JUDGMENT S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. Both these Writ Appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in O.P. Nos. 2880 and 2801 of 1994. While W.A.No. 263/97 is filed by the Secretary, N.S.S. Colleges' Central Committee, Perunnai (petitioner in O.P. No. 2880/94), W.A. No. 264/97 is filed by Dr. K. Haridasan Pillai, who is the petitioner in O.P. No. 2801/94. 2. Sree Vyasa N.S.S. College, Wadakkancherry is a private College affiliated to the Calicut University. Originally, this College was started by a trust and subsequently, it was transferred to the N.S.S., viz., Nair Service Society. Thus, the educational agency of the College is the Nair Service Society. Even though the N.S.S. has got other Colleges by means of an agreement with the transferor, this College has been treated as a separate unit. 3. The Principal of Sree Vyasa College was to retire on 1.5.1993. He intimated his intention to take leave from 21.10.1992. The management was then in search of a new Principal. The Principal has to be appointed in terms of the Calicut University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). S.57(2) of the Act states that appointments of principals shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of the College or of all the Colleges, as the case may be or by direct recruitment. S.57(3) of the Act states that where the appointment of Principal is made by promotion, the educational agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority cum fitness. The management decided to appoint the Principal by promotion among the teachers. Hence by notice dated 12.12.1992, the management intimated 23 teachers, who had crossed 16 years of service, that the Selection Committee will interview the proposed persons on 23.12.1992 for selecting a person as Principal. Even though all the 23 persons expressed their willingness, at the time of interview only 4 persons turned up. Of these 4, excepting Dr. K. Haridasan Pillai and P. Ramakrishna Iyer, the other two were not considered because they were not selection grade teachers. The Selection Committee consisted of 4 persons, of whom two were experts in the educational field. The Selection Committee interviewed those two persons and selected Dr. K. Haridasan Pillai. By Ext. P4 order dated 4.2.1993, Dr. Haridasan Pillai was appointed as the Principal of the College. The Selection Committee consisted of 4 persons, of whom two were experts in the educational field. The Selection Committee interviewed those two persons and selected Dr. K. Haridasan Pillai. By Ext. P4 order dated 4.2.1993, Dr. Haridasan Pillai was appointed as the Principal of the College. Shri. Ramakrishna Iyer, aggrieved by the selection and appointment of Dr. Haridasan Pillai as Principal, challenged the order before the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal, under S.57(10) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering every aspect of the matter, allowed the appeal and directed the appointment of Shri. Ramakrishnan Iyer as the Principal. Dr. Haridasan Pillai and the educational agency filed separate Original Petitions before this Court challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Both those Original Petitions were dismissed. Hence the present appeals have been filed. 4. Principal's post in an educational institution is a pivotal post and that has to be manned by a competent person. That is why S.57(3) of the Act requires a selection from among the teachers on the basis of seniority cum fitness. It is true that every teacher or Lecturer will have an ultimate wish to occupy the post of Principal. In this background, the claim for the post of Principal between Dr. Haridasan Pillai and Ramakrishna Iyer is to be decided. 5. So far as Dr. Haridasan Pillai is concerned, he is a post-graduate in Hindi and is also holding a Doctorate degree in Hindi. He was appointed as Junior Lecturer in Vyasa College on 1.12.1975. He became Lecturer on 1.7.1997. Thereafter, he became IInd Grade Professor (non cadre). So far as Ramakrishna Iyer is concerned, he is M.Sc. in Physics with first class. He was appointed as Lecturer in the Vyasa College, on 1.7.1968. He became IInd Grade Professor on 1.6.1985 and Ist Grade on 27.10.1987 and with effect from 11.1.1986, he is a Selection Grade Lecturer. 6. As already stated, the selection to the post of Principal has to be made on the basis of the seniority cum fitness. The educational agency constituted a Selection Committee for this purpose. One would have naturally expected the Selection Committee to lay down the guidelines for the purpose of selection and record the data on the basis of which the selection was made. The educational agency constituted a Selection Committee for this purpose. One would have naturally expected the Selection Committee to lay down the guidelines for the purpose of selection and record the data on the basis of which the selection was made. But from the records of the case, we find that the Selection Committee appears to have evolved the procedure of noting down nothing in black and white. It seems that the committee members interviewed the candidates, but there is no evidence to show as to how the assessment was made. The proceedings culminated in the minutes of the committee which states as follows: "23 senior teachers of the college who have put in 16 years of service were called for interview. The following four persons appeared for the interview. 1) Sri. P. Ramakrishna Iyer 2) Dr. Haridasan Pillai 3) Sri. K.S. Ramachandran Nair 4) Sri. G. Muraleedharan. Of these, 3 and 4 are not qualified for promotion as they are not SelectionGrade Lecturers. On the basis of Seniority cum fitness, the committee selected the undermentioned teacher for promotion as Principal; Dr. K. Haridasan Pillai, Selection Grade Lecturer, Sri Vyasa N.S.S. College, Wadakkancherry. 7. On appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Sri. Ramakrishna Iyer, being the aggrieved person, challenged the selection of Dr. Haridasan Pillai. He contended that he was senior and better qualified and more fit than Dr. Haridasan Pillai. According to him, the interview conducted by the Selection Committee was a farce and it does not appear on what basis Dr. Haridasan Pillai was selected. It was contended before the Appellate Tribunal that Dr. Haridasan Pillai was not qualified in as much as he was not a Selection Grade Lecturer as per the norms of the University Grants Commission. Before the Appellate Tribunal both Dr. Haridasan Pillai and the educational agency tried to justify the selection made by the Selection Committee. Dr. Haridasan Pillai is hereinafter referred to as the appellant, Shri. Ramakrishna Iyer as the respondent and the educational agency as the management. 8. A counter affidavit was filed by one of the members of the Selection Committee giving the details of the questions put to the candidates as also the reasons for selecting Dr. Haridasan Pillai who was more qualified. The Appellate Tribunal found fault with the Selection Committee in not stating the basis or data for selecting the appellant. 8. A counter affidavit was filed by one of the members of the Selection Committee giving the details of the questions put to the candidates as also the reasons for selecting Dr. Haridasan Pillai who was more qualified. The Appellate Tribunal found fault with the Selection Committee in not stating the basis or data for selecting the appellant. The Appellate Tribunal then assumed the role of the Selection Committee and assigned to itself the duty of selecting as to who between the appellant and the respondent was more competent to be appointed as Principal. According to it, the possession of P.Hd. degree in Hindi did not give an edge to the appellant over the respondent. The respondent was senior and he was Selection Grade Lecturer and that he was having first class in M.Sc. Further, it took the view that P.Hd. in Hindi does not help in the administrative function of the principal. Thereupon the Appellate Tribunal went into the question of considering what was the qualification required for the post of Principal. According to it, the person should be a Selection Grade Lecturer. It took the view that the appellant was not Selection Grade Lecturer as he was not placed by the competent authority in that grade at the time of interview. But he was placed only subsequently. It then found that the respondent was more competent and allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to be appointed as Principal. This judgment has been upheld by the learned single Judge. 9. Shri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri. P.G. Parameswara Panicker, learned counsel for the management strongly criticized the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal. According to them, the duty to select the Principal was conferred on the management and the management had given this power to the Selection Committee. That power to select cannot be usurped by the Appellate Tribunal. When it found that there was no data or basis for selection before the Selection Committee, it ought to have set aside the entire selection and remanded the matter for proper selection. The learned counsel further submitted that it was not correct to say that the appellant was not a Selection Grade Lecturer. When it found that there was no data or basis for selection before the Selection Committee, it ought to have set aside the entire selection and remanded the matter for proper selection. The learned counsel further submitted that it was not correct to say that the appellant was not a Selection Grade Lecturer. Further, it is important to notice that at the relevant time the Calicut University Regulations stood amended whereby the Senior Lecturers were made also competent for being appointed as Principals. Therefore, according to them, even if the appellant was pot a Selection Grade Lecturer at the time of interview, in any case he was a Senior Lecturer and was thus competent and duly qualified to be considered for such appointment. 10. Shri. A. K. Sheshadri appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently contended that the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal should not be interfered with. According to him, the Appellate Tribunal's power has not been restricted. The Appellate Tribunal had all the powers which the Selection Committee had in the matter of selection of the candidates. It was further contended that the appellant was not a Selection Grade Lecturer at the relevant time and he was placed in the Selection Grade only on 1.9.1993 which was subsequent to the date of selection. It was said that even though the appellant was called as a Selection Grade Lecturer, he was not Selection Grade lecturer as such as per the norms of the University Grants Commission. As regards the amended regulations enabling the Senior Lecturers also to be considered for the post of Principal, it was submitted that since these contentions were not taken earlier, it should not be allowed to be taken now. He further contended that the appellant has been occupying the post of Principal even though he was not legally entitled to do so. He is younger in age to the respondent and he was having only second class degree, taking the classes of the pre degree students. 11. During the pendency of the writ appeal, certain impleading petitions were filed by persons who were Senior Lecturers at the time of interview. According to them, as per the amended regulations, Senior Lecturers were also eligible to apply and competent to be consider for the post of Principal. 11. During the pendency of the writ appeal, certain impleading petitions were filed by persons who were Senior Lecturers at the time of interview. According to them, as per the amended regulations, Senior Lecturers were also eligible to apply and competent to be consider for the post of Principal. Hence, they prayed for a reconsideration of the entire matter including the Senior Lecturers also as competent persons for consideration. 12. We heard the counsel for the appellant, the respondent, the management and the impleading petitioners and perused the records. S.57(3) of the Act makes it obligatory for the management to select for the post of Principal on the basis of the seniority cum fitness. Seniority cum fitness has been interpreted by this Court in various decisions. The management can choose a junior person if it can be shown that he was demonstrably more fit than the senior. Here admittedly the respondent is senior to the appellant. Hence, if it could be shown that the appellant was demonstrably more fit than the first respondent, he could be selected for the post of Principal. But we have nothing to satisfy ourselves as to how this was arrived at by the Selection Committee. The minutes of the Selection Committee quoted above only show that the Selection Committee selected Dr. Haridasan Pillai on the basis of the seniority cum fitness. The records of the committee did not show anything more. The educational agency should have taken more care when it constituted the Selection Committee. They should have properly instructed the committee to make selection on the basis of certain guidelines and also on the basis of written records. This was more so particularly necessary when the aggrieved person has been given the right of appeal under S.57(8) of the Act. From the minutes of the Selection Committee it appears that power has been given to the committee to choose its own persons for its own reasons without waiting to see whether these reasons have any legal standing with regard to seniority cum fitness. The Selection Committee forgot its duty in not keeping the records of the proceedings regarding selection. The committee was interviewing persons who were outstanding in their respective academic fields. The Selection Committee forgot its duty in not keeping the records of the proceedings regarding selection. The committee was interviewing persons who were outstanding in their respective academic fields. One was a Professor of Physics having a service of 25 years and the other was a person who was holding a Doctorate in Hindi and was also serving the institution from 1975. Both of them had given details regarding the achievements in their academic fields and teaching profession. In these circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the Selection Committee to give reasons as to why one was preferred to another and particularly when they had selected the junior. We can certainly understand the heartburn of the respondent because he had put in more years than the appellant and if the appellant becomes the Principal, the respondent has no chance to become the Principal. Hence, the Selection Committee should have taken the matter very seriously. It appears that the Selection Committee as well as the management had treated this matter very lightly. Hence, we agree with the Appellate Tribunal that there has been no proper selection. 13. The next question is if there is no proper selection, was the Appellate Tribunal competent to put itself in the shoes of the Selection Committee and select the person. Learned counsel for the respondent Shri. A.K. Sheshadri submitted that under S.57(10) of the Act any person aggrieved by the act, may file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. According to him, the power of the Appellate Tribunal is not restricted. Hence, he submitted that normally the Appellate Tribunal has got the same power as the original authority and hence there was nothing wrong in the Appellate Tribunal entering itself in the process of selection. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar and Shri.P.G. Parameswara Panicker submitted that it may be true that the power of the Appellate Tribunal is wider than the power of judicial review. But even then the Appellate Authority has no power to substituted itself in the place of the Selection Committee. The proper course in the circumstance, would have been to remit the matter back. According to us, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. It is true that the power of the Appellate Authority in appeal is wider than the power of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The proper course in the circumstance, would have been to remit the matter back. According to us, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. It is true that the power of the Appellate Authority in appeal is wider than the power of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. But even then the Appellate Authority has certain limitations. If in the present case the Selection Committee would have given reasons and recorded the reasons with regard to the selection, the Appellate Authority would have been competent to find out whether the reasoning is proper or not. It also go into the question whether the basic facts which exist for that reasoning are relevant or not. But the basis facts were not before the Appellate Tribunal. We do not think that the Appellate Tribunal can go into the process of selection. It is not mere appreciation of the qualifications of the rival candidates that is relevant in the process of selection. If that be so, there was no necessity to appoint Experts as members of the Selection Committee to fit out whether the candidates will be able to properly discharge the function of the Principal. The duty of the Experts cannot be usurped by an appellate body. As it was stated in Janaki Prasad v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1973 SC 930 - the efficiency of a teacher and his qualifications to be appointed as Headmaster depend upon several considerations. His character, his teaching experience, ability to manage his class, his popularity with the students and the high percentage of successful students he is able to produce are all matters which must necessarily be taken into consideration before a selection is made. These matters could be decided only by an expert committee by looking into the relevant records. The District Judge acting as Appellate Tribunal could not play the role of an expert. If the experts would have given their opinion based on materials, then probably the Appellate Tribunal could find out whether that opinion was consistent with the materials. Hence,according to us, the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in embarking upon an enquiry as to who was more competent in the absence of any materials. 14. The next question is as to which is the qualification necessary for the post of Principal. Hence,according to us, the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in embarking upon an enquiry as to who was more competent in the absence of any materials. 14. The next question is as to which is the qualification necessary for the post of Principal. The controversy before the Appellate Tribunal was whether the appellant was Selection Grade Lecturer or not. Now it is admitted even by the appellant that he was placed in the Selection Grade only on 1.4.1993. Hence at the time of selection, he was not in the Selection Grade. But during the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that the Calicut University regulation relating to qualifications of teachers was amended. Ext.R3(a) produced along with C.M.P.No. 657/97 shows that the appointment to the post of Principal shall be made from among the Senior lecturers and Selection Grade Lecturers. The appellant submits that he is senior Lecturers. The appellant submits that he is senior Lecturer. As already stated, impleading applications have been filed by persons claiming that they were Senior Lecturers at the time when the selection was made and that they ought to have been called for the interview. In the above view of the matter, it cannot be said that the appellant was not qualified because he was not a Selection Grade Lecturer. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that even a Senior Lecturer should be placed in accordance with the University Grants Commission guidelines in the Senior Scale. We are not called upon to decide the question now because that is a matter to be decided by the Selection Committee as to whether the appellant is Senior Lecturer as envisaged in the amendment to the regulations. Shri. A. K. Sheshadri then submitted that the Calicut University Regulations cannot go against the University Grants Commission Regulations. According to him, under the University Grants Commission Regulations, the selection can be made only from the Selection Grade. We don't think that we need consider this argument because the appointment was to be made as per the Regulations of the Calicut University. The University Grant Commission has got power to relax the qualification. Further, in this proceeding, we cannot say that the qualification as fixed by the Regulations should not be complied with. 15. We don't think that we need consider this argument because the appointment was to be made as per the Regulations of the Calicut University. The University Grant Commission has got power to relax the qualification. Further, in this proceeding, we cannot say that the qualification as fixed by the Regulations should not be complied with. 15. In the above view of the matter, we allow these Writ Appeals and set aside the judgments of the learned single Judge and the University Appellate Tribunal. The matter is remitted back to the management for a de noyo selection. The appellant, the respondent and those who were qualified as Senior Lecturer/Selection Grade Lecturer as on 12.12.1992 as per the University Regulations will also be called for selection. The management will formulate the guidelines for the selection of Principal. If the management does not provide the guidelines, the Selection Committee should lay the guidelines for selection before the actual selection is made. The Selection Committee should record the assessment made by it with regard to each candidate and this should be reduced in writing. The experience gained by the appellant as Principal from the date of Ext. P3 order shall not be taken into consideration. The management will ensure that the members who were in the Selection Committee when the selection was made on 23.12.1992 are not retained in the Selection Committee. The fresh selection should be made within a period of two months from today. The status quo as on today will continue till a fresh selection is made.