JUDGMENT : 1. Having heard learned advocates for the petitioner, for the University and for opp. parties 3 and 4, we find that the petitioner has prayed inter alia : "......this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this writ application; Issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the selection of opp. party Nos. 3 and 4 shall not be quashed and as to why the petitioner being the only eligible candidate for the post of Lect-in-law should not be appointed and if the opp. parties fail to show cause or satisfactory cause, your Lordships may be pleased to make the said rule absolute; And may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders, to opp. parties No. 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Lect-in-law (constituent colleges) under the Utkal University and to grant any other relief/reliefs as your Lordships would deem fit and proper; 2. The petitioner; in fact, challenges the selection of opp. parties 3 and 4 for the post of Lecturer-in-Law (constituent colleges) under the Utkal University. He has two-fold objection. First, it is contended that the Selection Committee was illegally constituted and the members of the said Committee were not eligible to participate in the meeting of the Selection Committee. Secondly, it is submitted that the persons selected, i.e. opp. parties 3 and 4, had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria and although the petitioner had passed the U.G.C. eligibility test for lecturership in the faculty of Law, that has been ignored. 3. Secondly, it is submitted that the persons selected, i.e. opp. parties 3 and 4, had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria and although the petitioner had passed the U.G.C. eligibility test for lecturership in the faculty of Law, that has been ignored. 3. Considering the submissions in depth, we find that Sections 21 (2) and 21 (2) (ii) of the Orissa University Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provide for constitution of Selection Committee and it is stated therein; "The teachers of a University shall be appointed; by the Syndicate of that University on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the concerned Vice-Chancellor, Director, an Expert nominated by the Chancellor in the case of appointment of Professor, and three Experts selected by the said Vice-Chancellor from out of the list of six Experts furnished by the said Syndicate which shall riot include : (i) any teacher of such University or if any of it's constituent or affiliated college; or (ii) any person who has been an examiner of such University in the preceding or the relevant year; Provided that where the Committee fails to make any specific recommendation or where the Syndicate differs from the recommendation made by the Committee, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final: Provided further that nothing in Clause (ii) shall apply to Experts to be nominated to a Committee for selection of Professor." 4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the two Experts who had participated in the Selection Committee were members of the Moderation Board and question setters respectively for LL. M. and LL. B. examinations during the year 1989-90 and therefore, they should not have been selected as Experts under the Utkal University. Participation of such members in the selection meeting has vitiated the selection process. 5. Next it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was the only candidate who had passed the U.G.C. eligibility test. The selected candidates, i.e., opp. parties 3 and 4, having no such qualification, could not have been selected and the matter should be re-opened and interference of the writ Court is all the more necessary. 6. The writ petition is opposed by the University as also opp. parties 3 and 4 who are contesting the proceeding. 7. The selected candidates, i.e., opp. parties 3 and 4, having no such qualification, could not have been selected and the matter should be re-opened and interference of the writ Court is all the more necessary. 6. The writ petition is opposed by the University as also opp. parties 3 and 4 who are contesting the proceeding. 7. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court reported in Dr. Baishnab Charan Singh Vs. Registrar, Utkal University Shri Santanu Kumar Acharya for self and representing the University and Others, wherein it has been decided that neither the Act nor the Statutes define the meaning of 'expert'. Section 21 of the Act refers to 'experts' as well as 'examiners'. Therefore, 'experts' and 'examiners' cannot carry the same meaning. In the opinion of the Court, what is prohibited u/s 21 (2) (ii) of the Act is that a person who had been an examiner of the University in question in the preceding year or in the relevant year cannot be selected as an expert. Since it is the specific assertion of the University, which has not been controverted by the petitioner, that the person concerned had come as an expert in the previous year and not as an examiner, by nominating him as an expert in the year in question, there had been no violation of Section 21 (2) (ii) of the Act. Applying the ratio of the said decision to this case, opp. parties 3 and 4 having been appointed as members of the Moderation Board and question-setters not during the relevant year, that would not stand as an embargo for their being members of the Selection Committee. The first point raised by the petitioner is thus, answered in the negative. 8. With regard to the second aspect of the matter, our attention has been drawn to Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application which are the advertisements for filling up posts under the University. It is disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the University that for filling up the posts of wholetimer specific qualification has been prescribed, Nothing has been produced before us to show that the qualification of opp. parties 3 and 4 was contrary to and/or inconsistent with the qualification so that they were not eligible to apply in response to the advertisements or for being considered by the Selection Committee. parties 3 and 4 was contrary to and/or inconsistent with the qualification so that they were not eligible to apply in response to the advertisements or for being considered by the Selection Committee. Learned advocate for the petitioner has, however, drawn our attention to an earlier decision of this Court dated 9-3-1994 in OJC No. 2342 of 1990 (Dr. Nrusinga Charan Sarangi v. Utkal University and Ors.) where a Division Bench considered the scope of qualification of the candidate and as to the degree of Ph. D. and the qualification in accordance with the U.G.C. test for the purpose of filling up posts. As we also find here, though the petitioner had passed the eligibility test prescribed by the U.G.C. for the purpose of filling up the whole-timer post, as in the instant case, opp. parties 3 and 4 had not suffered from any infirmity. For the foregoing reasons we do not find that the acts done and/or caused to have been done in appointing opp. parties 3 and 4 as per the recommendation of the Selection Committee suffer from any infirmity nor. do they require any interference. Finding no merit, we dismiss the writ application. No order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed