Mahinder Narain, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Dr. Raghunath Chand Anand has Filed this petition, seeking a mandamus, directing the respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences to implement the recommendations of the selection committee, whereby the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Medical Superintendent of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and to permit the petitioner to join the All India Institute of Medical Sciences as its Medical Superintendent. The petitioner has also prayed for costs, and for such other reliefs, as this Court deems fit and proper. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he has been working as an Additional Medical Superintendent in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, since 16. 7. 1987. ( 3 ) THE petitioner asserted that in the month of February 1992 one po of Medical Superintendent was advertised in the newspapers as the said post was vacated by Dr. A. N. Safaya, who had taken voluntary retirement w. e. f. 15. 2. 1992. The said advertisement which is annexed to the petition as annexure "a" reads as under:- All INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ANSARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110029. ADVERTISEMENT NO. 2/92 Application will be received by the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110029 from Indian Citizens upto 30th March, 1992 for the following temporary posts: MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT Pay Scale: 5900-200-7300 + N. P. A. Essential Qualifications: 1. M. B. B. S 2. A high post-graduate qualification in any branch of Medical Sciences or Hospital Administration. EXPERIENCE: 14 years experience after prescribed post-graduate qualification, but of which 7 years should be as Superintendent of a recognised hospital. Teaching and/or research experience in Hospital Administration. N. B. : 1. Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates called for interview will be paid travelling allowance as per rules of the. Institute. 2. The effective date upto which the requisite experience must be completed is 31. 12. 92. UPPER AGE LIMIT: 50 years relaxable for Government Servants, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates or otherwise exceptionally qualified candidates. Upper age limit upto 5 years is relaxable in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. N. B. : The essential qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Selecting Authority. Application forms and other information can be obtained personally or on written request accompanied by a self-addressed stamped (Rs. Upper age limit upto 5 years is relaxable in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. N. B. : The essential qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Selecting Authority. Application forms and other information can be obtained personally or on written request accompanied by a self-addressed stamped (Rs. 3. 00) envelop (23 x 8 cm) from the office of the Senior Administrative Officer, Administrative Block, AIIMS, New Delhi - 110029. The petitioner further asserted that he applied for that post along with his brief bio-date, in which he stated that he was M. B. B. S. with D. T. C. D; M. H. A. ; M. D. , M. P. H. (USA), having total professional experience of 27 years; that he had worked from 25. 8. 1976 to 7. 6. 1981 as Assistant Professor of Hospital Administration at NIHAE; that he worked as a Lecturer in the Hospital Administration of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences from 25. 8. 1976 to 30. 6. 1986, and as a Deputy Medical Superintendent with All India Institute of Medical Sciences; that he worked as Associate Professor of the Hospital Administration at AIIMS from 1. 7. 1986 to 15. 7. 1987; that he worked as Additional Professor and Additional Medical Superintendent at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMs, New Delhi from July 1987 up to the date of filing the writ petition. The petitioner also indicated number of publications to his credit (33 in number ). The petitioner also stated that 26 thesis for post graduates were guided by him, and has a academic affiliations. The petitioner stated that 24 candidates had respondent to the said advertisement including the petitioner, from all over the country. The applications of the applicants were REFERRED TO to the Screening Committee, who found that all except two persons, the petitioner and Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta, did not fulfil the qualifications, experience of the post, and therefore, were not invited for interview. The Selection Committee comprised an number of persons, who were as follows:- 1. Prof. Shri Upendra Bakshi Chairman 2. Dr. G. K. Vishwakarma Member/vice Chairman 3. Dr. C. M. Habibullah Member 4. Dr. Ramani Sivaramani Member 5. Dr. H. C. Pakrashi Member 6. Dr. C. Silvera Member Member Of Parliament 7. Dr. Mahender Prasad Member Member of Parliament 8. Dr. Balwant Singhtung Member 9. Dr. Prof. Shri Upendra Bakshi Chairman 2. Dr. G. K. Vishwakarma Member/vice Chairman 3. Dr. C. M. Habibullah Member 4. Dr. Ramani Sivaramani Member 5. Dr. H. C. Pakrashi Member 6. Dr. C. Silvera Member Member Of Parliament 7. Dr. Mahender Prasad Member Member of Parliament 8. Dr. Balwant Singhtung Member 9. Dr. S. K. Kacker Member-Secretary ( 4 ) THE petitioner s contention is that the interview was held on 24. 4. 1992 in the office of the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The petitioner stated that Dr. Upendra Bakshi, the Chairman of the Selection Committee, did not reach the meeting till 9. 45 A. M. , and after waiting fora long time, the Selection Committee requested Dr. G. K. Vishwakarma, Director General of Health Services, and Vice-Chairman of the Selection Committee, to chair the meeting. The petitioner stated that he was called for interview and it lasted approximately an hour. The interview was attended by Professor Urmil Sharma, Dean of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, as a special invitee. ( 5 ) IT is also asserted by the petitioner that Dr. Upendra Bakshi, Chairman of the Selection Committee, reached the Selection Committee room only two-three minutes before the interview of the petitioner was over, and the Chairman took the chair only after the petitioner had left the interview room. ( 6 ) THE petitioner also stated that he has come to know that the technical experts who were invited by the Selection Committee in connection with the said interview, being Shri S. D. Sharma, Additional Director General, Health Services, and Dr. B. N. S. Walia, Director, Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh, graded the petitioner a"a , and the said experts graded Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta, another candidate, as bb . The petitioner asserted that be believed that the matter of appointment as Medical Superintendent was deliberated upon by the Selection Committee who had decided to recommend the petitioner for the post of Medical Superintendent for the Ail India Institute of Medical Sciences. The petitioner also asserted that he believed that all the members of the Selection Committee signed it except Dr. S. K. Kacker, Director of the Institute and Member Secretary of the Selection Committee, and Dr. Upendra Bakshi, who, as stated above, was not present at the time of the interview of the petitioner. The petitioner also asserted that he believed that all the members of the Selection Committee signed it except Dr. S. K. Kacker, Director of the Institute and Member Secretary of the Selection Committee, and Dr. Upendra Bakshi, who, as stated above, was not present at the time of the interview of the petitioner. The petitioner said that it came to his knowledge that Dr. S. K. Kackher sent a note on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, which reads as follows:- "chairman of the Selection Committee has. not signed the recommendations made by other members, his feeling was that for medical Superintendent of All India Institute of Medical Sciences we should have better administrative material. It was felt that wordings of essential requirement may be looked at by academic committee and put up to the Governing Body. After the post may be re-advertised so that large number of candidates can be called for interview to get better and more suitable candidates". ( 7 ) THE matter was thereafter REFERRED TO to the Governing Body along with the notes and the records of the Selection Committee. The Governing Body comprising the following members, met on 25. 4. 1992:- ( 8 ) THERE is some controversy between the parties as to what transpired during the interview of the petitioner and thereafter. The controversy relates to the presence or absence of the Chairman of the Selection Committee Professor Upendra Bakshi, According to the petitioner, Professor Upendra Bakshi reached almost at the fag end of the interview, and, therefore, sat on a back sofa in the room where the interview was being held, and he did not participate in the interview. ( 9 ) THE respondents, however, while admitting that Professor Upendra Bakshi, Chairman of the Selection Committee, reached late, asserted that he participated at the interview while silting on a sofa at the back. ( 10 ) IN support of the averments made by the petitioner, the petitioner refers to an affidavit filed by Dr. Vishwakarma who was the Director General of Health Services, at that time a member of the Selection Committee, and who as Vice-Chairman of the Selection Committee, had taken the chair in the absence of Professor Upendra Bakshi. In that affidavit Dr. Vishwakarma stated that Members of the Committee had reached the Committee Room at 9. 00 A. M. except Professor Upendra Bakshi. In that affidavit Dr. Vishwakarma stated that Members of the Committee had reached the Committee Room at 9. 00 A. M. except Professor Upendra Bakshi. He goes on to say that, "the members waited for some time, and approximately about 9. 45 A. M. requested the answering respondent (Vice-Chairman of the Selection Committee) to take the chair and start the interview. The answering respondent took the chair and started the interview of the First candidate - Dr. R. C. Anand. The interview lasted for about 50 minutes or so. At a time when the interview was at the fag end, Dr. Upendra Bakshi entered the Committee room and sat down on the sofa at the back of the room. After the interview of the first candidate was over, the answering respondent requested Dr. Upendra Bakshi to take the chair and start the interview of the second candidate, viz. Dr. Gupta. " ( 11 ) IN our view, the petitioner was a candidate who was the best person to know who was interviewing him. He must have seen the members of the Selection Committee other than Dr. Upendra Bakshi present throughout the interview, including Dr. Vishwakarma. He could not have seen Dr. Upendra Bakshi except when he left the room. The version of the petitioner finds support from the Vice-Chairman Dr. Vishwakarma, and we see no reason why the version given by the petitioner and Dr. Vishwakarma should be disbelieved, and the version given by Dr. S. K. Kacker should be accepted. In any case, even Dr. S. K. Kacker has, in his counter-reply dated 1. 2. 1993, at page 234 of the record, accepted by implication that Dr. Upendra Bakshi was "late" in view of urgent work at Delhi University. The interview started in his absence. This way the petitioner s statement, and that of Dr. vishwakarma is believed. What is, however, not acceptable, is the latter part of the statement of Dr. S. K. Kacker, which is to this effect, "in fact, Dr. Upendra Bakshi arrived much before the interview of the petitioner was over, in fact, he participated in the proceedings and interviewed the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee. Professor Upendra Sakshi thus had reached much in time when the interview of the petitioner was going on. S. K. Kacker, which is to this effect, "in fact, Dr. Upendra Bakshi arrived much before the interview of the petitioner was over, in fact, he participated in the proceedings and interviewed the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee. Professor Upendra Sakshi thus had reached much in time when the interview of the petitioner was going on. On reaching the Committee Room Professor Bakshi participated in the proceedings and interviewed the petitioner in his capacity as Chairman of the Selection Committee. He sat in the Committee Room itself. There is a sofa lying in the Committee Room and since the interview of the petitioner was already in progress, Professor Bakshi sat on the sofa and he interviewed the petitioner while sitting on the sofa itself. ( 12 ) THE assertion in this affidavit that interview of the petitioner by Professor Bakshi took place while he was sitting on the sofa lying at the back of the Committee Room, is contrary to the assertion of the petitioner and Dr. Vishwakarma, and in any case appears to be too far fetched to be believed that somebody interviewed while sitting on the sofa lying at the back of the room. These assertions, in the affidavit of Dr. S. K. Kacker, have to be made with some motive just as the note which was appended by him as a Member Secretary. It is quite clear from the proceedings of the Selection Committee that of the 9 Members who were members of the Selection Committee, seven had signed the minutes of the meeting. , but two had not, the two being Professor Upendra Bakshi and Dr. S. K. Kacker. ( 13 ) THE petitioner also contended that he believed that the two experts who are called in to assist the Selection Committee, had both graded the petitioner as "a" and "a" respectively, whereas they both graded Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta as "b" and "b" respectively. S. K. Kacker. ( 13 ) THE petitioner also contended that he believed that the two experts who are called in to assist the Selection Committee, had both graded the petitioner as "a" and "a" respectively, whereas they both graded Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta as "b" and "b" respectively. It is also to be noted that these gradings were given because the experts were required to grade the persons interviewed on the undermentioned scale of grading: A+ Exceptionally brilliant A Outstanding B + Well above average B Average B- Below average C Poor ( 14 ) IN order to get an explanation regarding the note which was appended by the Member Secretary to the recommendations of the Selection Committee, and the contention which was raised regarding thereto by the petitioner that the note is a subsequent addition to the recommendations of the Committee, a Division Bench of this Court (B. N. Kirpal and A. B. Saharya, JJ) made the following order on 5. 1. 1993. Present: Mr. R. K. Anand, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Bhasin and Mr. Lokesh Sawhney for the petitioner. Mr. G. D. Gupta for the respondents. C. W. 2200/92 ( 15 ) UNDER direction of this Court, Mr. Gupta has placed on record a photo copy of letter dated 1st May, 1992 from Shri B. S. Lamba, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to respondent No. 4 in which it has been stated that the President of respondent No. l has desired that the prescribed experience which is required for appointment to the post of Medical Superintendent should be amended. The proposal regarding the amendment is contained in the said letter and pursuant thereto, a fresh advertisement was purportedly issued. ( 16 ) WHEN this writ petition had come up for hearing on 10th December, 1992, the recommendations of the Selection Committee which had met on 24th April, 1992 were shown to the Court. The documents which were shown were three in number. The first page was a recommendations of the Selection Committee whereby the name of the petitioner was recommended for selection to the post of Medical Superintendent. . The documents which were shown were three in number. The first page was a recommendations of the Selection Committee whereby the name of the petitioner was recommended for selection to the post of Medical Superintendent. . The said recommendations was in the hand-writing of respondent No. 2, who was a Chairman of the Selection Committee, and was signed by all the other members of the Selection Committee except that the said recommendations did not bear the signatures of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4. Below the recommendations was a note of respondent No. 4 which note has been reproduced at page 43 of this writ petition and contains a recommendations of the Chairman of the Selection Committee. The second and third page of the said document consisted of the recommendations of two experts on each page who were present when the interviews were held. According to the said recommendations, the petitioner had been graded as "aa" whereas one Dr. V. P. Gupta, the other candidate was graded as "bb". We are setting out the contents of the said recommendations at some length because when the hearing of this writ petition commenced yesterday, learned counsel for the respondents informed this Court that the respondents are unable to locate the said document containing the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Mr. Gupt^ agrees that the said document has been conectly described in this order, and be says that efforts are being made to locate the same. ( 17 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the writ petition. The petitioner desires to add some averments in the writ petition alleging mala fides of law and fact and also wishes to implead one or two more respondents. The oral request of the petitioner to amend the memo of parties and to amend the writ petition is accepted. ( 18 ) THE amended writ petition be Filed within two days and notice to issue to the newly added respondents returnable on 12th January, 1993. Notice be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner. ( 19 ) CASE to come up for directions on 12th January, 1993. ( 18 ) THE amended writ petition be Filed within two days and notice to issue to the newly added respondents returnable on 12th January, 1993. Notice be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner. ( 19 ) CASE to come up for directions on 12th January, 1993. ( 20 ) THIS order was made by the Division Bench, as apparently the originals of the documents mentioned in that order, were no more traceable, and it is on the basis of the said order of the Division Bench that documents have been reconstructed, and given to us. According to the reconstructed documents, the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the post of Medical Superintendent in order of merit, was in favour of Dr. R. C. Anand, the petitioner. As recorded in the order dated 5. 10. 1993, the name of Dr. R. C. Anand was in the hand of professor Upendra Bakshi. The Member Secretary and the Chairman had not signed this recommendations. Later on what was produced before the Court, was a copy of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, which did not bear the name of Dr. R. C. Anand as the person recommended for the post of Medical Superintendent of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. We find it very odd that the experts selected by the Committee graded the petitioner as outstanding, and yet the Member Secretary of the Committee records a note on the recommendations of the Selection Committee that, "chairman of the Selection Committee has not signed the recommendations made by other members. His feeling was that fora medical Superintendent of All India Institute of Medical Sciences we should have better administrative material". (We fail to understand what can be better administrative material than an outstanding person ). The note further reads, "it was felt that wordings of essential requirements may be looked at by the academic committee and put up to the Governing Body. After the post may be readvertised so that larger number of candidates can be called for interview to get better and more suitable candidates". The note further reads, "it was felt that wordings of essential requirements may be looked at by the academic committee and put up to the Governing Body. After the post may be readvertised so that larger number of candidates can be called for interview to get better and more suitable candidates". ( 21 ) IT had been strongly urged by the counsel for the petitioner that even the latter part of the note was motivated for the reason that the essential requirements were sought to be brought down to a level which was even lower than that for the Deputy Medical Superintendent, and, therefore, there is something wrong with this note. ( 22 ) AS to what is wrong with this note, becomes somewhat apparent when the proceedings of the Governing Body are considered. The members of the Governing Body are the same as the members of the Selection Committee. One of the persons who was added, was Mr. M. L. Fotedar, the then Minister of Health, and the President of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. It is to be kept in mind that Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta who at the time of interview was connected with SMGS Hospital at Jammu, and according to Dr. R. C. Anand, the petitioner, it is the Jammu connection which is responsible for what transpired at the Governing Body meeting. The appointing authority which led to the non appointment of the petitioner despite his being recommended by the Selection Committee, and the two experts who assisted the Selection Committee. What is even more surprising is that despite the fact that the Selection Committee comprised of persons of substance, all held their tongue in the presence of the Chairman of the Governing Body meeting, and all decided to ignore the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the following reasons:- (i) The recommendations of the Selection Committee had not been signed by its Chairman as also by the Member-Secretary; (ii) Out of the two candidates, who were called for the interview and who had appeared before it, one does not fulfil the prescribed qualifications/experience; and (iii) Another attempt should be made to have a wider choice of candidates, if necessary by appropriately revising the qualifications/experience requirements of the posts. As regards reason (i), even on our asking, the counsel for the respondents has been unable to show any provision in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, Rules or Regulations framed thereunder, which requires signing of the recommendations of the Selection Committee by the Chairman and the Member-Secretary of the Selection Committee. As regards reason (ii), the person who did not fulfil the qualifications was not the petitioner, but Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta. As regards reason (iii) despite the revision being made in the qualifications by reducing it below the level of the qualifications required for Deputy Medical Superintendent, the number of candidates who applied and subsequently for the next interview, was reduced further. We are not in any way influenced by the last of the reasons, as we are required to deal with the matter as it stood on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee prior to modifications. It appears to us that all the members of the Governing Body were scare into submission by the presence of the Chairman, and the interest which he mayhave shows in the candidature of Dr. Ved Parkash Gupta for the post of Medical Superintendent in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, which led to non appointment of the petitioner. ( 23 ) IN this particular case, we are conscious of the fact that the selection which is required to be made, is to be made for the highest post in connection with super-speciality in the Medical field, the post being that of Medical Superintendent of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, which is to be, and expected to remain the premier medical institution for medical research and medical training in this country. The selection process for such a post cannot be equated with a merit list prepared after holding of competitive examination for selection to the lower most rung of class I service under the government of India, whether such service be Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, or Judicial Service of any of the States. The selection process for such a post cannot be equated with a merit list prepared after holding of competitive examination for selection to the lower most rung of class I service under the government of India, whether such service be Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, or Judicial Service of any of the States. ( 24 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to see how the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2216 ( The State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others) (Judicial Service); AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1850 (Satinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others) (Police Service); JT 1991 (2) S. C. 380 (Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India) Indian Police Services JT (1996) SC 258 and (Union of India v. S. S. Uppal and Am.) (Indian Administrative Service) can be said to apply to the instant case. The said cases, no doubt, would be binding as far as position in the merit list after holding of competitive examination is concerned, in the instant case there was no competitive examination. Applications were globally invited by giving wide publicity in the newspapers. Only 24 candidates had applied for the post of Medical Superintendent of All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Of them, the Selection Committee chose to interview only two, one of them Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta was found not to have requisite qualifications which were made in the advertisement, and the petitioner s case was rated as "outstanding" by both the experts/specialists called in to aid the Selection Committee. We have not been able to see from any of the rules of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, nor have we been informed of any practice in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences that only A candidates or exceptionally brilliant persons are appointed to the post of Medical Superintendent in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. We do not see how a person found to be outstanding and admitted to be outstanding by at least five members of the Selection Committee can be prevented from being appointed to an advertised post, candidates wherefor have been screened according to the rules applicable to the functioning of the Selection Committee in the matter of appointment to the post. We do not see how a person found to be outstanding and admitted to be outstanding by at least five members of the Selection Committee can be prevented from being appointed to an advertised post, candidates wherefor have been screened according to the rules applicable to the functioning of the Selection Committee in the matter of appointment to the post. ( 25 ) IN the instant case, the disappearance of the original singed minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee in which recommendations of the name of the petitioner Dr. Raghunath Chand Anand, as recorded by the order of this Court dated 5. 1. 1993, is an extra-ordinary and inexplicable circumstance, and could have only been with the intent to ensure that such a minute is not available again. It is only the order of this Court dated 5. 1. 1993 which is responsible for the reconstruction of the same, and which strongly suggests some unseen hand episode of not making the appointment of the petitioner as a Medical Superintendent. Besides this, in cases of such selection and appointment, as one involved in the instant case, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the case reported as (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 (B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute and others) that, "it is always desirable that in public bodies the minutes of the proceedings regarding selection should be properly maintained inorder to obviate any suspicion or doubt. . . . . . . . . " ( 26 ) FROM the reconstructed minutes, it is apparent that the 7 members of the Selection Committee had signed the said minutes, and the note which was appended, was appended below the said signatures, strongly suggesting that the note was prepared after the minutes had been signed by the persons who actually did sign the same. ( 27 ) AS regards the contention of the counsel for the All India Institute of Medical Sciences that the Governing Body is not bound by the recommendations of the Selection Committee, we do not Find this to be an acceptable contention in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. ( 28 ) IT has been contended before us with great emphasis by Ms. ( 28 ) IT has been contended before us with great emphasis by Ms. Mukta Gupta on behalf of the respondent All India Institute of Medical Sciences that the nature and function of the Selection Committee was only advisory, and that the advice which is rendered by this Committee, is not binding on the Governing Body, which is the appointing body for the purposes of making appointment of Medical Superintendent of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. This contention of the respondent s counsel does not stand scrutiny for the reason that section 10 of the All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, which deals with Governing Body and other Committees of the Institute, reads as under:- 10. Governing Body and other Committees of the Institute. (1) There shall be a Governing Body of the Institute which shall be constituted by the Institute from among its members in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations. (2) The Governing Body shall be the executive committee of the Institute and shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as the Institute may, by regulations made in this behalf, confer or impose upon in. (3) The President of the Institute shall be the Chairman of the Governing Body and as Chairman thereof shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be prescribed by regulations. (4) The procedure to be followed in the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions by the Governing Body, and the term of office of, and the manner of filling vacancies among the members of the Governing Body shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations. (5) Subject to such control and restrictions as may be prescribed by rules, the Institute may constitute as many Standing Committees and as many ad. hoc committees as it thinks fit for exercising any power or discharging any. function of the Institute or for inquiring into, or reporting or advising upon, any matter which the Institute may refer to them. (6) A Standing Committee shall consist exclusively of members of, the Institute, but an ad hoc committee may include persons who are not members of the Institute but the number of such persons shall not exceed one-half of its total membership. (6) A Standing Committee shall consist exclusively of members of, the Institute, but an ad hoc committee may include persons who are not members of the Institute but the number of such persons shall not exceed one-half of its total membership. (7) The Chairman and Members of the Governing Body and the Chairman and members of a Standing Committee or an ad hoc committee shall receive such allowances, if any, as may be prescribed by regulations. ( 29 ) IN the aforesaid only sub-sections (5) and (6) are relevant, inasmuch as the Institute is permitted to have Standing Committees and ad hoc committees, and ad hoc committees can function for the purposes of inquiring into, or reporting or advising upon. The contention, that being an advisory committee its advice is not binding, has only to be stated to be rejected for the reason that a natural person has occasion to seek advice or actually does seek advice only on matters regarding which he finds that he can himself not decide upon a course of action. It would be unreasonable to imagine that a reasonable person who finds himself unable to decide upon a particular course of action"would turn to a fool or an incompetent person for rendering of advice. In the natural course of events he would turn to a person whom he thinks is knowledgeable enough, experienced enough to render good advice. Having come to the conclusion that a person needs advice, and on being advisedby a competent person, to follow a line of action, not adopting it or not following it, would be an act of an unreasonable person. Having himself sought advice, it is clear that he is incapable of himself arriving at any conclusion, and once a decision is given to him, he must follow it. This, we would consider to be the conduct of a normal and reasonable person. ( 30 ) WHEN the statute directs or regulations require that advice be taken, it would be for another reason. It would be for the reason to eliminate personal bias or desire to favour one individual or the other. A statutory direction like that, would be given to ensure that personal predilection has no role in the conclusion arrived at. ( 30 ) WHEN the statute directs or regulations require that advice be taken, it would be for another reason. It would be for the reason to eliminate personal bias or desire to favour one individual or the other. A statutory direction like that, would be given to ensure that personal predilection has no role in the conclusion arrived at. ( 31 ) SECTION 10 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 is one of the statutory provisions, which requires formation of ad hoc committees for the purposes of giving advice. A Selection Committee is for rendering advice. This advice rendered by a Statutory Committee constituted for specific purpose, is intended to be acted upon. This advice rendered by the statutory committee is not intended to be ignored. It is not possible to say that the Selection Committee s advice in the matter of a person being most fit for appointment as Medical Superintendent, is something which can be ignored.- Advice of statutory advisory committees is intended to be binding on the appointing authority. Such advice is mandated by the statute to ensure that bias is eliminated from appointments which are sought to be made. ( 32 ) THE Selection Committee in the instant case, is an ad hoc committee. The function of such an ad hoc committee can only be to inquire into, to report or to advice upon. Clearly,he first two cannot be intended to be the purpose of the Selection Committee. It can only be the last one, i. e. to render advice. ( 33 ) THE Governing Body of the Institute is bound by the advice rendered by the Selection Committee. We hasten to add that in the event of there being bias on the part of the Selection Committee, then the person who is affected by such bias would have his remedy at law, and once bias or mala fide is established, in an appropriate forum, appropriate relief will be granted. But that is not for the Governing Body. ( 34 ) THE Division Bench of this Court (B. N. Kirpal and A. B. Saharya, SI) in Civil Writ Petition 2663 of 1992 (Dr. S. M. Base v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and ors.) vide order dated 13. 5. 1993, has held in the case relating to All India Institute of Medical Sciences that,. . . . . . S. M. Base v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and ors.) vide order dated 13. 5. 1993, has held in the case relating to All India Institute of Medical Sciences that,. . . . . . "the Selection Committee is not subordinate to the Governing Body. The exercise of its powers and performance of its functions are not subject to the supervision or control of the Governing Body. The Governing Body has no authority to refer to it for inquiring into, or reporting or advising upon any matter. The Selection Committee is not answerable to the Governing Body for anything. The Governing Body has no right, power or authority to interfere, by way of review of in any other way, with the exercise of power in discharge of functions of the Institute by Selection Committee. . . . . . . . The powers and functions of these two bodies are complimentary and are equally important. The power and function to judge relative merits of competing candidates, and selecting the most suitable candidate for appointment to the post, is imposed by the Institute on the Selection Committee alone, and not upon the Governing Body. . . . Even otherwise, the Governing Body was in no position to properly assess and determine merit of any candidate, what to say of comparative merit of all the candidates, as the Governing Body did not have the benefit, of itself interviewing the candidates. . . . . . " ( 35 ) THE above said observations made it clear that the Governing Body has to act in accordance with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. It is not permissible for the Governing Body to ignore the "advice". The "advice" cannot be anything except, be binding on the Governing Body. ( 36 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the petitioner s petition has to succeed. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner Dr. Raghunath Chand Anand as Medical Superintendent in accordance with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. ( 37 ) THE petitioner shall have his costs. .