V. Dutta Gyani, C. J. (Acting)-- This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.2.98 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.85 (SH) 97 thereby dismissing the same as devoid of any merit with cost of Rs. 1,000/- payable within two weeks to the respondent University. 2. Few basic facts may now be noted: The writ-petitioner-appellant holds a Master Degree in Chemistry with Ph.D., with specialisation in Inorganic Chemistry having started his career as Pool Officer, he was eventually absorbed as a Lecturer in May, 1978 and in course of time became Reader in March, 1985. 3. It was during the academic year 1976-77 that the University Grant Commission sanctioned a post of Professor in Chemistry with specialisation in Industrial Chemistry. This post was held by Professor TSB Narasaraju till May, 1995 and fell vacant on his retirement. Sometime in the month of March, 1996 the post which was initially sanctioned for Professor in Chemistry with specialisation in Industrial Chemistry was stealthily changed from Industrial Chemistry to Physical Chemistry. The writ petitioner's allegation is that it was in connivance of the respondents 4 and 5, According the writ petitioner-appellant this new specialisation was introduced with a view to accommodate the respondent No.6. Respondent No.2 was approached for adding a new specialisation in Physical Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry apart from specialisation in Industrial Chemistry for the post of Professor. The writ petitioner-appellant submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor through the Head of the Department against the creation of new specialisation attached to the post. An employment notice dated 19.6,96 (filed as Annexure D to the writ petition) was published for the post of Professor in Chemistry with specialisation in Physical Chemistry Anorganic Chemistry/Industrial Chemistry. It was the appellant's case that Professor in the Department has no power to create new specialisation to the post. His another grievance is the representation made by him was not disposed of. But the fact remains that the writ petitioner appellant also applied for the post of Professor in pursuance td the employment notice, Annexure D. The applications received were processed and screened by the Screening Committee which consisted of amongst others, the respondent Nos 4 and 5. His another grievance is the representation made by him was not disposed of. But the fact remains that the writ petitioner appellant also applied for the post of Professor in pursuance td the employment notice, Annexure D. The applications received were processed and screened by the Screening Committee which consisted of amongst others, the respondent Nos 4 and 5. Here again the writ petitioner appellant has contended that the constitution of the Screening Committee was illegal and the respondents 4 and 5 were biased in favour of the respondent No.6. 4. The writ petitioner-appellant appeared for interview on 25.4.97 along with the respondent No.6. The date 11.12.96 as fixed for interview had to be changed for one or other reasons. It is the appellant's case that it was only on his appearance for interview that he came to know of its constitution which according to him was contrary to the provisions of North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973, hereinafter, for short, the University Act and the North Eastern Hill University Ordinance for short (University Ordinance). Alleging malice, malafide, connivance and contravention of rules in challenging the action of the University right from the stage of publication of the advertisement, the constitution of the Screening Committee and the Selection Committee and the process of selection itself biased as it was the writ petitioner-appellant approached this Court praying for quashing the entire selection process pursuant to the advertisement/employment notice, Annexure D. An interim order was passed on 7.7.97 restraining the Executive Council from proceeding further discussion on the recommendation of the Selection Committee as regards the appointment to the post of Professor, Chemistry Department, the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition which met with dismissal on 27.2.98 as already noted above. 5. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment inter alia, on the ground that the impugned action of the University is in violation of the statutory provisions, the requirement of publication of advertisement in National Daily was not fully complied with. Statute No.20 of the statute was not fully complied with, the learned Single Judge has overlooked the requirement of this Statute No.20 which provides for having 3 persons of the Committee who are not in service of the University and on this ground alone, the writ petition should have been allowed. Statute No.20 of the statute was not fully complied with, the learned Single Judge has overlooked the requirement of this Statute No.20 which provides for having 3 persons of the Committee who are not in service of the University and on this ground alone, the writ petition should have been allowed. The change in specialisation leading to the publication of advertisement, Annexure D is vitiated by illegalities and irregularities, the University Grant Commission was not consulted before making such a change in specialisation. 6. It was urged during the course of argument that whereas the writ petitioner appellant was interviewed and assessed by two experts, the respondent No.6 was assessed and interviewed by only one which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Professor Haque one of the members of the Selection Committee was specialised in Physical Chemistry, his inclusion quo Inorganic Chemistry was, therefore, wholly uncalled for. There was no expert so far as Industrial Chemistry is concerned. He also urged that respondents 4 and 5 being promotees under the Merit Promotion Scheme were in the Selection Committee assessing and evaluating the respondent No,6 who was also holding the post under Merit Promotion Scheme. It was connivance and malafide with writ large in their action. 7. It was pointed out that the ratio of Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & others, AIR 1976 SC 2428 was not applicable to the facts of the instant case as inasmuch as there was no estoppel against the statute. It was contended that the petitioner-appellant had every right to challenge the composition of the Selection Committee before whom he had appeared for interview and participated in the selection process. Statute 20 as it stands must be given effect to irrespective of the above fact. Referring to communication dated 5.12.97 it was submitted that change of specialisation and constitution of the Screening and the Selection Committee was in violation of the statutory provisions. 8. This writ appeal was listed before us for the first time on 23.3.98 and an interim order was insisted for. In veiw of the fact there was a Caveat the appeal itself was directed to be listed on 26.3.98. On 26.3.98, learned senior counsel for University, Mr. Phookan was busy in some other case and an adjournment was prayed for. Mr. In veiw of the fact there was a Caveat the appeal itself was directed to be listed on 26.3.98. On 26.3.98, learned senior counsel for University, Mr. Phookan was busy in some other case and an adjournment was prayed for. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant also requested for production of record, the University was directed to produce the record of the case and the case record was also requisitioned from Shillong fixing 30.3.98 as the date for hearing. In the meanwhile the parties exhanged affidavit and produced documents in support of their respective case. 9. Mr. AK Phookan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University pointed out that inclusion of specialisation in Inorganic Chemistry was at the instance of the writ petitioner-appellant as prayed for by him in his representation dated 14.5.96 and it is he who is now making a grievance about illegal alteration or change in specialisation. It was as per his representation that he was given an opportunity to apply and appear for interview for the post of Professor by including a specialisation of Inorganic Chemistry in the employment notice, Annexure D. Constitution of Screening Committee denounced as illegal has been emphatically denied by the respondent University, Mr. Phookan contended that Ordinance OE 5 (2) was fully complied, the allegation of bias and connivance have been emphatically refuted. 10. As per constitution of the Selection Committee, Mr. AK Phookan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University pointed out that so far the require­ment of having 3 persons not in service of the University having special, knowledge or interest in the subject for which the post of Professor to be selected was concerned were very much there, the petitioner's grievance that there was no expert in Physical Chemistry is wholly baseless. The Selection Board was constituted by : (i) Prof MC Chakravarty (Specialised in Inorganic Chemistry) from IIT, Kharagpur. (ii) Prof PS Zacharias (Specialised in Inogranic Chemistry) from Osmania Univeristy of Hyderabad. (iii) Prof PK Tikoo (Specialised in Physical Chemistry) from Banaras Hindu University. Of course Professor PK Tikoo could not make it convenient to present, but the required quorum as per Ordinance OE 5 (2) was very much there. It could not be said that no expert in Physical Chemistry was included in the Selection Committee. It was just a matter of chance that the expert Professor Tikoo could not come on the date of interview. It could not be said that no expert in Physical Chemistry was included in the Selection Committee. It was just a matter of chance that the expert Professor Tikoo could not come on the date of interview. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the constitution of the Committee was illegal or in contravention of the statutory rules, the required quorum was there, the question of bias, malafide or prejudice does not at all arise. Countering certain factual statements as incorrect, he pointed out that the respondent No.5 was not appointed as Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme as alleged by the appellant, but he was directly appointed as a Professor by open selection and not under any scheme.-The allegation that the advertisement Annexure D was not published in National dailies is also false, it was published in Telegraph published from Calcutta which is a National daily apart from other local news papers and this requirement of publication of advertisement in National dailies is no longer in force as per Executive Council Resolution No.84-94 dated 8.12.94. Learned counsel contended that addition of anew speciality or change of speciality in the post of Professor 'does not amount to creation of a new post, as such there was no necessity or requirement of obtaining prior concurrence of the UGC. He emphasised that it was the writ petitioner-appellant at whose instance specialisation of Inorganic Chemistry was included so as to afford him an opportunity to apply for the post which he did. If he was really aggrieved by the inclusion of or addition of new specialisation, he ought to have approahced this Court at that stage. The presence of Professor Haque as a nominee of Vice Chancellor does not in any manner violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as contended by the appellant. Moreover, the merit of candidate is assessed by a Selection Committee as a whole and not based on the assessment of one or two individual particular experts. Absence of an expert in Industrial Chemistry has also been explained by the learned counsel as there was no candidate having specialisation in Industrial Chemistry, thus it would not make any difference. Reference to RE 4 by the learned Single Judge in his judgment has also been explained in the context that it was referred to and should not be viewed in isolation. 11. Reference to RE 4 by the learned Single Judge in his judgment has also been explained in the context that it was referred to and should not be viewed in isolation. 11. Before proceeding to deal with the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it would not be out of place to take note of a glaring fact which demonstratively surface on the record. Assuming for the sake of argument that the process of selection was in contravention of rules, as alleged by the petitioner the advertisement was not in accordance with rules, the constitution of Screening Committee was not in accordance with rules, the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with statutory rules, the fact remains that the writ petitioner applied for the post knowing the fact that the advertisement was not in accordance with law, he appeared in the interview knowing that the constitution of the Selection Committee was in contravention of the statute, here is a petitioner who is now challenging the entire process of selection and praying it to be quashed. What is his conduct ? whether such a petitioner should be allowed to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that illegal constitution of the Selection Committee should not be suffered merely because the person challenging the constitution had participated the interview. 12. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 (Raj Kumar vs. Shakti Raj). This was a case of selection of large number of Patwaris in Haryana State Service Class II. Common examinations were conducted on different dates and subsequent to declaration of results thereof, as many as, 427 posts of Patwaris were excluded from the purview of the Selection Board and a committee was constituted which came to select the appellants. It was in this factual background that the Supreme Court noted; "Yet another circumstance is that the Govt. had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the examination were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the examination were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lai vs. State of J&K & others decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the methood of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in this case, the Govt. have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power, in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the rules..." (emphasis supplied) A patwari is not comparable with Professor of a University. See the gross illegality, of taking out 427 posts out of the purview of statutory Selection Board and that too after declaration of results by the Board, their factual context cannot be lost sight of while applying the principle of estoppel, as indeed the Supreme Court has also noted in paragraph 17 of the judgment: "In the light of what we have stated in the facts and circumstances, the appropriate and better course would be that SSSB should call the names of all the candidates who were successful in the written examinations conducted between 25.4.1992 and 28.4.1992, interview the candidates and select them in accordance with law laid down above." 14. The writ petitioner appellant, as has been rightly noted by the learned Single Judge: 'The case at hand further reveals that the writ petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee which interviewed him on 25.4.97 and he filed the writ petition on 16.6.97.1 am of the view that the present writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner as an afterthought as he has apprehension in his mind that he may not be selected and, he did not approach the Court as expeditiously as possible. This Court, further reiterates that people seeking for equity must approach the Court as expeditiously as possible and with clean hands. But, the writ petitioner did not do so inasmuch as, he did not challenge/question the validity of constitution of the Screening Committee and the advertisement for the said post with specialisations in three subjects earlier, before he appeared before the "Selection Committee as discussed above." 15. Although the conduct of the writ petitioner appellant in view of several judgments of the Supreme Court of mention only but two (i) Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla ( AIR 1986 SC 1043 para 23); (ii) Madanlal vs. State of J&K ( AIR 1995 SC 1088 ) is such has to disentitle him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, still, however, we proceed to examine the submissions made on merits of the case. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant, attacking the constitution of the Selection Committee, submitted that firstly there was no expert in Industrial Chemistry, and secondly, the statutory provisions as contained in Statute No.20 were not followed, any selection or recommendation made by such a committee, was therefore1 vitiated. He referred to Dr. Triloknath vs. Dr. B hag wan Das ( AIR 1990 SC 2063 ). 17. The above case is quite distinguishable as noted in the above judgment para 2, none of the three experts from outside who were members of the Selection Committee were experts in linguistics, they were experts in Hindi Literature and not Linguistics and the post to be filled up was that of Reader in Linguistics. Such is not the position obtaining in the case at hand, the members as already noted above were experts in their respective subject. Such is not the position obtaining in the case at hand, the members as already noted above were experts in their respective subject. Since there was applicant with specialisation in Industrial Chemistry, to be interviewed, there was no need to have such an expert in the Selection Board. 18. As for constitution of the Selection Committee and compliance of Statute No.20 and OE 3 is concerned, Mr. Gogoi highlighting the importance of procedural fairness, and absence of bias in the matter of selection argued that inclusion of Professor Haque as nominee of the Vice Chancellor, does not meet the requirement of Statute No.20, for selection of Professor. 19. Really speaking there was no such irregularity in the constitution of the Selection Committee, what happened was Professor Tikoo from Banaras Hindu University, who was one on the Expert Member of the Selection Committee, could not make it on date fixed for interview but so far as the constitution of the Committee is concerned, it was perfectly in accordance with Statute No.20. It is because of his absence on the date of interview that the whole argument is sought to be built up by the appellant. 20. Mr. AK Phookan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Univeristy submitted and to our minds rightly so, that the committee proceeded with the process of selection as the required quorum was available as per Ordinance OE 3 : 2 but appellant's counsel has taken exception to Professor Haque, an expert in Physical Chemistry, who was undoubtedly an outsider from Dibrugarh University, as he was a nominee of the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University. Merely because he was nominee of the Vice Chancellor, he does not become interested, much less biased as contended by the appellant's counsel. 21. It was alleged and argued that respondent Nos 2,4 and 5, were biased in favour of respondent No.6. Apart from being vague and factually incorrect the respondents have stoutly denied the allegation. What is alleged is that both of them being promoted under the Merit Promotion Scheme were leaving in favour of the respondent No.6. The respondents 1 and 2 have denied that respondent No.5, Professor Mahanta was a Professor promoted under the MPS. He was a direct appointee, as Professor by open competition and selection and not a promotee as alleged by the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 have denied that respondent No.5, Professor Mahanta was a Professor promoted under the MPS. He was a direct appointee, as Professor by open competition and selection and not a promotee as alleged by the appellant. It does not stand to reason how they could even be alleged to biased when they forwarded appellant's application on screening and recommended him for interview and secondly, it is a collective decision taken by the Selection Committee as a whole. Bias is of three kinds : (i) Pecuniary bias (ii) Personal bias, and (iii) Official bias or bias as to subject matter. 22. Taking the allegation as made by the appellant on its face value, we are presently concerned with the last type of bias as noted above. Griffith and Street in the celebrated commentary on Administrative Law, 4th Edition, page 156 noted "only rarely will this bias invalidate proceedings". In the case at hand it is not even prima facie made out. 23. Having dealt with the submissions made on merit, let us now see at what stage the writ petitioner appellant has approached this Court. As already noted have and also noted by the learned Single Judge, he approached the Court when he filed this writ petition on 16.6.97 after having appeared before the Selection Board for interview on 25.4.97. The selection process was yet to be completed since the recommendations of the Selection Committee under the Rules was required to be placed before the Executive Council for its consideration as per Statute No.20 read with Ordinance OE 3 : 3. The proceedings of the Selection Committee are, still confidential, as observed by the learned Single Judge: "I am of the view that the present writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner as an afterthought as he has apprehenstion in his mind that he may not be selected and he did not approach the Court as expeditiously as possible." The learned Single Judge proceeds to observe: 'This Court, further reiterates that people seeking for equity must approach the Court as expeditiously as possible and with clean hands. But, the writ petitioner did not do so inasmuch as, he did not challenge/question the validity of consitution of the Screening Committee and the advertisement for the said post with specialisations in three subjects earlier, before he appeared before the Selection Committee as discussed above. 24. But, the writ petitioner did not do so inasmuch as, he did not challenge/question the validity of consitution of the Screening Committee and the advertisement for the said post with specialisations in three subjects earlier, before he appeared before the Selection Committee as discussed above. 24. The Supreme Court in similar situation in a similar case as in G. Sarana vs. Lucknow University, AIR 1978 SC 2428, held : "From the above discussion, it clearly follows that what has to be seen in a case where there is an allegation of bias in respect of a member of an administrative Board or body is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. In other words whether there is substantial possibility of bias animating the mind of the member against the aggrieved party." 25. Another aspect of the matter which needs consideration is the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. These are purely academic matters. The Supreme Court in one of its very recent judgment as reported in Berhampur University & another vs. Dr. Sailabala Padhi, (1997) 5 SCC 53 has dealt with the scope of judicial review. Dealing with the question of judicial review has held: "Obviously, therefore, the Expert Body was to select a candidate for a Professor in Environmental Science from amongst the candidates by adjudging whether a candidate is fit for appointment as Professor.........The Chancellor having had the advantage of the report of the Expert Body, obviously was not inclined to agree with the Sub-Committee of the Syndicate to appoint the respondent as Professor and accordingly, he has-given direction in accordance with the rules for re-advertisement of the post of Professor in Environmental Science. The High Court was, therefore, manifestly in error in directing the appointment of the respondent. The re-advertisement is accordingly in accordance with the rules. Ms. Indira Jaising has prayed that since the respondent has been appointed, she may be allowed to continue in the post of Professor, Environmental Science. Having noted that the Expert Body has not selected her, we cannot give any positive direction for her continuance till the selection for the post of Professor in Environmental Science is made." 26. This appeal, for the foregoing reasons, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Having noted that the Expert Body has not selected her, we cannot give any positive direction for her continuance till the selection for the post of Professor in Environmental Science is made." 26. This appeal, for the foregoing reasons, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. We do not propose to interfere with this imposition of costs. After all, the appellant is an employee of the University, we leave it to the good sense and grace of the University, whether to recover it from the appellant.