Judgment :- W.P. No. 3562 of 1987 is to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned resolution of the Syndicate passed in its Special Meeting held on July 5, 1982 at 11.00 a.m. with its annexure and quash the same in so far as it relates to the approval of selection of Thiru M. Ramaswamy, the second respondent herein, as Reader in the Department of Management studies and to direct the first respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as reader in the Department of Management Studies on the basis of his performance in the interview held in 1982. 2. W.P. No. 3569 of 1987 is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned resolution of the Syndicate passed in its Special Meeting held on July 5, 1982 at 11.00 a.m. The prayer in this writ petition is almost identical as to that of W.P. No. 3562 of 1987. The petitioner herein is another aggrieved University Lecturer by name G. Suryanarayana Reddy. 3. At the commencement of the arguments, counsel appearing on both sides requested the court to take up the writ petition No. 3562/1987 along with W.P. No. 3569 of 1987. Further they have also expressed that the point involved in both the writ petitions is as to whether the selection and appointment of the second respondent cover the other writ petition also. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 3562 of 1987 is that he joined the Department of Management Studies, University of Madras as lecturer on December 1, 1978. He has obtained B.Tech. Degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and a post graduate Diploma in Business Management (PGDBM) with First Class, which is recognised as equivalent to M.B.A. from Xavier Labour Institution, Jamshedpur. He was also awarded National Merit Scholarship by Government of India for his outstanding performance in S.S.L.C. and he enjoyed it till the end of his B.Tech. course. Till 1978 the petitioner worked in different concerns. From July, 1974 to June, 1982 the petitioner worked as Honorary Faculty Member to conduct Management Training Programme in leading organisation, including one conducted by the University of Madras. During that time he taught a large number of students of Management Studies. course. Till 1978 the petitioner worked in different concerns. From July, 1974 to June, 1982 the petitioner worked as Honorary Faculty Member to conduct Management Training Programme in leading organisation, including one conducted by the University of Madras. During that time he taught a large number of students of Management Studies. In December, 1978 he became a full-fledged Faculty Member of the Management Studies. When the writ petition was filed he was carrying on research work after registering for Ph.D. 5. On January 25, 1982, University of Madras invited applications from eligible candidates for a number of teaching posts in various Departments including two posts of reader in the Department of Management Studies. The minimum qualifications prescribed for the posts of reader were (1) Masters Degree in the subject, viz., M.B.A. (2) Five years of teaching experience; (3) Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner has applied for the post along with second respondent, who was a student of the petitioner. At the time of application, the second respondent did not obtain his M.B.A. Degree. He did not possess five years of teaching experience in Management Studies. He was only M.E. Degree in High Voltage. Even though the second respondent did not possess of even M.B.A. Degree he was interviewed and selected and the selection was approved by the Syndicate in its Special Meeting held on July 5, 1982. 6. The M.B.A. result of the second respondent was published on July 9, 1982. The second respondent was selected to the post of Reader in the Department of Management Studies much before the publication of result of his M.B.A. examination. Further the contention of the petitioner is that he was already working in the Department of Management Studies from 1978 as a Lecturer while Ramaswamy, the second respondent was a student; he did not get his M.B.A. Degree; He had no teaching experience in the field of Management Studies whereas the petitioner fulfilled all the qualifications. In putting through hurriedly the process of advertisement, interview and selection to appoint M. Ramaswamy, as Reader, the first respondent denied an opportunity to compete in the selection to another Lecturer of the Department Mr. G. Suryanarayana Reddy (petitioner in W.P. No. 3569 of 1987) by keeping the advertisement as a guarded secret from him while he was in Zambia on deputation. 7. G. Suryanarayana Reddy (petitioner in W.P. No. 3569 of 1987) by keeping the advertisement as a guarded secret from him while he was in Zambia on deputation. 7. After the selection and appointment the petitioner made an oral protest to the Head of the Department and appraised him of the injustice done to him. Similarly, G. Suryanarayana Reddy on his return from Zambia made an oral protest to the Head of the Department against the illegal appointment of the second respondent as Reader; but both the petitioners were advised not to complicate the matter by any legal action. However, they were assured that their interest would be safeguarded by promoting them to the post of Reader under the University Grants Commission's Merit Promotion Scheme. Accordingly, the petitioners waited for rendering justice. Twice their hopes were kindled when the University of Madras, invited applications for promotion to the post of Reader under University Grant Commission Merit Promotion Scheme. The latest attempt in this direction was one made in November-December, 1986. But the petitioners were disappointed. Thereupon the petitioner in W.P. No. 3569 of 1987 wrote a letter on November 24, 1986 to the Registrar, University of Madras through the Head of the Department. The Head of the Department wrote a letter No. 437/Est., dated December 4, 1986 wherein he stated that he played only a marginal role in the 1982 selection which brought the second respondent as Reader and that to remove heart burn and maintain harmony in the Department, Mr. Sathyamurthy and G. Suryanarayana Reddy bum and maintain harmony in the Department, Mr. Sathyamurthy and G. Suryanarayana Reddy should be promoted as readers. But even thereafter nothing has turned out on this suggestion. Hence, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 8. The facts narrated above cover almost all the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 3562 of 1987, except some details about the qualification of the petitioner therein, those facts are very essential much for the disposal of the writ petition. I feel that there is no necessity to narrate them again in detail. 9. Both the respondents 1 and 2 in each petition have filed separate counters in both the writ petitions. 10. I feel that there is no necessity to narrate them again in detail. 9. Both the respondents 1 and 2 in each petition have filed separate counters in both the writ petitions. 10. In the counter filed by the second respondent, University of Madras the Registrar has denied each and every one of the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions. He states that even as per the petitioner his qualification was P.G. Diploma in Business Management and not M.B.A. Degree. He was not also awarded Ph.D. at that time. The qualifications prescribed for the post in the advertisement dated January 25, 1982 were first class or second class Post Graduate Degree in the said subject or related subjects, Ph.D. in the subject with not less than 5 years of teaching experience and research experience. Out of 12 candidates, the qualifications of the petitioners were Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management, B.Tech. Graduate in Electrical Engineering, Trainee and Senior Trainee in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and I.C.F. from January, 1972 to May, 1972, systems analyst for three months, Executive trainee in Lloyds Sales Corporation from July, 1974 to September, 1974, Sales Engineer in Zenith Electrical from 1975-76, Sales Engineer in Wilson & Co., Private Limited, Madras from September, 1976 to February, 1978 three years teaching experience and 8 years in other posts. 11. As per the first respondent's counter, the qualifications of the second respondent are as follows : "M.E. (High Voltage) First Class, Second Rank, 1977. Assistant Lecturer from 1965 to 1975 in Govt. Professional Engineering Institute. Teaching experience for 17 years." Further it is also stated in the counter that the teaching selection committee recommended to Thiru N. Balasubramanian (open competition), and Thiru M. Ramasamy (Backward Class), the second respondent, which was approved by the Syndicate in its meeting held on July 1, 1982. The second respondent was appointed as Reader with effect from August 11, 1982. He joined the post on that date. His probation was declared. His appointment was on the basis that none appeared in the interview possessed Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner was not having, M.B.A. Degree or Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner has not questioned the appointment of second respondent for more than 5 years. On that ground of laches itself, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. His probation was declared. His appointment was on the basis that none appeared in the interview possessed Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner was not having, M.B.A. Degree or Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner has not questioned the appointment of second respondent for more than 5 years. On that ground of laches itself, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had no qualifications, cannot question about the others when the second respondent was a degree holder, which is a related subject and having 17 years teaching experience. Further the second respondent subsequently obtained M.B.A. Degree and also awarded Ph.D. Degree. There was no hurry in the selection nor it was kept as a closely guarded secret. There was no oral protest to the Head of the Department. 13. The grounds alleged in the writ petitions are untenable. The petitioner did not possess minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader. He was only P.G. Diploma holder in Business Management, which cannot be treated as P.G. Degree in the subject or allied subjects. On the other hand, the second respondent was holding a P.G. Degree in M.E. (High Voltage) with 17 years of teaching experience. Hence there was no question of any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. The second respondent in his counter states they challenge as the order dated July 5, 1982 and the writ petitions are of the year 1987, i.e., after lapse of 5 years. Hence they deserve to be dismissed on the ground of laches. The petitioner selected in the backward community quota i.e., the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the petition. The petitioner is not a fully qualified M.B.A. Degree holder. His Diploma in Business Management is not equivalent to M.B.A. The second respondent has set out the advertisement in detail in his counter. He states that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader was a first class or second class P.G. Degree in the subject or related subjects, Ph.D. Degree in the subject with not less than 5 years of teaching experience. When he was called for the interview, he possessed M.E. Degree in Engineering, which is related subject. He was not having M.B.A. Degree. When he was called for the interview, he possessed M.E. Degree in Engineering, which is related subject. He was not having M.B.A. Degree. At the time of joining as reader, the second respondent got an official M.B.A. Degree, apart from the related degree in M.E. The second respondent was called for interview based on the qualification in the related subject i.e. M.E. Degree and not based on M.B.A. Degree. The second respondent called for interview on June 28, 1982, was selected under B.C. quota. The Syndicate approved his selection on July 5, 1982. The appointment order was issued on July 8, 1982. His selection was on the basis of the qualification in the related subject i.e., M.E. Degree and 17 years of teaching experience in that subject. The writ petitions have been filed only to harass the second respondent. If the petitioners were really genuine in their grievance they would have taken steps with the appropriate authority like Chancellor, Vice-chancellor, Syndicate etc., then and there. They have not explained the inordinate delay of five years, on that ground the writ petitions have to be dismissed with costs. G. Suryanarayana Reddy who was in Zambia did not apply for the post. Hence, he has no right to challenge the selection. Thiru G. Suryanarayana Reddy has colluded with the petitioner (W.P. No. 3562 of 1987) and filed W.P. No. 3569 of 1987. Both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not made out a prima facie case and the inordinate delay of more than five years has not been explained. There are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition has to be dismissed. 15. Similarly the second respondent has also filed counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 3569 of 1987. The said counter-affidavit is almost similar to the one filed in W.P. No. 3562 of 1987. The petitioner was not a candidate at all. He returned to India and joined duty as a lecturer in Madras University on December 12, 1983. The writ petition was filed in March, 1987, after a lapse of five years. After repeating the averments contained in the counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 3582 of 1987, the Registrar reiterates that there is collusion between this petitioner and Thiru G. Suryanarayana Reddy. He prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition also. 16. The writ petition was filed in March, 1987, after a lapse of five years. After repeating the averments contained in the counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 3582 of 1987, the Registrar reiterates that there is collusion between this petitioner and Thiru G. Suryanarayana Reddy. He prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition also. 16. The first contention urged by both the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 is that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for laches. According to them, the selection was on July 8, 1982, the writ petitions have been filed only in March, 1987. The long delay of five years has not been explained at all by the petitioner. In support of their contention, the following decisions were cited :- 1. 1970 AIR(SC) 470, 1970 LIC 402, 1970 (1) SCC 84 , 1970 (2) SCR 697 2) 1975-II-LLJ-98), 3) 1976 AIR(SC) 2617, 1977 (34) FLR 300, 1976 LIC 1697, 1977 (1) SLR 255, 1977 (3) SCC 396 , 1976 UJ 967 , 1977 SCC(L&S) 424, 1977 SCC(L&S) 424, 1977 SCC(L&S) 424, 1977 SCC(L&S) 424, 1977 SCC(L&S) 424, 1977 SCC(L&S) 424, 1977 SCC(L&S) 424 6) 1996 I M.L.J. 331. 17. In Rabindra Nath Bose and Others v. Union of India & Others 1970 AIR(SC) 470, 1970 LIC 402, 1970 (1) SCC 84 , 1970 (2) SCR 697 the Supreme Court has refused to condone the delay of 15 years since the petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India without any reasonable explanation. In para 36, the explanation given by the petitioners was not accepted. Further in para 35 the learned Judges of the Apex Court observed that "we are not anxious to throw out petitions on this ground, but we must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience." 18. In M. L. Cecil Desouza v. Union of India & Others (1975-II-LLJ-98) (SC), the seniority list was challenged after undue delay. In the said case, the seniority list was determined in 1956 and issued in 1958, the challenge was in 1971. In para 8 of the judgment the learned Judges felt that no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the petitioner before them for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. In the said case, the seniority list was determined in 1956 and issued in 1958, the challenge was in 1971. In para 8 of the judgment the learned Judges felt that no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the petitioner before them for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. In the said case even after the rejection of the representation in 1961, the petitioner chose to approach the Supreme Court only in 1971. 19. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray & Others 1977 (3) Supreme Court cases 396 also the seniority list was challenged after 11 years after the rejection of representation. Hence, the Supreme Court felt that the High Court should have rejected the petition on the said preliminary ground. In the last para of the judgment, learned Judge has found that after the seniority list was published and when the petitioners waited for long years there were number of appointments by promotion and there were number of retirements. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court has observed that "those who continued to serve could justifiably think that as there was no challenge to their appointments within the period prescribed in the said suit, they could look forward to further promotion and higher terminal benefits on retirement." 20. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court has observed that "those who continued to serve could justifiably think that as there was no challenge to their appointments within the period prescribed in the said suit, they could look forward to further promotion and higher terminal benefits on retirement." 20. In State of M.P. v. Nandalal Jaiswal & Others 1987 AIR(SC) 251, 1987 CrLR(SC) 128, 1986 (701) JT 2, 1986 (2) Scale 638 , 1986 (4) SCC 566 , 1987 (1) SCR 1 , 1987 CRLR 128, 1987 TaxLR 1830 the learned Judges have observed that "When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction" The learned Judges have also referred to earlier decisions in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979-II-LLJ-217) (SC) and Ashok Kumar v. Collector Raipur 1980 AIR(SC) 112, 1980 (1) SCC 180 , 1980 (1) SCR 491 , 1980 UJ 133 In the same paragraph, the learned Judges have observed that: "Of course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay of creation of third party rights would by their very nature be very few and far between" 21. In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar 1995 AIR(SC) 1991, 1995 (9) JT 310 , 1995 (2) RentLR 190, 1995 (4) Scale 98 , 1995 (4) SCC 683 , 1995 AIR(SCW) 3116 the Supreme Court has condemned the practice of granting relief without considering the blameworthy conduct of undue delay or laches or waiver of the persons, who approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In para 12 of the judgment, learned Judges have observed that: "Thus, in our view, persons seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of the Constitution be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get discretionary relief obtained thereunder unless they fully satisfy the High Court that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly justified in laches or undue delay on their part in approaching the Court for grant of such discretionary relief." * 22. The aforesaid decisions will indicate that if there is extraordinary delay, the delay should not be condoned, but when the delay is explained satisfactorily, the court is bound to render justice to the petitioner. Further, the delay in each case has to be carefully scrutinised. In this background, let us analyse whether the petitioners have given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay, in approaching this Court. 23. In para 6 of the affidavit in W.P. No. 3562 of 1987, the petitioner has given reasons for not moving this Court immediately after the selection was made. In para 8 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 3569 of 1987, same reasons are set out. According to the petitioner, the petitioner in W.P. No. 3562 of 1987 made an oral protest to the Head of the Department and appraised him of the injustice done to him. Thereafter, after the return of G. Suryanarayana Reddy, the petitioner in W.P. No. 3569 of 1987 from Zambia he also made oral protest to the Head of the Department against the illegal appointment of the second respondent, they were advised not to precipitate or complicate the matter by any legal action, they also allege an assurance from the Head of the Department that their interest would be safeguarded by promoting to the post of Reader under the University Grants Commission Merit Promotion Scheme. Petitioners waited for such promotions as assured by the Head of the Department. University Grants Commission Merit Promotion Scheme was implemented twice. The last one was during November-December, 1986, but the petitioners were disappointed. Hence G. Suryanarayana Reddy wrote a letter on November 24, 1986 to the University of Madras through the Head of the Department about the illegal appointment of the second respondent. The Head of the Department wrote a letter No. 437/Est. dt. The last one was during November-December, 1986, but the petitioners were disappointed. Hence G. Suryanarayana Reddy wrote a letter on November 24, 1986 to the University of Madras through the Head of the Department about the illegal appointment of the second respondent. The Head of the Department wrote a letter No. 437/Est. dt. December 4, 1986 stating that he played only marginal role in the 1982 selection, which brought the second respondent as Reader and to remove heart bum and maintain harmony in the Department, the petitioners should be promoted as Readers. But even thereafter nothing turned out. Therefore, finally, the petitioners have approached this Court. In para 10 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent in W.P. No. 3562 of 1987, there is a simple denial of the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In that para in one sentence, it is stated that allegations in para 6 of the petition are denied. No reference is made to the letter No. 437/Est., dated December 4, 1986. In the affidavit filed in W.P. No. 3569 of 1987, there are categorical assertions about the contact with the Head of the Department and his letter and the reply thereto bearing No. 437/Est. dated December 4, 1986. Again, we find only the general denial simply stating that the other allegations are not correct and hence denied. When the two petitioners have categorically asserted about the letter giving details it is expected that some reference should be made to the letter. In the absence of specific denial about the letter in the counter, I am forced to come to the conclusion that the petitioners might have contacted the Registrar and expressed their grievances and pursuant to the said expression, the Head of the Department has addressed a letter to the Registrar, bearing No. 437/Est. dated December 4, 1986 suggesting promotions of the petitioners to remove the heart bum and maintain harmony in the Department. 24. Another aspect also has to be noticed in this case. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3569 of 1987 was out of India. It is understandable that the petitioner in W.P. No. 3562 of 1987, waited for his arrival for making joint representation for redressal of their grievances, with reference to the selection made in favour of the second respondent. 24. Another aspect also has to be noticed in this case. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3569 of 1987 was out of India. It is understandable that the petitioner in W.P. No. 3562 of 1987, waited for his arrival for making joint representation for redressal of their grievances, with reference to the selection made in favour of the second respondent. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioners have given reasons, which cannot be brushed aside as unacceptable. In the circumstances, I feel that their grievance must be considered on merits instead of rejecting it at the threshold. 25. With reference to the merits of the selection learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the second respondent was not fully qualified at the time of appointment for the post. He submitted that at the time of advertisement on January 25, 1982, at the time of interview, at the time of selection by the committee and on July 5, 1986 at the time of the approval by the Syndicate, second respondent was not possessing M.B.A. Degree. Only on July 9, 1982 the result of the examination was published. In the counter filed by the first respondent it is stated that none of the candidates who appeared for the interview possessed Ph.D. Degree. Further, it is stated that since the second respondent was holding M.E., Degree in high voltage, it was considered to be a related subject. Therefore, the selection of the second respondent was mainly on the basis of his holding M.E., Degree in High Voltage, which is a related subject. The second respondent has admitted in his counter that his selection was on the basis of his possessing a related subject. Therefore, according to the second respondent, M.E., Degree in High Voltage is a related subject. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether M.E., Degree in High Voltage is a related subject. 26. The advertisement is extracted at page 3 of the second respondent's counter. The advertisement is for two posts of Readers in Management Studies. The qualification for Reader post is a first class or second class P.G. Degree in the subject or related subjects, Ph.D. degree in the subject with not less than 5 years of teaching and research experience. 26. The advertisement is extracted at page 3 of the second respondent's counter. The advertisement is for two posts of Readers in Management Studies. The qualification for Reader post is a first class or second class P.G. Degree in the subject or related subjects, Ph.D. degree in the subject with not less than 5 years of teaching and research experience. In the advertisement there is also a note that Syndicate reserves the right among other things to relax the qualifications prescribed for any post for which there are no suitable candidates. There were 12 candidates applied for two posts of Readers but none possessed the Ph.D. Degree. The petitioner was not having M.B.A. Degree or Ph.D. Degree. 27. Mr. K. Doraisami, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the M.E. Degree in High Voltage is a related subject to business administration. Further he contended that in the advertisement itself it is stated that the power to relax the educational qualifications was with the syndicate. He also contended that the second respondent had already appeared for the M.B.A. Examination on May 8, 1982 and he was awaiting the result. Further before he joined the post on August 11, 1982, the results were published and the second respondent passed M.B.A. Examination. Further according to him, since the University has to publish results, the University can take note of the results of the second respondent, even before publication of results. Therefore, according to him, even though the second respondent was not possessed of Master Degree in Business Administration at the time of the advertisement and interview he was possessing the same by appearing for the examination earlier to the interview and passing the same before he joined the post. 28. First of all, we have to go by the counter filed by the first respondent. The first respondent has categorically stated that the second respondent was selected on the basis of his possessing the qualification in the related subject viz., M.E. in High Voltage. A reading of the first respondent's counter shows that the selection of the second respondent was on the basis of his possessing educational qualification in the related subjects M.E. High Voltage. The second respondent's counter reiterates the said fact. A reading of the first respondent's counter shows that the selection of the second respondent was on the basis of his possessing educational qualification in the related subjects M.E. High Voltage. The second respondent's counter reiterates the said fact. In para 7 of his counter, there is a statement that he was selected on the basis of the qualification in the related subject i.e., M.E. Degree and he was having 17 years of teaching experience at the time of interview. Therefore, I have to take that the selection of the second respondent was on the basis of his possessing the required educational qualification in the related subject and not in the subject. 29. It was not brought to my notice the definitions of related subjects from the Madras University Act, 1923 or from the Statutes or Ordinances. Therefore, we have to apply the meaning as prevailing in the common parlance. Business administration and high voltage are the subjects concerned. Even stretching the definition of both the subjects in a very wide manner, no connection between the two subjects is deciphered. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision in T. A. Chidambaram v. The University of Madras by its Registrar, Madras 600 005, and Anr. 1989 (I) MLJ 302 . A Division Bench of this Court has held that Geography and Criminology are not inter related and inter-disciplinary subjects. "This Court has to merely read it, as it stands conveying a plain meaning that the Ph.D. that is required for the appointment of the fulltime Reader, as well as the other teachers in the University Department, is only a Ph.D. in that subject in which he seeks appointment and not Ph.D. in any related or inter-disciplinary subject." 30. Even though the learned Judges have not dealt with the question whether, Geography, and Criminology are inter-related subjects, the Judges felt inasmuch as the Ph.D. in, the subject is the qualification and the words "or inter-related subjects or any other subjects" are not there they cannot be added to the definition contained in the Ordinance. The said case is also useful to answer the other question viz., teaching experience need not be in the same subject, but in any other subject. In para 28 of the said judgment, the learned Judges have held : "Teaching experience, therefore, has only to be teaching and research experience in the subject. The said case is also useful to answer the other question viz., teaching experience need not be in the same subject, but in any other subject. In para 28 of the said judgment, the learned Judges have held : "Teaching experience, therefore, has only to be teaching and research experience in the subject. The third respondent has no teaching experience in criminology. He had taught only Geography. Even this basic qualification the third respondent lacks" .Learned counsel for the first respondent brought to my notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5580-81 of 1989 and 9550-51 of 1981. The said judgment no doubt has reversed the judgment of the Bench of this Court referred to above, but the reversion is not on the question decided by the Bench. The Supreme Court took the view that from the bio data which was supplied to the University, it was found that the third respondent had taught criminology in the M.A. Class for a period of one year and six months, had research experience from 1981 to 1986, had contributed papers in the Indian Journal on Criminology year after year, besides contributing papers he had co-edited three books between 1983 and 1985 on the subjects related to Crimes and Criminology. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that he has experience in teaching Criminology for a period of one and half years and also research experience from 1981 to 1986. So, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Judges of the Supreme Court were satisfied that the third respondent possessed necessary qualification. Only on that ground, the judgment was reversed. 31. for the first respondent vehemently contended that once an expert committee constituted to make selection, made a selection after satisfying the qualification of the candidate, the Court cannot scrutinise such selection. I am not able to agree with the same. I am not able to find out that the selection committee considered and found that the subject of M.E. high voltage is a related subject to Business Administration. If they had expressed any opinion on that, definitely it has to be considered, but in this case it has not (sic) been done so. 32. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the second respondent did not possess qualification in the related subjects as required for his selection as Reader in Business Administration. 33. If they had expressed any opinion on that, definitely it has to be considered, but in this case it has not (sic) been done so. 32. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the second respondent did not possess qualification in the related subjects as required for his selection as Reader in Business Administration. 33. I have already pointed out that the second respondent did not possess teaching experience in the subject, because the admitted fact is that he had teaching experience of high voltage in Polytechnic, whether the Polytechnic can be construed to be a College or not, I need not go into that question, since I find that the second respondent did not possess teaching experience in Business Administration or its related subjects. Two other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent and the University are untenable. The first one is that the petitioner in W.P. No. 3562 of 1987 was not a candidate for selection in the B.C. quota. Secondly, he was also not fully qualified. Therefore, no purpose will be served by setting aside the selection. 34. A reading of the counter filed by the first respondent does not show that on what ground the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, whether he possessed sufficient qualification or not need not be gone into in these proceedings. I am not agreeable that no useful purpose will be served if the selection of the second respondent is set aside. The Court has to decide the matter before it, i.e. whether the selection of the second respondent is proper or not. If he has been wrongly selected, the selection cannot be justified on the ground that no useful purpose will be served by doing so. When the Court is called upon to give an answer on an issue, it has to decide that issue and give an answer. It is true that consequences can also be taken note of in certain cases. But that can be for moulding the relief to be granted. In this case, in my view, the selection of the second respondent has to be set aside. I also do not find any necessity for issuing any direction in favour of the petitioner consequent to the setting aside of the selection or appointment. But that can be for moulding the relief to be granted. In this case, in my view, the selection of the second respondent has to be set aside. I also do not find any necessity for issuing any direction in favour of the petitioner consequent to the setting aside of the selection or appointment. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed in part i.e., to the extent of quashing the special resolution of the Syndicate dated July 5, 1982 relating to the selection of the second respondent, but the prayer for mandamus to appoint the petitioners cannot be granted. It is for the University of Madras to take the follow-up action consequent on the partly allowing of the writ petitions. There will be no order as to costs.