names as the other two names recommended by the very same committee are available. The third name has to be recommended by the Second Search Committee on or before the end of October, 1994. .(d) The proceedings dated 19. 1994 of the Chancellor and also the order of the Chancellor dated 19. 1994 appointing Dr.Abdul Kalam as the Vice Chancellor of the Madras University are quashed. .(e) The Chancellor has to consider the names of (1) Dr.T.Nagarajan, (2) Dr.P.K.Ponnusamy along with another name to be recommended by the Second Search Committee, without reference to his proceedings and the order dated 19. 1994 and appoint one of them as Vice Chancellor within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the Third or another name from the Second Search Committee. .(f) As a result of these directions, we make it earlier that the Senate and the Syndicate need not meet on 10. 1994 for the purpose of nominating one each to the Search Committee. .(f) As a result of these directions, we make it earlier that the Senate and the Syndicate need not meet on 10. 1994 for the purpose of nominating one each to the Search Committee. There will be no order as to costs in these matters.