SARASWATHI v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER — 1997 DIGILAW 487 (KAR)

A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) "the best is being rejected" is the oft-repeated complaint in all walks of life in our society. The omission to select the alleged best is the substance of the complaint in these petitions. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in these petitions challenge the appointment of the second respondent in the first two petitions, who is also the third respondent in the last petition, as a reader in jainology and prakrit in manasa gangothri, university of mysore, more or less on the same grounds. That, in view of the settled legal position the question for consideration of this court, in these petitions is, not to identify as to who is the best among the petitioners and the second respondent, but to decide, whether the authority vested with the power to make selection of a teacher in the university, has followed the procedure prescribed, in the matter of appointment of the second respondent as a reader in the department of jainology and prakrit, manasa gangothri, university of mysore, mysore. ( 3 ) IT is well-settled that, it is not the function of the court, tohear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates but to examine, whether the selection committee has acted fairly and justly, in the process of selection. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection. ( 4 ) DEALING with scope of judicial review, in the matter of appointment of teachers in the universities, the Supreme Court in University of Mysore and another v C. D. Govinda Rao and another , has held that,in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B. S. Mahajan, the Supreme Court has held that,in E. N. Srinivasa v Bangalore University, Gnana Bharathi, bangalore and others, this court has held that, ( 5 ) THE question in controversy in these petitions will have to be decided in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this court. B. S. Mahajan, the Supreme Court has held that,in E. N. Srinivasa v Bangalore University, Gnana Bharathi, bangalore and others, this court has held that, ( 5 ) THE question in controversy in these petitions will have to be decided in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this court. In this view of the matter, it is material to state the case of the parties, as pleaded in their respective petitions and their statement of objections, which are as follows: the petitioner in writ petition No. 22692 of 1994 is a holder of doctoral degree in kannada on the subject titled "kannadadalli adithirthankarara charithregalu". She also holds m. a. in kannada and m. a. in jainology and prakrit. She has stated that, she also possess a degree in b. ed, and diploma in tamil. She is stated to have worked as a lecturer in kannada from july 1970 to june 1972 in the government college for women, mandya, and further worked as a guest lecturer in jainology and prakrit in the university of mysore during the year 1992-93 and has been working as a part-time guest lecturer in the said subject from january 1994. The petitioner in writ petition No. 22700 of 1994 has been a lecturer in the department of jainology and prakrit, manasa gangothri, university of mysore, mysore, for over 16 years. He is an m. a. in kannada and holder of diplomas in jainology, prakrit, ancient history and archaeology and Indian literature. The petitioner in writ petition No. 26529 of 1994 is a retired professor in the department of jainology and prakrit, university of mysore, mysore. He has filed this petition as a public interest litigation, inter alia contending that, he is interested in selecting the qualified persons to hold the post of a professor or a reader in the department of jainology and prakrit, manasa gangothri, university of mysore, mysore. ( 6 ) THE university of mysore by notification dated december 8, 1993, invited applications in 8 sets, in the prescribed form, for teaching and non-teaching posts, in the post-graduate departments and the under-graduate colleges of the university from the eligible Indian citizens. ( 6 ) THE university of mysore by notification dated december 8, 1993, invited applications in 8 sets, in the prescribed form, for teaching and non-teaching posts, in the post-graduate departments and the under-graduate colleges of the university from the eligible Indian citizens. In the said notification, applications were invited in respect of the posts of one professor, one reader and a lecturer in the department of jainology and prakrit, university of mysore, manasa gangothri, mysore, along with the teaching staff in other subjects. The qualifications prescribed in the said notification in respect of the post of readers is as follows: "good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Evidence of active engagement in (1) research or (2) innovation in teaching method or (3) production of teaching material. About 5 years of teaching and/or research, provided that at least 3 years were as lecturer or in equivalent position. This condition may be relaxed in the case of candidates with outstanding record of teaching/research". ( 7 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid notification, the petitioners in writ petition nos. 22692 of 1994 and 22700 of 1994, the 2nd respondent therein and, five others applied seeking appointment as a reader in jainology and prakrit. The second respondent in wri t petition No. 26529 of 1994 applied in respect of the post of professor. The first respondent-university constituted a board of appointment in respect of various faculties including jainology and prakrit in accordance with Section 49 of the Karnataka state universities act, 1976, for short "the act". The board of appointment met on july 8, 1994, and interviewed 7 applicants who attended the interview and unanimously recommended the name of the second respondent in writ petition No. 22692 of 1994 for being appointed as a reader in jainology and prakrit and appeared to have recommended the name of the second respondent in writ petition No. 26529 of 1994 for the post of professor in jainology and prakrit. The recommendation of the board of appointment was approved by the syndicate and by the chancellor, pursuant to which the first respondent issued the Order of appointment dated july 15, 1994, appointing the second respondent in writ petition No. 22692 of 1994 as a reader in jainology and prakrit. ( 8 ) THE petitioners in writ petition nos. The recommendation of the board of appointment was approved by the syndicate and by the chancellor, pursuant to which the first respondent issued the Order of appointment dated july 15, 1994, appointing the second respondent in writ petition No. 22692 of 1994 as a reader in jainology and prakrit. ( 8 ) THE petitioners in writ petition nos. 22692 of 1994 and 22700 of 1994 having been aggrieved by the Order of appointment of the second respondent therein, as the reader in jainology and prakrit, have filed these petitions for a writ in the nature of declaration to declare that the Order dated july 15, 1994, issued by the first respondent appointing the second respondent as illegal and void and for a further writ in the nature of direction to the university to select and appoint them as headers in the department of jainology and prakrit. ( 9 ) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 26529 of 1994 has challenged the appointment of the 2nd respondent therein as professor and that of the 3rd respondent as reader in jainology and prakrit, more or less on the same grounds as pleaded by the other petitioners,, though he has filed this petition as a public interest litigation. ( 10 ) SRI k. t. mohan and Sri uday holla, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 respectively in writ petition No. 22700 of 1994 have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition in writ petition No. 26529 of 1994 on the ground that, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the appointment of respondents 2 and 3 therein, as there is no infringement of his legal right and no public interest is involved in respect of the appointments of teachers in the university. In this view of the matter, it is just and appropriate to decide this question first before I go to the merits of the case. ( 11 ) IT is well-settled that, only a member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings can be allowed to maintain an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury. ( 11 ) IT is well-settled that, only a member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings can be allowed to maintain an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury. In S. P. Gupta and others v President of India and others, the Supreme Court has held that,in people's union for Democratic Rights and others v Union of India and others, the Supreme Court has held as follows: ( 12 ) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 26529 of 1994 is admittedly a retired professor. The question in controversy in this petition is in respect of an employment to a teaching post in the university. The appointments shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the ACT and the statutes framed thereunder. Only the eligible candidates are required to apply, out of whom, the best, according to the opinion of the board of appointment shall be appointed to the respective posts. As the appointments are being made in accordance with the statutory provisions, from among the eligible candidates, no public interest is involved in such appointments. Even if such appointments are made in gross violation of the statutory provisions, remedial measures are available for the persons aggrieved by such appointment. The appointments will be made after considering relative merits of the applicants. If some of the applicants who would not be selected keep quite without challenging the appointment of some other applicants, in my considered view, the same cannot be challenged by a stranger in the guise of a public interest litigation. Moreover the petitioner in writ petition No. 26529 of 1994 has not averred a single ground as to how the appointments of respondents 2 and 3 has affected the public interest. The relevant portion reads as follows:the said averments would constitute the public wrong or public injury. When the petitions are filed by the affected persons, challenging the appointments of respondents 2 and 3, writ petition No. 26529 of 1994 is to be rejected on the ground of want of locus standi to question the selection of appointment of respondents 2 and 3. Even otherwise the petition against the 2nd respondent has become infructuous in view of her retirement from service. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Even otherwise the petition against the 2nd respondent has become infructuous in view of her retirement from service. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( 13 ) SRI m. s. padmarajaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other two petitions has contended that the board of appointment in respect of jainology and prakrit has not been constituted in accordance with Section 49 of the ACT and the 2nd respondent did not possess the qualification prescribed by the university in the notification; the appointment of second respondent as reader in jainology and prakrit, is, therefore, illegal and void and liable to be declared as such. Elaborating his contention Sri padmarajaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that, a professor in the subject in the university has to be appointed as a member of the board of appointment under Section 49 (2) (a) (ii) of the act; if there is no professor in the subject in the university any professor in the subject from any other university in the state shall be appointed and; in the absence of such professors, a professor in the concerned department from a central institute within the state or from a university in any other state, in consultation with the state government shall be appointed. Under Section 49 (2) (a) (iii) of the act, 4 experts are to be appointed to the board of whom 2 from the panel furnished by the university grants commission. It is the contention of Sri padmarajaiah that, no professor is appointed as a member of the board of appointment under Section 49 (2) (a) (ii) of the ACT and 4 experts are not appointed but only 3 were appointed under Section 49 (2) (a) (iii) of the ACT and, they are also not experts in jainology or prakrit. In view of the defect in the constitution of the board of appointment, the selection of the 2nd respondent is vitiated and consequently her appointment as a reader in jainology and prakrit is illegal and void. He has further contended that the 2nd respondent did not possess the qualification prescribed by the university in the notification, in as much as she has not passed m. a. in jainology and prakrit and did not possess teaching experience of 5 years in jainology; the aforesaid qualifications being essential, the selection of the 2nd respondent is illegal and void. He has further contended that the 2nd respondent did not possess the qualification prescribed by the university in the notification, in as much as she has not passed m. a. in jainology and prakrit and did not possess teaching experience of 5 years in jainology; the aforesaid qualifications being essential, the selection of the 2nd respondent is illegal and void. In support of his contention Sri padmarajaiah has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Triloki Nath Singh v Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra and others and the decision of this court in P. Sadashiva Murthy v bangalore university and others. Drawing sustenance from the aforesaid decision, the petitioners have contended that, the board of appointment is not constituted in accordance with Section 49 of the ACT in as much as the experts are not the experts in the subject. ( 14 ) SRI k. t. mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the university, refuting the contention of Sri padmarajaiah, has contended that the board of appointment was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the act. There is no illegality in the cconstitution of the board. The professor and the experts as prescribed under Section 49 (2) (a) (ii) and (iii) of the act, were appointed in consultation with the state government. In support of his contention the learned counsel has produced the relevant papers for my perusal. Sri uday holla, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has contended that, the board of appointment has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the act. It is his further contention that, even if there is any defect in the constitution of the board, that itself is not sufficient to invalidate any ACT or proceeding of an authority or body of the university in view of Section 64 of the act. Sri uday holla, learned counsel appearing for respondent 2 has further contended that the 2nd respondent did possess the qualifications prescribed by the university in the notification. It is his contention that the 2nd respondent is m. a. in kannada. She has passed diploma in jainology with distinction having secured a gold medal in the examination at which the petitioner in writ petition No. 22692 of 1994 was also an examinee. It is his contention that the 2nd respondent is m. a. in kannada. She has passed diploma in jainology with distinction having secured a gold medal in the examination at which the petitioner in writ petition No. 22692 of 1994 was also an examinee. The 2nd respondent is also a holder of doctoral degree in kannada on the subject entitled "jeevandara charitregalu ondu taulavika adhyayana" and she has a teaching experience of more than 10 years. It is his further contention that the statute and the notification permits the committee to relax the condition as regards the teaching experience in case where the candidate possess distinct record of teaching and research. ( 15 ) FROM the facts stated in the petitions and in the statement of objections the following deductions may be made: the petitioner in writ petition No. 22692 of 1994 is a holder of doctoral degree in kannada touching a subject in jainism. She has also done m. a. in jainology and prakrit in addition to securing diplomas in some other subjects and a degree in b. ed. It is her case that she taught the students in women's college at mandya for two years and she was a guest lecturer during 1992-93 in the department of jainology, university of mysore, and has been a guest teacher from january 1994. The petitioner in writ petition No. 22700 of 1994 is an m. a. in kannada and secured diploma in jainology, prakrit, ancient history and archaeology and Indian literature. But he does not possess a doctoral degree. The 2nd respondent is also an m. a. in kannada possessing diploma in jainology with distinction with gold medal and a holder of doctoral degree in kannada touching the subject in jainism. It is undisputed that the petitioners have passed or stated to have passed m. a. in high second class whereas the 2nd respondent has passed m. a. in first class. From the particulars produced along with their applications it is seen that Dr. Saraswathi has written 25 articles in addition to her thesis. No books are published to her credit. It is undisputed that the petitioners have passed or stated to have passed m. a. in high second class whereas the 2nd respondent has passed m. a. in first class. From the particulars produced along with their applications it is seen that Dr. Saraswathi has written 25 articles in addition to her thesis. No books are published to her credit. Whereas subha chandra, the petitioner in writ petition No. 22700 of 1994 has written 4 books and the 2nd respondent has filed a list of works to her credit in kannada literature along with statement of objections and she has also produced particulars along with her application for consideration of the board of appointment and it is stated that, 8 books are published and 6 books are in print. She has written 40 articles and read 21 papers at seminars and further written 51 reviews. ( 16 ) IN view of the rival contentions of the petitioners as well as 2nd respondent the following points would arise for consideration: (i) whether the constitution of the board of appointment is defective being contrary to Section 49 (2) (a) (ii) and (iii) of the act? (ii) whether Section 64 of the ACT cures all the defects in the constitution of board of appointment, if there is any, and validates the ACT or proceedings of the board of appointment? And (iii) whether the appointment of the 2nd respondent as reader in jainology and prakrit, is violative of the conditions prescribed, in relation to the 'essential qualifications in the notification of the university and the statutes thereof? ( 17 ) POINT nos. (i) and (ii):section 49 (2) (a) (ii) and (2) (a) (iii) of the ACT reads as follows: "49. Appointments of teachers, etc. ( 17 ) POINT nos. (i) and (ii):section 49 (2) (a) (ii) and (2) (a) (iii) of the ACT reads as follows: "49. Appointments of teachers, etc. (2) every such board shall consist of, (a) for selections to the posts of professors, readers and to the post of librarian, (ii) the head of the department concerned, if he is a professor and if he is not a professor, a professor from any other university in the state, nominated by the chancellor; and where no such professor is available in any university within the state, such professor in the concerned department from a central institute within the state or from a university in any other state, nominated by the chancellor, (iii) three experts nominated by the chancellor, two of whom from a panel furnished by the university grants commission and the other from amongst persons serving in any university established by law in India or any other institution recognised by the state government". From the records produced 'by the university it is seen that the board of appointment was constituted in consultation with the state government. It is admitted that there was no professor in jainology and prakrit in the respondent-university at that time, nor were there any professors in any other university, in the state, in the said subject. Hence, prof. G. c. jain, professor of prakrit and jain agam, sampurnananda sanskrit viswavidyalaya, varanasi, was appointed as professor under Section 49 (2) (a) (ii) of the act; prof. Yajanveer, professor of sanskrit, pali and prakrit, maharshi dayanand university, rohtak, haryana, was appointed as a stand-by professor under Section 49 (2) (a) (ii) of the act; prof. L. n. sharma, prof, of philosophy and religion, banaras hindu university, varanasi; prof. J. p. sinha, department of sanskrit language and prakrit, lucknow university, lucknow; prof. Man singh, department of sanskrit, pali and prakrit, kurukshetra university, haryana; prof. K. k. chaturvedi, department of sanskrit, pali and prakrit, rani durgavati viswavidyalaya, jabalpur, were appointed as experts under Section 49 (2) (a) (iii) of the ACT and one prof. P. m. gupta, department of sanskrit, pali and prakrit, kurukshetra university, haryana, was appointed as stand-by expert under the provisions of the act. ( 18 ) IT is not in dispute that the vice-chancellor is ex of ficiochairman of the board of appointment and the registrar is the convenor. P. m. gupta, department of sanskrit, pali and prakrit, kurukshetra university, haryana, was appointed as stand-by expert under the provisions of the act. ( 18 ) IT is not in dispute that the vice-chancellor is ex of ficiochairman of the board of appointment and the registrar is the convenor. It is also not in dispute that the meeting of board of appointment was held on july 8, 1994 and the said meeting was attended by prof. Yajanveer, prof. J. p. sinha; and prof. K. k. chaturvedi, in addition to the vice-chancellor and registrar of the university. There was a quorum to proceed with the meeting as prescribed by Section 49 (5) of the act. At that meeting, out of 8 applicants 7 applicants attended the interview. The committee, after examining the relative merits of each candidate, unanimously selected the 2nd respondent and recommended her name for being appointed as a reader. It is well-settled that the correctness or otherwise of the selection made by the board of appointment cannot be gone into unless mala fides are attributed to the members of the board of appointment or there is a palpable illegality in the process of selection. ( 19 ) IT is contended by Sri m. s. padmarajaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that no professor was appointed under Section 49 (2) (a) (ii) of the act, and, only 3 experts were appointed under Section 49 (2) (a) (iii) of the act, and, even those professors are not the experts in the subject of jainology and prakrit. They are only the professors in sanskrit. He has further contended that two experts are not from the panel prepared by the university grants commission. There is no averment in the petition about the panel of university grants commission. Even otherwise, it is submitted by Sri k. t. mohan, learned counsel appearing for the university, that university grants commission has not prepared any panel of names and no names were supplied to them inspite of requests. In this view of the matter, they prepared the list of experts from the book called "commonwealth universities year book, 1993" which contains names of all the professors of almost all universities in the country and the commonwealth countries. In the absence of any panel by the university grants commission, appointment of experts in consultation with the government is a sufficient compliance with the provision. In the absence of any panel by the university grants commission, appointment of experts in consultation with the government is a sufficient compliance with the provision. Sri padmarajaiah has also made available, the extracts of university hand book published by the association of Indian universities. From the reading of these two documents, it is seen that Sri g. c. jain is a professor of prakrit and jain agam and prof. Yajanveer is a professor of sanskrit, pali and prakrit. It is further seen that 4 experts and not 3 experts as contended by the petitioners, were appointed under Section 49 (2) (a) (iii) of the ACT and all the professors except prof. L. n. sharma are the professors in sanskrit, pali and prakrit; whereas prof. Sharma is a professor of philosophy and religion, of banaras hindu university, varanasi. ( 20 ) IN Order to consider the contention of the petitioners that the experts should be experts in jainology and prakrit, it is necessary to read the statutes of the university framed under Section 35 (l) of the act. The statutes of the university came into force in the year 1978 and the same is also amended by 1986 statute. The qualification prescribed by 1978 statute for the recruitment of readers reads as follows: "2. Readers: essential: (a) a doctorate degree or published work of an equally high standard; (b) consistently good academic record with I or higher ii class (b+) master's degree in a relevant subject or an equivalent degree of a foreign university; note: (i) having regard to the need for developing inter-disciplinary programme the degree in (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subjects. (ii) provided that if the board of appointment is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of very high standard, it may relax any of the qualification prescribed in (b) above. (iii) provided further that if a candidate possessing a doctorate degree or an equivalent published work is not available the person possessing consistently good academic record and the relevant master's degree may be appointed (due weightage being given to m. Phil. (iii) provided further that if a candidate possessing a doctorate degree or an equivalent published work is not available the person possessing consistently good academic record and the relevant master's degree may be appointed (due weightage being given to m. Phil. , equivalent research degree or research work of quality) on the condition that such candidate will have to obtain a doctorate degree or given evidence of published works of an equally high standard within 5 years of the appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments until he fulfill these requirements. (c) five years of teaching-cum-research experience. Desirable: publication of research work of high standard in the subject". The degree in relevant subject has been explained in the Annexure appended to 1978 statutes and the essential qualifications in so far as it relates to jainology and prakrit is, the degree in jainology or sanskrit or prakrit or kannada or philosophy or ancient Indian history. The teaching experience under (c) should be in the subjects pertaining to jainology. The said rule is amended in the year 1986 and it reads as under: "2. Readers: (in the faculties of arts, science, social sciences, commerce and management studies ). Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Evidence of the actively engaged in (1) research or (2) innovation in teaching method or (3) production of teaching material. About 5 years experience of teaching and/or research provided that at least 3 of these years were as lecturer or in an equivalent position. This condition may be relaxed in the case of candidate with outstanding record of teaching/research". In view of the essential degrees as prescribed by the statute being the degrees in jainology or sanskrit or prakrit or kannada or philosophy and ancient history, it is not possible to accept the contention of Sri m. s. padmarajaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the experts must only be the professors in jainology and prakrit and not the professors in any of the subjects which are prescribed as essential qualifications either in jainology or sanskrit or prakrit or kannada or philosophy or ancient Indian history. In these circumstances, the appointment of prof. L. n. sharma, professor of philosophy and religion as an expert cannot be held as an appointment contrary to the provisions of Section 49 (2) (a) (iii) of the act. This court in Dr. In these circumstances, the appointment of prof. L. n. sharma, professor of philosophy and religion as an expert cannot be held as an appointment contrary to the provisions of Section 49 (2) (a) (iii) of the act. This court in Dr. P. B. Badiger v University of Mysore and others , considering the real purport and intent of essential qualifications prescribed for appointment of a reader in jainology and prakrit, as the said case also involved the question of appointment of reader in jainology, has held as follows: ". . . There is no requirement under the notification issued by the university that the candidate for appointment as reader in jainology must have master's degree in jainology or prakrits. The requirement, among others, is that the candidate under rule 2 (b) must have master's degree in 'a' relevant subject and not in 'the' relevant subject. A relevant subject in the context, does not mean only the subject of jainology or prakrits. Note (1) to clause 2 (b) of the said notification which we have earlier set out clears the doubt, if any. It states that the degrees may be in the relevant subjects which in turn are specified in column 4 of the notification. It states that the degrees in (a) and (b) may be in jainology or sanskrit or prakrits or kannada or philosophy or ancient Indian history. That means a candidate who has obtained a degree in any one of these subjects is qualified for being appointed as reader in jainology". ( 21 ) SECTION 49 (2) (a) (iii) of the ACT prescribes appointment of four experts; though it does not specifically states experts in the subject, by necessary implications it means, the experts in the relevant subject. The expression 'relevant subject' having been explained in the annexures appended to the statute, the 'experts' does not necessarily mean, the experts in jainology and prakrits only. They may be in any one of the relevant subjects. Sri padmarajaiah, further contends that only three experts are appointed. The said contention has no substance in the face of the records. The expression 'relevant subject' having been explained in the annexures appended to the statute, the 'experts' does not necessarily mean, the experts in jainology and prakrits only. They may be in any one of the relevant subjects. Sri padmarajaiah, further contends that only three experts are appointed. The said contention has no substance in the face of the records. ( 22 ) SRI udaya holla, learned counsel appearing for respondent 2, has submitted that the board of appointment was duly constituted by the university as prescribed by Section 49 of the act, and even if there is any defect in the constitution, the ACT or proceedings of an authority or body of the university shall not be invalidated, only on such grounds in view of Section 64 of the act. Section 64 of the ACT reads as follows: "64. Acts and proceedings not invalidated, merely on the ground of defect in constitution, vacancy etc. (1) notwithstanding that the senate, the syndicate or the academic council or any other authority or body of the university is not duly constituted or there is a defect in its constitution or reconstitution at any time and notwithstanding that there is a vacancy in the membership of any such authority or body, no ACT or proceeding of such authority or body shall be invalidated merely on any such ground or grounds". (section 64 (2) is not relevant for the purpose of this case) it is seen from the aforesaid provision that, even if the senate, syndicate or academic council or any other authority or body of the university is not duly constituted or there is a defect in its constitution or reconstitution at any time and even if there is any vacancy in the membership of such authority or body, no ACT or proceedings of such authority or a body shall be invalidated merely on any such ground or grounds. It is therefore, clear that if there is any defect in the constitution of the board of appointment, the ACT or proceedings of the board of appointment, shall not be invalidated merely on the ground of defective constitution. In support of his contention Sri udaya holla, placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in B. K. Srinivasan and another v State of Karnataka and others. The appellants before Supreme Court were the respondents before this court. In support of his contention Sri udaya holla, placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in B. K. Srinivasan and another v State of Karnataka and others. The appellants before Supreme Court were the respondents before this court. The petitions were filed before this court against the appellants questioning the legality of certain constructions raised by them in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka town and country planning act. The appellants raised a contention that the outline development plan and regulations were never published, consequently they have never become effective and therefore there was no compliance with the requirement of the said regulations. Dealing with such a contention in the context of Section 76-j of the said act, the Supreme Court has held that, "18. The High Court was of the view that such defect as there was in regard to publication of the plan was cured by Section 76-j, the "omnibus curative" clause to which we earlier made a reference as the "ganga" clause. provisions similar to Section 76-j are found in several modern acts and their object is to put beyond challenge defects of constitution of statutory bodies and defects of procedure which have not led to any substantial prejudice. We are inclined to agree with the High Court that a defective publication which has otherwise served its purpose is not sufficient to render illegal what is published and that such defect is cured by Section 76-j". Section 76-j of the Karnataka town and country planning ACT is similar to Section 64 of the universities act, ( 23 ) SRI padmarajaiah, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Triloki nath's case and of this court in p. Sadashivamurthy, has contended that the defective constitution of the board of appointment would vitiate the selection. The Supreme Court in triloki nath's case has held that, ". . . Explanation ii could only apply in a case where the post of teacher to be selected was common to more than one subject of study. Advertisement no where provided that one reader in linguistics in the department of hindi was to be selected as common to more than one subject of study. . . Explanation ii could only apply in a case where the post of teacher to be selected was common to more than one subject of study. Advertisement no where provided that one reader in linguistics in the department of hindi was to be selected as common to more than one subject of study. Merely because the post of reader in linguists was required in the department of hindi, it cannot be held that such reader in linguists was to teach the subject of linguistics as well as the subject of hindi language and literature". That was a case decided under different set of facts and different provisions of law. It is true that this court in p. Sadashivamurthy's case has held that the defective constitution of the board of appointment would vitiate the selection. However, Section 64 of the ACT was not brought to the notice of this court at the time of hearing of the said petition. In this view of the matter, the aforeaid decisions are of little assistance to the petitioners. The point nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in the negative and in favour of the second respondent. ( 24 ) POINT No. (iii):it is contended by Sri m. s. padmarajaiah, that the second respondent did not possess the prescribed qualification as on the date of the application. I have earlier referred to the relevant qualifications of the petitioners and the second respondent. Sri m. s. padmarajaiah, directed his attack only in respect of the qualifications relating to 5 years teaching experience in the subject, though he argued that the second respondent did not possess other qualification, such as m. a. in jainology and prakrits. The contention of the petitioners in these petitions are, that the second respondent was a member of the senate and the academic council. She was also a member of the finance committee. The university in Order to help her, appointed the professors who are known to her, as experts on the board of appointment. The second respondent though did not possess the eligible qualification, particularly, 5 years teaching experience in jainology, was selected contrary to the statutes. The allegations that the university appointed the persons known to the second respondent as experts, on the board of appointment has no basis. The second respondent though did not possess the eligible qualification, particularly, 5 years teaching experience in jainology, was selected contrary to the statutes. The allegations that the university appointed the persons known to the second respondent as experts, on the board of appointment has no basis. The petitioners have not furnished the particulars as to how the second respondent used her office as a member of the senate and the academic council to get her persons appointed on the board of appointment. No particulars as to the acquaintance of the second respondent with the experts appointed to the board of appointment are also furnished. The allegation made in respect of the appointment would naturally reflect on the character and integrity of experts. The said allegations are vague and mischievous besides being baseless. Moreover, the experts were appointed in consultation with the state government. The petitioners have made vague allegations without furnishing the particulars. The allegations of mala fides, in the absence of particulars, must be held to have been made with oblique motive. It is further, too much for the petitioners to contend that the professors coming from different parts of the country would espouse the cause of the second respondent merely because she was a member of the senate and the academic council, particularly in the absence of acquaintance of any sort. The board of appointment had all the particulars of the candidates who appeared for the interview before them. From the particulars furnished, it is clear that the second respondent has written 14 books in addition to many articles and papers presented at seminars and reviews. Some of the books referred to in annexure-r3 are in respect of jaina sahithya. By referring to these books, I should make myself very clear that, I am not examining the relevant merits of the candidates. I am just considering the materials placed by the applicants before the board of appointment at the time of their interview. From the particulars furnished by each candidate along with their applications in respect of their published works, research and teaching experience, it is no surprise if the works of the second respondent has commanded the attention of the members of the board of appointment. From the particulars furnished by each candidate along with their applications in respect of their published works, research and teaching experience, it is no surprise if the works of the second respondent has commanded the attention of the members of the board of appointment. At the cost of repetation, it may be stated that, the second respondent has written 14 books, 40 articles, presented 21 papers at seminar besides writing 51 reviews as against a thesis and 25 articles by the first petitioner and 4 books by the second petitioner. It may also be not out of place if, I refer to the works of other applicants. The two other persons, one by name Dr. N. s. rangaraju, has presented 20 research papers and another Sri n. Suresh kumar, has written 1 book and published 4 articles. Under these circumstances, if, the members of the board of appointment, on considering the relevant merits of each applicant, has selected and recommended the second respondent for being appointed as the reader in jainology and prakrit by relaxing the condition as regards the teaching experience in the subject, I find no illegality in such selection. Accordingly, I answer point No. (hi) in the negative and in favour of the second respondent. ( 25 ) SRI udaya holla, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has further contended that the petitioners, after having participated in the interview, are estopped from questioning the appointment of second respondent by acquiescence and by waiver. In view of my finding on point nos. (i), (ii) and (iii), I do not think that, it is necessary to consider this contention. ( 26 ) IN the result, these petitions fail and accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no Order as to costs. ( 27 ) BEFORE I conclude, it is worth while to reiterate the solemn statement of the Supreme Court in Dr. G. Marulasiddaiah v Dr. T. G. Siddapparadhya and others, that, "a teacher is justified in taking legal action when he feels that a stigma or punishment is undeserved but he is expected to bear with fortitude and reconcile himself to his lot suppressing disappointment when he finds a co-worker raised to a position which he himself aspired after". --- *** --- .