JUDGMENT 1. - Aforementioned ten writ petitions have been filed by various candidates challenging the process of selections on the posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Asstt. Professors in the various subjects/specialties offered by the respondent University in pursuance of the impugned Advertisement Nos. 1/95 and 2/95 dated 25.7.1995 which are subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid writ petitions. Hence the aforesaid writ petitions can broadly be bifurcated in two parts in order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the petitioners as well as by the respondent-university falling in the following two categories : (A) DIRECT APPLICANTS: In the matters of Samajik Nyaya Shodh Sansthan v. State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 760/1996 , Dr. Ravi Israni v. State of Rajasthan and other : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2381/1996 , Dr. Ved Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Agriculture University: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3074/1996 , Rang Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan and other : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2608/1996 and Rajendra Kumar Agrawal v. Rajasthan Agriculture University: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2145/1996 , the petitioners are the candidates who had applied directly for recruitment on the posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Asstt. Professors in various specialities pursuant to the Advertisement Nos. 1/95 & 2/95 dated 25.07.1995 published by respondent Agricultural University, Bikaner but were not selected for appointment on the said posts though they had participated in the entire selection process alongwith other eligible candidates who were recommended for appointment and appointed in pursuance of the recommendations by various selection committees constituted by the University for the said purpose.(B) DEPARTMENTAL CANDIDATES:In the matters of Dr. Sukhpal Singh Chaudhary and another v. State of Rajasthan & others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3774/1995 , Dr. B.D. Yadav and others v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2126/1996 , Dr. P.M. Kanwat v. State of Rajasthan and others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2127/1996 , Shri G.L. Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2591/1996 and Dr. Balraj Singh v. Prof. R.K. Patel V.C. Rajasthan Agriculture University & others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2326/1996 , the petitioners are Departmental Candidates who were already serving the respondent university as Asstt. Balraj Singh v. Prof. R.K. Patel V.C. Rajasthan Agriculture University & others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2326/1996 , the petitioners are Departmental Candidates who were already serving the respondent university as Asstt. Professors having been appointed by the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner after their selections on the said post and were appointed at Durgapura Agriculture Research Centre, Jaipur in specialities of plant breeding and genetics as direct applicants. The said petitioners alongwith other eligible candidates had applied for their appointments on the posts of Associate Professors and Professors in the above said specialities, and genetics. They have challenged the impugned order of respondent No. 3 dated 5.5.1996 by which they were denied their selection for appointments on the aforesaid posts and have also challenged the selection of other candidates who were appointed on the posts of Associate Professors & Professors made in pursuance of the aforesaid Advertisements pursuant to which the petitioners made their applications for selection for the said posts but were not considered suitable for appointment though they were duly qualified and as per their case they were entitled to be selected/appointed qua other candidates who were less meritorious but were selected by the selection committees which were constituted by the University contrary to the norms and statutory provisions of the Act of 1987 as so alleged by them. 2. Since the questions of law raised by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are common, the grievance urged by them as against the approach adopted by the respondent-University in the matter of selection for appointment of the candidates who had applied for various posts of Assistant Professors/ Associate Professors & Professors in various specialities offered by the University is also common, the same are dealt with and decided of by this single common order. 3. 3. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions have raised common grievance as regards the approach of the respondent-University in the matter of appointments of the aforesaid candidates in the matter of selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors/Associate Professors & professors in various specialities offered by the respondent-University in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned advertisements issued by it on the basis of which the said candidates which included the candidates of general category as well as the candidates belonging to reserved category of SC/ST/OBC were denied appointments on the aforesaid posts on the grounds inter-alia: (1) that the advertisements and the appointments made by the University by giving benefit of reservation to SC/ST/OBC category candidates was done subjectwise and not against the total number of posts advertised for the post of Professors/ Associate Professors/Asstt. Professors and hence the same are illegal and contrary to law and hence deserve to be quashed and set aside. (2) that the Selection Committees which recommended the candidates for appointments on the aforesaid posts were not properly constituted and which had some members who were disqualified from participating as members of the said Selection Committee being candidates for some posts and (3) that while affecting the selections, the requirement of passing National Eligibility Test for short "N.E.T." was ignored and, therefore, the selections are bad and illegal being contrary to the advertisement itself. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the questions of law which arise are for consideration of this court in the aforesaid writ petitions, briefly formulated are to the following effect : (1):- Whether the respondent-university in its Advertisement Nos. 1/95 & 2/95 dated 25.7.1995 has complied with the requirements of the statute, i.e., the Rajasthan Agricultural Universities Act, 1987 (Act No. 39/1987) (for short "the Act") published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary, Part HA dated 8.11.1987 by which the University was established by the State of Rajasthan at Bikaner for the development of Agriculture including animal husbandry and allied Science in the said State for the purpose of extending the benefit of the reservation to the extent of 21% to reserved categories candidates, i.e., SC/ST/OBC in accordance with Section 10A of the Act ? (2):- Whether the Selection Committee constituted by the respondent-University for selection of the candidates for various posts as advertised by it was in accordance with law and requirements of the statute, particularly when some of the candidates who were seeking selection on the post of Director Research, Director of Extension and Dean in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/95 dated 25/07/1995 (Annexure-3) who have been impleaded as a respondent No. 4.2 & 6 in category- B as departmental candidate; had participated in the process of selection as permanent members ? (3) Whether it was open and permissible to aforesaid applicants to have so participated in the selection process in contravention of clause B of Statute 12 of the Act, 1987 ? (4) Whether the constitution of the Selection Committees was made in accordance with law and hence the entire selections made are vitiated since respondents Nos. 4 to 6 had acted in collusion and under the pressure of respondent No.3 ? (5) Whether the selection of the successful candidates made by the respondent university can be termed as manipulated as so alleged by the petitioners since respondent No.3 was Chairman of the Selection Committees for making selections on various posts as referred to above in which respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were the applicants themselves and hence disqualified to participate in the selection process ? (6) Whether the formula applied by the various selection committees constituted by the University vide Annexure C-2 can be termed as proper and valid in the matter of selection of candidates who were recommended for appointment on different posts since there was no provision for awarding the marks on the basis of grade point average in bachelors degree whereas in additional affidavit dated 17.03.1997 filed on behalf of the respondent university it has been contended that the selection committees followed the matter of granting marks on the basis of grade point average in Bachelors degree ? (7) Whether the criteria of 'correction factor' applied by the respondent university in favour of the successful candidates out of 2000 candidates who had appeared before the various committees and had participated in the process of selection can be said to be proper and valid, particularly when the entire exercise of awarding marks on the basis of the formula also applying correction factor could not be done regularly on rough paper since score-sheets were prepared by the examiners with respect to each of the candidates were duly signed by the respective members of the selection committees and it is otherwise inconceivable as to how large scale markings had been done by the selection committees in volume without averting the same on the papers ? (8) Whether any manipulations were made by the respondent university as so alleged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions by awarding higher marks to favourite candidates applying the correctional factor to various candidates shown in Annexure R/A ? (9) Whether the candidates who had participated in the process of selection in pursuance of the impugned advertisement as referred to above, for various posts offered by the respondent university and subsequently not declared successful have any locus-standi to move to this court by way of the aforesaid writ petitions on various grounds of challenge as referred to in the writ petitions ? (10) Whether any personal injury can be said to have been caused to the petitioners as a result of their non-selections by the selection committees as set up by the respondent university on any of the grounds as raised in the writ petition after having taken calculated chance and appeared in the entire selection process i.e. written test, interview etc. and whether any vested legal right can be said to have accrued to such candidates ? (11) Whether the writ petitions are not maintainable in the present form without impleading affected and interested parties, i.e., the candidates who are declared successful and hence not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties ? 5. and whether any vested legal right can be said to have accrued to such candidates ? (11) Whether the writ petitions are not maintainable in the present form without impleading affected and interested parties, i.e., the candidates who are declared successful and hence not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties ? 5. In the writ petitions filed by the Direct applicants mentioned in Group-A, the grounds which have been urged by the petitioners in support of their contentions are similar to those petitioners who are Departmental candidates mentioned in Group B and who had applied for various posts in pursuance of the impugned advertisement issued by the respondent-university on 25.7.1995. The grounds urged by them are to the following effect: (1) Statute 12 of the Act of 1987 which deals with the selection committees provides for constitution of selection committees in accordance with the procedure as stipulated therein for appointment of each of the following categories of posts: (a) Professors; (b) Readers; (c) Lecturers; (d) Directors; (e) Head of Institutions, if any, and (f) other academic staff. (2) A selection committee shall consist of the following members, namely (a) Vice Chancellor: ex-officio Chairman (b) one expert from outside the University to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor; (c) a nominee of the Chancellor; (d) a nominee of the Board; and (e) a nominee of the Government; (3) The quorum for a meeting of a selection committee shall be of minimum three members. (4) The procedure to be followed by the selection committees shall be such as may be specified in the Ordinance of the University. (5) The selection committee shall make recommendations to the Board which may, while accepting such recommendations, send the same to the Vice-Chancellor for making appointment or may, while not accepting them, submit the case together with reasons for not accepting the recommendations to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final and the Vice-Chancellor shall take action accordingly". 6. (5) The selection committee shall make recommendations to the Board which may, while accepting such recommendations, send the same to the Vice-Chancellor for making appointment or may, while not accepting them, submit the case together with reasons for not accepting the recommendations to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final and the Vice-Chancellor shall take action accordingly". 6. The petitioners have contended that the constitution of selection committees for appointments to the various posts as referred to above, was not done in accordance with the provisions of the statute since clause (B) of the Statute 12 of the Act of 1987 deals with the procedure for appointments to the posts of Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Directors, Head of Institutions, if any, and other academic staff which also deals with as to how the selection committees are to be constituted vide Clause (B) of Statute 12 which specifically mandates that person shall be disqualified from sitting as a member of the selection committee and taking part in the selection process if he is seeking selection for appointment to the post of teacher or officer of the University. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were the permanent members of the selection committees and these persons were themselves seeking selections on the post of Director Research, Director of Extension and Dean in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/95 dated 25.7.1995. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 thus having participated in all the selection committees as permanent members, it was not permissible to them as per clause (B) of Statute 12 to have participated in the selection process being the applicants themselves and hence the constitution of the selection committees was not in accordance with the law all selections made thus stand vitiated. 7. The petitioners have further contended that Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were disqualified to participate in the selection process for the reason that they had under the influence of respondent No. 3 joined hands and helped him in doing manipulation/ misdeeds and were responsible for destroying or hiding the score sheets which were prepared during the course of interviews by respondent No. 3 alongwith them and hence the possibility of other members being influenced by them cannot be ruled out. 8. The petitioners have also challenged the criteria adopted by the respondent university in making appointments to various posts. 8. The petitioners have also challenged the criteria adopted by the respondent university in making appointments to various posts. With regard to schedule B to the writ petition the criteria relating to allocation of marks on the basis of interviews, academic qualification and experience etc. has been specified and all the selection committees were bound by this criteria which has not been followed. In this regard the petitioners have contended that at the time of interviews of various candidates, the score sheets were prepared and different marks on the basis of academic qualifications as per the criteria were awarded to different candidates by the university. In this regard the petitioners have placed reliance upon the affidavits of the members of selection committees vide Annexures 8, 9 & 10 on the record alongwith their contentions advanced in rejoinder wherein it has been categorically stated by the respondents that the above criteria was followed while making selections to various posts and the score sheets were duly filled in by respondent No. 3, which were got signed by the respective members of the selection committees which were sealed and placed on the record. This fact has also been specifically stated in reply to the writ petitions which is duly supported by affidavit of respondent No. 3 which is contrary to the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners that no definite criteria was followed and only broad based guidelines were used and this fact has been verified on perusal of the record during the course of hearing of the writ petitions. 9. As per the contentions advanced by the respondents in reply to the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing it has been contended that though the respondents were not statutorily required to follow any definite criteria yet the respondents have adopted all the precautionary measures in preparing the score sheets for evaluating the performance of various candidates who had participated in the selection process including the petitioners and the said score sheets were duly signed by the members of the selection committees. Rough evaluation was done on papers by the members of the selection committees based on their objective consideration on the basis of the performance of the candidates who had taken part in selection process and on the basis of which the final result was prepared and the rough evaluations were destroyed after preparation of the final results. 10. In order to dispel any doubts with regard to the entire selection process adopted in the matter of appointments to the various posts of teachers i.e. Professors, Associate Professors and Asstt. Professors etc. this court vide order dated 04.03.1997 specifically directed the respondents to prepare a regular chart indicating the names of the candidates, their academic qualifications, marks secured by them in the respective examinations, the weightage required to be given as per the criteria evolved by the university and the marks assessed by the Registrar as per the criteria given to the Agricultural Productions Secretary to the respondents. The tough format is marked as C-1 in pursuance of the directions dated 04.03.1997 and the final chart which was prepared by the officiating Registrar of the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, was placed on the record vide Annexure R/A duly supported by affidavit of the deponent. 11. Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties I deem it appropriate to refer to the scheme of the Act of the 1987. The Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner is an autonomous body which was established and incorporated by the State Government for development of Agriculture including Animal Husbandry and allied sciences in the State of Rajasthan. The provision and procedure for appointment of Teachers and officers of the Agriculture University are contained in the Act of 1987. Section 2(1) defines officer as an officer of the University as specified in Section 18 or otherwise in the employment of the university designated as an officer in the Statutes. Section 2(1) defines teacher as a Professor, Reader or Lecturer. "Officer" means an officer of the University as specified in Section 18 or otherwise in the employment of the University designated as an officer in the Statutes. Section 8 of the Act of 1987 provides that the Governor of the State shall be the ex officio Chancellor of the University who may give any direction to take any action and do anything as may be necessary under the provisions of the Act and Statutes. Section 8 of the Act of 1987 provides that the Governor of the State shall be the ex officio Chancellor of the University who may give any direction to take any action and do anything as may be necessary under the provisions of the Act and Statutes. Section 18 specifies various officers of the University which includes Vice Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Comptroller, all Directors, all Deans of the Faculties of the University as mentioned therein. Section 20 prescribes the procedure for appointment of the officers other than the Vice Chancellor. Section 24 prescribes that a person may be appointed as a Teacher or an employee of the University by a contract in writing which shall not contend any condition contrary to any provision of the Act or the Statutes. It further provides that all appointments shall generally be governed by the statutes and shall be made by an officer in the manner as may be prescribed. Section 29 stipulates that the statutes of the University shall contain such instructions, directions, procedures, details and terms and conditions as are required to be laid down under and inaccordance with the provisions of this Act which shall be binding on all the authorities, officers, teachers, employees and students of the university and other persons connected with the affairs of the university. It further provides that the Board shall have power to amend, add or delete any statute contained in the schedule of the Act with the rider that the Board shall not amend, add or delete any statute affecting the constitution, status or power of any authority without affording to such authority a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the proposed changes. 12. A Schedule has also been appended to the Act of 1987 wherein the description with regard to different statutes of the university has been made. 13. Statute 12 deals with the constitution of the Selection Committee for appointment to various categories of posts i.e. Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Directors, Heads of Institutions, if any, and other academic staff. The composition of the Selection Committee should be from amongst Vice-Chancellor and Ex-Officio Chairman, one expert from the outside University to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, a nominee of the Chancellor, a nominee of the Board and a nominee of the Government the minimum quorum of the meeting for convening a Selection Committee has to be of at least 3 members. The said statute had undergone amendment vide notification dated 16.11.1990 published in State Gazette in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 of section 29 of the Act of 1987. Statute 12-B has been inserted under which a person shall be disqualified from sitting as a member of any Selection Committee and from taking part in any seeking selection to the post of teacher or officer in the university. 14. As regards the reservation of posts for SC/ST/OBCs prior to the amendment of section 10 of the Act 1987 was that from the date commencement of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers & Officers (Selection for Appointment) Ordinance, 1955, the reservation to the extent of 21% posts for Backward classes for appointment to the posts of teachers and offices to be appointed in the University in pursuance of every selection made under the Act was mandatory. This provision was amended subsequently by insertion of new provision Section 10-A by the Rajasthan Act No. 18 of 1974 wherein after Section 10 of the principal Act, the following new Section 10-A has been inserted which provides as under : "10-A. Reservation of posts for Backward classes-Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law, as from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1955 (Ordinance No.1 of 1995), there shall be reserved in the University concerned, twenty one percent posts for backward classes for appointment to the post of teachers and officers to be appointed in the University in pursuance of every selection made under this Act. Provided that in the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable candidates from amongst backward classes in particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure." 15. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners who are departmental candidates of the university placed reliance on the brochure containing dealing with the reservation for SC/ST candidates issued by the Department of Personnel (Group A-V) of the Government of Rajasthan dated 19.5.1976 wherein the method of recruitment, relaxation and concession for SC/ST exemptions and inclusion, roster system, carryforward of reservations etc. has been provided as regards the gazetted posts which are to be filled up by the R.P.S.C. in accordance with the procedure as stipulated under the Act and relevant rules. has been provided as regards the gazetted posts which are to be filled up by the R.P.S.C. in accordance with the procedure as stipulated under the Act and relevant rules. The contention of the petitioners was to the effect that for the gazetted posts where recruitment is made to one category of posts but is split up into several groups of specialised posts, the reservation should be for the whole category and not for each group of specialised posts. For example, if recruitment is to be made of 16 lecturers of whom, two are in Hindi, 3 in English, 6 in Mathematics, 5 in Chemistry, the reservation should be for 2 posts of Lecturers, irrespective of the subject, so that if two Scheduled Castes/ Tribes candidates are available in Hindi only, both of them should be appointed. 16. In my view the aforesaid provision as contained in the aforesaid brochure is merely and administrative instructions for guidance of the different departments of the State Government and does not have any over-riding effect over the statutory provisions of the Act of 1987, which is statute in the rules on the subject as referred to above and hence it is not mandatory either to follow or to avoid of the same if its provisions are contrary and in conflict with the scheme of the Act and its statute. 17. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the criteria adopted by the respondents in the matter of appointments to the various posts as referred to above was vitiated for the aforesaid reasons, it had become necessary to give the directions to the respondents not only to produce the entire record relating to the selections of the various candidates including the petitioners but also had prepared a detailed chart dearly indicating the names of the selected candidates, in order of their academic qualifications etc. and the weightage required to be given as per the norms/criteria followed by the University and lastly the marks assessed by the Registrar in pursuance of the recommendations of the selection committees, laid down in the selection process and the respondents had accordingly prepared the authentic tabular chart depicting the exact position of respective candidates in order of merit on the basis of their performance and the same has accordingly been placed on the record vide affidavit of the officiating Registrar of the respondent University as referred to above. It has been stated in the affidavit of the said officer that the correct position as indicated in the broad based guidelines forwarded to the Agriculture Production Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan as under:- Certificate/Degree Less than 55% 55% to less than 60% 60% to less than 70% 70% above School Leaving (Secondary/Hr. Secondary/ Sr. Secondaty) 0 2.5 3.75 5 Bachlor's degree 0 10 15 20 GPA 3.0 to less than 3.5 (65% to less than 76.25%) GPA 3.5 to less than 4.0 (76.25% to less thann 90.0%) GPA 4.0 (90%) Master's degree 6 8 10 Ph.D. : -10 (i)With corse work and GPA more than 3.5 (ii) With less than 3.5 GPA -8 (iii) Without course work -8 18. That further to it, the said broad based guidelines also provided correction factor, which is as under: "In the quantification of academic record correction factor is to be applied by the committee for candidates who passed out in traditional system of examination where conservative marking was in vogue compared to the present Grade Point Average System with more liberal marking involving objective type of question." 19. With regard to the aforesaid position it has been contended by the said deponent that based on the aforesaid broad based guidelines and correction factor as sent to the Agricultural Production Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, he had made his own personal assessment on the basis of the academic record of each candidate available with the office vide Annexure R/A and the parameters which were adopted bearing on the corrections factor are detailed herein below : (i) Traditional Essay Type external Annual examination. (ii) Grade Point Average System (OGPA) with objection type questions in semester examination with internal/external (Essay Type). (iii) Differences within OGPA System based on Ten, Five, Four Point Scale System. (ii) Grade Point Average System (OGPA) with objection type questions in semester examination with internal/external (Essay Type). (iii) Differences within OGPA System based on Ten, Five, Four Point Scale System. (iv) Differences within Traditional System due to time scale (year of degree) in view of hard marking in the past years V Liberal marking in present time due to introduction of some short questions and objective type questions alongwith Essay Type in the papers. (v) Degrees in Pure Science Degrees in Agriculture Faculty. (vi) Degree awarded by prestigious University both Indian and Foreign. 20. The names of the successful candidates on the basis of their performance, academic qualifications / attainments mark secured by them in the respective examinations i.e. Higher Secondary, Graduation, Post Graduation and Doctrate etc. weightage required to be given as per the criteria evolved by the University and the marks assessed by the Registrar as per the criteria given to Agriculture Production Secretary, in order of merit has been indicated in the final chart vide Annexure 'R/A' which has been perused by this court. From the perusal of the final chart of successful candidates vide Annexure R/A it is apparent that 14 candidates namely; Dr. P.C. Jain, Dr. V.K. Bhatnagar, Dr. Santosh Rathore, Dr. S.C. Bhardhwaj, Dr. J.S. Panwar, Dr. S.N. Pareek, Dr. R.K. Joshi, Dr. Ashok Sharma, Dr. Jaswant Singh, Shish Ram, Dr.(Miss) Sudha Rani Mathur, Dr. R.C. Kumawat, Ravindra Rana, Shaitan Singh were declared successful and were appointed on the various posts as referred to above. It is significant to mention in this context that the aforesaid successful candidates have deliberately not been impleaded as party respondents in the aforesaid writ petitions for reasons best known to the petitioners and hence, I am of the considered view that it is not open to the petitioners to have challenged the entire process of selection as adopted by the respondent University which includes the selection of the aforesaid candidates. From the perusal of Annexure R/A it is further apparent that the correction factor has been indicated as : "In the quantification of academic record correction factor is to be applied by the committee for candidates who passed out in Traditional System of examination where conservative marking was in vogue compared to the present Grade Point Average System with more liberal marking involving objective type of questions." 21. The perusal of the aforesaid document which is final chart prepared by the respondents of those candidates who were declared successful and were appointed. With proper and definite norms as indicated in the Act of 1987 and the Statute of the respondent-university was adopted and also the proper criteria adopted for selection of the aforesaid candidates on the basis of which final appointments were made in accordance with the correction factor who had passed out their graduation and post-graduation in agriculture in B.Sc/M.Sc. as per the Traditional System of examination when conservative system of marking was in vogue compared to the present Grade Point Average System which is more liberal marking involving objective type of questions, hence I am of the view that the proper system of evaluation based on objective assessment of the members of the selection committee with regard to the selection of the successful candidates out of the various candidates who had participated in the process of selection was rightly adopted by the respondents and the relevant norms as prescribed in making selection for appointments to the various posts. 22. In the affidavit of one of the Directors who was associated by the respondent-university, Bikaner, for the purpose of interviewing the candidates,had appeared for selection of the candidates for various posts vide Annexure 8 on the record, it has been stated that for recommendation of the candidates for selection on the various posts as referred to above, the selection criteria comprised of 100 marks out of which 45 marks were assigned for good academic record, 10 marks for experience, 15 marks for Research papers/ publication and remaining 30 marks were assigned for personality test/ interview for the posts of Associate Professors and Professors. It has further been stated in his affidavit that for the aforesaid selections, Chairman of the selection committee had also adopted selection criteria comprising of 100 marks out of which 45 marks were assigned for academic record, 10 marks for passing national Eligibility Test (NET), 5 marks for research papers/publication and 10 marks were assigned for experience (one mark for each year) while remaining 30 marks were assigned for interview/personality test for the post of Asstt. Professors. Professors. It has further been stated that for the said interview for selections, each member of the selection committee was guided by the Chairman about the selection criteria in respect of marking of each candidate who had appeared for interview and the selection of marks obtained by each candidate were accordingly mentioned in the evaluation sheets/score sheets by the Chairman of the Committee and the same were sealed with the signatures of the members of the selection committee after interview in each discipline and for each post separately. From the common merit list the panel of the selected candidates for each post was separately prepared and sealed with signatures of members of the respective selection committees. From perusal of the affidavit of one of the Deans of the Haryana Agriculture University who was associated by the respondent university of Bikaner for the purpose of interviewing the candidates who had appeared for selections for appointment to various posts vide Annexure 9 and from the affidavits of Professors of Statistics, college of Basic Sciences CCS, Haryana Agriculture University, District Hissar who was also associated by the respondent University as an expert for interviewing the candidates for appointments on various posts as referred to above, it is clear that proper criteria for selection of the candidates for various specialities as referred to above was rightly adopted and strictly adhered to in accordance with the norms as prescribed in the Act of 1987 and the statute and from the common merit list, the panel of selected candidates for each posts in each discipline was prepared and separately sealed with the signatures of the all the members of the selection committees and hence I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the matter of recommendations in the matter of appointment of the successful candidates on various posts as referred to above. 23. From perusal of Schedules A and B to the writ petitions which deal with the formula adopted by the respondent-university for selection of Academicians during the period in question, i.e., December, 1995 to May, 1996 and the percentage of marks fixed for the academic record of the candidates to be considered for selection to the various posts as advertised by the respondent-university, it is apparent that for the posts of Asstt. Professors the criteria which was adopted for assessment was as under:- Total Marks 100 1 Marks fixed for academic record 45 2 Marks for experience (one mark for each year) 10 3 Publication (Research papers) 5 4 National Eligibility Test (NET) 10 5 Interview 30 24. As it is apparent from the above that for the selection of the candidates the members of the selection committee had adopted the selection criteria comprising of 100 marks out of which 45 marks assigned for the academic records, 10 marks for experience, 15 marks for research papers/ publication, while remaining 30 marks were assigned for the personal test/ interview for the post of Associate Professors and Professors respectively. It was further incumbent upon the selection committee to adopt the said criteria for selection for each candidate appearing for the interview and to allocate the marks obtained by each candidate on the basis of his/her respective performance and to record the same in the evaluation/score sheets. It has further been contended by the petitioners that it was imperative that after the interview, the record of the interviews was required to be sealed with the signatures of all the members of the selection committee in each discipline and for each post. 25. The grievance of the petitioners is that on enquiry from the members of the selection committees they were informed that from the common merit list, the panel of selected candidates for each post in each discipline was prepared and separately sealed with the signatures of all the members of the selection committees, there was no consultation between the members of the selection committees and the members had disclosed that marks were required to be awarded as per the criteria laid down in Schedules A and B as aforesaid but infact the said criteria was not followed in its letter and spirit and the entire process of selection was manipulated on the basis of which the list of successful candidates was prepared and published. It has further been contended that though in the schedule reference has been made only to 12 candidates who were declared successful but they were nearly about 35 candidates whose marks had been manipulated and they had been selected. 26. It has further been contended that though in the schedule reference has been made only to 12 candidates who were declared successful but they were nearly about 35 candidates whose marks had been manipulated and they had been selected. 26. The above contentions in my view are absolutely erroneous and devoid of merit, since out of panel of 40 candidates which was prepared by the respondent-university 14 candidates were recommended and selected for appointment pursuance to the recommendations of the selection committees after interviewing them and thereafter they were recommended for appointment in various disciplines/specialities. This fact is fully borne out from the summoned record and from the perusal of the same it is apparent that there was effective consultation between the members of the selection committees and it is on the basis of their recommendations that 14 candidates were recommended for appointment hence it is entirely erroneous that there was no effective consultation between the members of the selection committees and it is.very strange on the part of the petitioners to have made such false and reckless allegations against the members of the selection committees, since the whole procedure of selection adopted by the respondent-university is obviously based on the criteria of strict confidentiality and if the same is not maintained, then every selection will be open to challenge by those candidates, like the petitioners who after having participated in the process of selection and thereafter having not been declared successful will come up before this court by way of writ petitions as aforesaid. In my view one a full opportunity has been given to the candidates to participate in the process of selection and thereafter if the said candidate is not declared successful, such candidate who is not declared successful should be stopped from challenging the process of selection since the administrative bodies like the universities in the instant case which is a creature of the statute will not be left free to make the process of selection and to undergo arduous exercise of recommending the successful candidates for appointment as it has happened in the aforesaid writ petitions. 27. 27. In reply to show cause notice the respondents have contested the maintainability of the writ petitions on merits by contending inter alia that a person who knowingly participated in the selection process, if not found suitable, cannot later on challenge the same on account of being non-suited by filing the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. They have further contended that the petitioners have challenged the process of interview adopted by duly constituted selection committees for each speciality i.e. plant-Pathology and animal production for which the petitioners had never applied and could not have applied for being appointed for the said post for which they cannot claim any legal right for vindication of the same. It has further been contended that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with regard to modalities adopted with regard to interviews, recommendations, selections and appointments which have been made on the basis of the overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately who had participated in the same their interviews etc. which were all done after strictly adhering to the norms and criteria prescribed by the respondent university for such appointments and hence it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the same. Further more, the merit list was prepared by the selection committees and which was submitted to the Board of Management with its recommendations which, after considering the candidature of each and every candidate, approved the said recommendations unanimously in its 34th meeting held on 4.5.1996 whereafter the appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates. In this regard I am of the view that the final authority in the matter of appointments which was the Board of Management, has not been impleaded as a necessary party respondent by the petitioners nor the candidates who were declared successful and recommended for appointment have also not been impleaded as party respondents for reasons best known to them to whom the legal rights to retain such appointments had lawfully vested of which they cannot be divested without giving them a proper hearing in accordance with law. Hence the writ petitions are also not maintainable for the reason of non-joinder of necessary parties apart from the fact at they are not maintainable even on merits. 28. Hence the writ petitions are also not maintainable for the reason of non-joinder of necessary parties apart from the fact at they are not maintainable even on merits. 28. From the perusal of the summoned record and on the basis of legal position on the subject, I am of the view that since the petitioners were given full opportunity of consciously participating in the entire process of selection and thereafter they were not found suitable for appointment on the posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Asstt. Professors etc. by the selection committees duly constituted in accordance with the Statute, i.e., the Act of 1987, hence it is not open to the petitioners to either challenge the selections or the appointments of the successful candidates on the plea that their rights have been affected being the office bearers/members of the Teachers' Association in view of the vague pleas and assertions as advanced by the petitioners. However, it would not be out of place to mention that out of 12 members of the selection committees, only 4 members can be said to be directly connected with the administration of the university while remaining eight members including the Vice-Chancellor and also other nominees are appointed by the Chancellor to act as experts in the specialities/subjects offered by the university. The quorum of the selection committees is provided under Clause (A)(1) of the Schedule A-1 which provides as under "The quorum required for the meeting of a selection committee constituted under statute 12 shall not be less than five out of which at least two shall be the experts, if the selection to be made is for the post of Professor or Associate Professor and at least one shall be an expert if the selection is to be made for the post of Asstt. Professor or any other post of teacher equivalent thereto. The quorum required for the meeting of a selection committees for selection of non-teaching posts shall be not less than one half of the number of the members of the selection committee out of which at least one shall be an expert." 29. The aforesaid criteria was duly adhered to by the respondents in constituting the selection committees. 30. From the perusal of the summoned record it is further apparent that broad based guidelines were adopted by the selection committees keeping in view the academic qualifications and experience etc. The aforesaid criteria was duly adhered to by the respondents in constituting the selection committees. 30. From the perusal of the summoned record it is further apparent that broad based guidelines were adopted by the selection committees keeping in view the academic qualifications and experience etc. which was sent to the State Government by the Vice-Chancellor of the University and it was not meant to be published or circulated to the candidates being confidential in nature and it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the same on flimsy grounds as aforesaid and it is always open to the university which is a creature of the Statute to claim privilege with regard to the same. 31. With regard to the allegations made by the petitioners against respondent No.3, the then Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-university, I have perused the affidavit filed by the said respondent. The said deponent has stated on oath that the entire records pertaining to the candidates' educational qualifications, experience, publications etc. were placed before the members of the selection committees and it was only after consideration of the same, by members of the selection committees on the basis of their objective consideration had unanimously prepared the merit list which was signed by them and thereafter sealed in an envelope which was submitted before the Board of Management for its due approval. Not a single vote of descend was recorded by any member of 77 selection committees which had been constituted and whose meetings were convened in almost within a period of five months of their constitution for selection of the candidates and after completion of entire process the list of the successful candidates was prepared on the basis of the recommendations of the selection committees which were unanimous in their opinion. 32. With regard to the contentions of the petitioners who were falling in reserved category of posts for SC/ST/OBC in writ petition Nos. 760/96, 2126/96, 2127/96, 2591/96 and 2608/96, the common grievance which has been urged is that the respondent-university has not complied with the requirements of law by giving benefit of 21% reservation to OBCs in the matter of appointments on the aforesaid posts in accordance with Section 10A of the Act of 1987 and also in violation of the criteria laid down in its advertisement No.2/95 dated 25.7.1995. In this connection reference may be made to Section 10 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officials (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (for short "the Act of 1974") which reads as under: "Reservation of posts- Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law, as from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1984, there shall be reserved by the University concerned, 16% posts for Scheduled Castes and 12% posts for Scheduled Tribes candidates for appointment to the posts of teachers and officers to be appointed in the University in pursuance of every selection made under this Act: Provided that if, in any selection, persons belonging to such castes or such tribes are not appointed in such percentage as is provided for in this section, whether by reason of their not having applied for selection or by reason of their not having been selected, the number of posts by which such percentage falls short shall be carried forward upto a maximum period of three years." 33. Reference may also be made to Section 10-A which was inserted in the Rajasthan Act No. 18 of 1974 by the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and officers (Selection for Appointment) Amendment Ordinance 1995 promulgated by H.E. the Governor on 7th day of July, 1995 which reads as under: "10-A. Reservation of posts for Backward lasses-Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law, as from the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1955 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1995), there shall be reserved in the University concerned, twenty one percent posts for Backward Classes for appointment to the posts of teachers and officers to be appointed in the University in pursuance of every selection made under this Act: Provided that in the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable candidates from amongst Backward classes in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure". 34. 34. From the perusal of the above provisions it is apparent that while under Section 10 of the Act of 1974 it was mandatory for the University to reserve atleast 16% posts for Scheduled Caste and 12% posts for Scheduled Tribe candidates for appointment to the posts of teachers and officers in pursuance of every selection made under the Act and to carry-forward the same up to maximum period of 3 years which was subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 1/95 dated 7th July, 1995 by which Section 10-A was inserted in the Act of 1974 by virtue of which it has been specifically provided that in the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable candidates from amongst Backward Classes in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and hence it is not incumbent upon the University to make appointments to the extent of 21% from amongst Backward Classes alone or to carry-forward the said vacancies for a period of 3 years and by the aforesaid proviso to Section 10-A of the Act of 1974, the provision with regard to reservation of vacancies for Backward Classes has been made directory and is no longer mandatory requirement of the statute. 35. With regard to the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners that the requirement of reservation as per section 10-A of the Act of 1974(amended on 7.7.1995) has not been complied with by the respondents, it has been contended by the petitioners that out of 46 posts of the Professors, 73 of the Associate Professors and 331 of Asstt. Professors, 54 posts were advertised for OBCs; whereas quota of reservation for OBC's should have been atleast 10 posts of Professors, 15 posts of Associate Professors and 70 posts of Asstt. Professors as per requirement of section 10-A of the Act, 1974 which had been violated by the respondents. It has further been contended that the respondent university has knowingly not followed 100 point roster system for each subject/ speciality separately without taking into account the spirit of the aforesaid provision which clearly advocates 21% reservation for OBC's in services in pursuance of every selection which has resulted in its breach. It has further been contended that the respondent university has knowingly not followed 100 point roster system for each subject/ speciality separately without taking into account the spirit of the aforesaid provision which clearly advocates 21% reservation for OBC's in services in pursuance of every selection which has resulted in its breach. In this regard reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (1) R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 SC 1771) (para 6) wherein the Apex Court directed that the percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the cadre strength. In the matter of T. Devadasan v. Union of India & another: AIR 1964 SC page 179 , the apex court observed that the reservation can be made in the posts on the basis of cadre strength or in the initial appointment to be made in service in order to keep it at full strength. On the basis of the aforesaid ratio of the decision of the Apex Court the petitioners have contended that the impugned Advertisement No. 2/95 dated 27.5.1995 is illegal, unconstitutional and against the spirit of reservation policy. 36. In reply to the aforesaid contentions the respondents have stated that the statute provides a comprehensive mechanism which necessarily involves commendable degree of transparency and objectivity in the matter of constitution of statutory selection committees in which the following authorities are involved : (1) The Chancellor (H.E. the Governor of Rajasthan), (2) State Government, (3) The Academic Council, (4) Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (5) All India Council & Indian Council of Agriculture Research. The aforesaid mechanism thus evolved by the University in making selections to the various posts, as referred to above, in my considered view is not open to challenge, since it obviously insulates the selection process which is not open to challenge from any kind of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or bias. I am further of the view that in making the selection, the aforementioned statutory selection committees which were constituted by the respondent University were fully competent to make the recommendations, since obviously their recommendations required approval of the Board of Management which was done in accordance with law and the rules envisaged thereunder. 37. I am further of the view that in making the selection, the aforementioned statutory selection committees which were constituted by the respondent University were fully competent to make the recommendations, since obviously their recommendations required approval of the Board of Management which was done in accordance with law and the rules envisaged thereunder. 37. It is pertinent to mention in this context that the selection committees had recommended to the Board of Management 325 candidates for appointment on the various posts and in all about 80 selection committees were involved in the selection process which considered the candidature of about 1600 candidates when not a single recommendation with any note of descent and the Board of Management in its 34th meeting held on 4.5.1996 had considered the recommendations of the selection committees as regards 283 candidates which were unanimously approved. The recommendations of the selection committees were also in consonance with the decision taken in the Vice-Chancellors' conference held on 1st & 2nd March, 1996. 38. As regards the petitioners' contention that the reservation to the extent of 21% permissible limit for OBC candidates which was allegedly violated by the respondents I am of the view that in view of proviso to Section 10-A as amended in pursuance of Ordinance No. 1 of 1995 dated 17.7.1995. 1 am of the view that the said provision itself being contrary in nature which permits the respondent university that in the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable candidates from amongst backward classes in a particular period, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure, hence it is open to the university to make selection from amongst the general candidates who are eligible and suitable for being recommended for appointment and accordingly, no violation of said provision has been done by the respondents as the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners as regards the violation of provisions for backward classes is wholly devoid of merit being not tenable in law. I am fortified in my aforesaid observations by the judgment of the Apex court in the matter of (2) Suresh Chand Verma v. Chancellor, Nagpur University : AIR 1990 SC 2023 at page 2025 the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: "As regards the first question, we have narrated earlier the method which was adopted by the University for reserving the posts. It announced the posts categorywise as Professors, Readers and Lecturers in different subjects and made a blanket declaration that 6 of the posts of Professors, 12 posts of Readers and 16 posts of Lecturers would be reserved for backward castes. Neither the University nor the candidates knew at that time as to for which of the subjects and in what number the said posts were reserved." 39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held as under:- "According to us, the word "post", used in the context has a relation to the faculty, discipline or the subject for which it is created. When, therefore, reservations are required to be made "in posts", the reservations have to be postwise, i.e. subjectwise." 40. Hence the entire process evolved by the respondent university in making selections in pursuance of Advertisement No. 2/95 dated 27.5.1995 in my view was absolutely legal and justified and in consonance with the law and spirit of the provisions of the statutes as referred to above and in accordance with the observations of the Apex Court as referred to above and no infirmity, illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness can be attributed to the same. 41. Even on merits I am of the view that the constitution of Selection Committees duly constituted in accordance with the provisions of the statute are not open to challenge in view of Section 8 of the Act of 1974 which mandates as under : "Section 8-Vacancy or defect not to invalidate selections- subject to the provisions as to the requirement of quorum no act, proceeding or selection made by a Selection Committee shall be questioned on the ground of the existence of any vacancy or defect in the nomination of a member of such Committee." 42. The Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the aforesaid question had upheld the validity of the selections made by the University in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2219/1992- Dr. Lalit Gupta v. State & others decided on 14.3.1996 wherein it was observed as under : "Section 8 does not confer power on the selecting authorities to act in unjust and unreasonable manner. The provisions of section 8 take care of inadvertent, unavoidable and inevitable mistakes or procedural lapse which may take place in the selection process. In running of the administration of the Government or any institution, some procedural irregularity or infirmity is bound to take place. The provisions of section 8 take care of inadvertent, unavoidable and inevitable mistakes or procedural lapse which may take place in the selection process. In running of the administration of the Government or any institution, some procedural irregularity or infirmity is bound to take place. If each and every action of the authority concerned is to be tested strictly and on such kind of irregularities or infirmities, the actions are to be struck down, the administration would come to a grinding halt. It is with an object to obviate such situations that the aforesaid provision has been made in section 8 of the Act. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that provision of section 8 is not in conformity with the provisions of section 5 of the Act. The Hon'ble court further observed : "Section 8 takes out of the purview of the scrutiny the decisions of selection committee only on the ground of: (1) existence of any vacancy, and (2) defect in the nomination of a member in the committee." 43. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex court as well as the learned Division Bench of this court in my view are fully attracted to these writ petitions. 44. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the following decisions: (3) Dr. Shyam Lai Mathur v. University of Udaipur and others: 1980 UC WLN 120 , (4) Krishan Yadav & another v. State of Haryana & others : 1994(4) SCC 165 , (5) Har Pal Kaur Chahal(Smt.) v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & another : 1995 (Supp.) (4) SCC 706 , (6) Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan & others : 1993 (Supp.)(3) SCC 168 , (7) Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & others : 1993 (1) SLR 451 & (8) Viswa Ranjan Sahoo & others v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda & others : 1996(6) JT (SC) 515 . 45. In the matter of Dr. Shyam Lal Mathur v. University of Udaipur & others (supra) the petitioners had chellenged the validity of selection of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for appointment on the posts of Readers in the department of Extension Education in Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur and their appointment on the said posts. 45. In the matter of Dr. Shyam Lal Mathur v. University of Udaipur & others (supra) the petitioners had chellenged the validity of selection of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for appointment on the posts of Readers in the department of Extension Education in Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur and their appointment on the said posts. They had also challenged the proceedings of the selection committee which met on a particular date for making selections for the post of Reader which had selected respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which as per the case of the petitioners stood vitiated on account of presence and association of one Dr. D.K. Mishra who was not a member of the said committee, applying to doctrine of waiver or acquiescence, it was held by this court that objection of mis-joinder does not survive since the petitioner was not aware of the defect of jurisdiction of the Tribunal or authority and failure to raise objection does not amount to waiver and the proceedings of the selection committee were quashed. 46. In the matter of Krishan Yadav and another v. State of Haryana and others (supra) in the Special Leaves to Appeal which was preferred by the Appellants against the impugned judgment & order dated 10.9.1990 of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh the challenge was to the validity of the selection of Taxation Inspectors by the Subordinate Selection Board. The said Board had in pursuance of the Advertisement issued on a particular date invited applications for 96 posts of Taxation Inspectors in Excise & Taxation Department out of which 24 posts were reserved for SC, 10 for Backward Classes & 17 for Ex-Servicemen of Haryana. The minimum qualification was prescribed as also the marks to be awarded on the basis of the written test and viva voce test. There were allegations of nepotism, fraud, favoritism and arbitrariness against the Selection Board, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, the Apex Court referred the matters to the C.B.I. for investigation and the C.B.I. in its report had confirmed happening of such act in the matter of issuing appointment letters to the candidates after calling the selected candidates and obtaining joining report from them on the spot without any medical test in verification of antecedents and destroying the original record including the answer sheets. The Apex court accordingly directed to launch prosecution against guilty officers of the department pursuant to the report of C.B.I. 47. In the matter of Harpal Kaur Chahal(Smt.) v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & another where the High Court applying a wrong test found certain ineligible candidates to be eligible and upheld their appointments, in appeal preferred before the Apex Court, it observed that such a judgment could not constitute a ground for the Supreme Court to extend the benefit thereof to other candidates appointed illegally. 48. In the matter of Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan & others (supra) in the selection of University Teachers, the Selection Committee took into consideration the requisite educational qualifications as on date of selection rather than the last date for preferring the applications. The case came up for decision after time gap of about 8 long years of the appointment of the selected candidates and the minimum qualifications although relaxable, there was no record to show whether and in what manner merits of the candidates were weighed and the minimum qualifications relaxed. The Apex court held that "in absence of a fixed date indicated in the Advertisement, notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualification should be judged, the only certain date or scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. When the Selection Committee took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed". 49. In the matter of Union Territory of Chandigadh v. Dilbagh Singh (supra) the question which arose for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the order by which Chandigadh Administration Council the select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in Chandigadh Transport Undertaking (CTU) prepared by the Selection Board constituted therefore the cause of its view that select list not having been prepared in a fair and judicious manner was liable to be interfered with by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that Order having not been made after affording an opportunity of hearing thereon the members of concerned selection Board. Repelling the contentions of the respondents and while allowing the appeal of the appellant it was held by the Apex Court as under : "A candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concommitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such post due to him name finding a place in the select list of candidates cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as Conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard." 50. In matter of Biswa Ranjan Sahoo & others v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda & others: 1996 JT (6)SC 515 mass scale mal-practices were adopted in the matter of selection process of the candidates pursuant to the impugned advertisement issued by the State Govt. of Orissa for filling up six posts of Chargemen 'B Grade' in mechanical & Electrical Division. There was allegation of fake selection process to have been adopted by some persons who came to be appointed including the petitioners. When the said allegations were questioned before the Tribunal, relevant record was called for and perused from which it was apparent that there was no explanation coming forth as to how and in what manner the marks were allocated to the candidates who were declared successful and also in the interviews which were altered and even to the naked eye, it was apparent that manipulation were committed. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned selection which was subject matter of challenge before it. 51. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned selection which was subject matter of challenge before it. 51. In my view the ratio of the aforesaid decisions as cited above are neither attracted nor applicable to the instant cases, since appointments were made after thorough screening of the candidates who had participated in the selection process by duly constituted selection committees which comprised of eminent persons like the Deans, Directors of various faculties including the experts drawn from outside universities and it is a settled law that no malafides and arbitrariness can be attributed to body of the experts constituted the selection committees who had adopted all fair methods in making the selections and whose recommendations had been unanimously made and approved by the Board of Management in the instant writ petitions which had in its meeting dated 4.5.1996 approved the said recommendations and it is only thereafter that appointment letters were issued on 4-5th May 1996 to more than 185 candidates who had joined on the respective posts and a period of more than 4 months had already lapsed ever since their joining duty. In addition to it about 67 candidates were selected and appointed in other faculties who too had joined their duties during the same period out of which about 35 candidates were those who had joined after leaving their earlier assignments. Hence I am of the considered opinion that it is not open to the petitioners to either challenge the selections or appointments of the successful candidates who had not even been impleaded as party respondents and it will be wholly inequitable and in gross miscarriage of justice to cancel their appointments without providing opportunity of hearing to such candidates. Moreover no vested legal right has accrued to the petitioners to have challenged their selections on the ground of unsuitability which had been duly considered by the Selection Committees constituted for the said purpose and it is a settled law that once the candidates like the petitioners who have without any protest or demur taken part in the selection process and thereafter not declared successful, it is not open to them to either challenge the selection process or appointments after they had been declared not successful by the duly constituted selection committees or the selection board. More over the appointments of the selected candidates has already been discussed herein above were in absolute conformity with the requirements of the relevant rules, and the provisions of the Act of 1987 and the statutes of the university as referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the following decisions:- 0 (9) J.Mohapatra & Co. & another v. State of Orissa & another. 1984(4) SCC 103 , (10) Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India and others : 1995(1) SCC 14 , (11) People's Union for democratic rights and others v. Union of India and others : 1982(3) SCC 235 , (12) M.C. Mehta & another v. Union of India and others : 1987(1) SCC 395 , (13) R.K. Sabharwal & others v. State of Punjab and others: AIR 1995 SC 1371 , (14) T.Devadasan v. Union of India and another. AIR 1964 SC 179 , (15) Indra Sawamy etc. etc. v. Union of India & others etc. etc. : AIR 1993 SC 477 , (16) Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research etc. v. K.L. Narasimhan & another etc. : 1997 SCW 2274 , (17) Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma v. The Chancellor Nagpur University & others: AIR 1990 SC 2023 , (18) State of Punjab and others v. G.S. Gill & another : AIR 1997 SC 2324 , (19) J.C. Malik & others v. Union of India & others : 1978 (1) SLR 844 , (20) Jawant Singh and others v. The Secretary to Government Punjab, Education Department & others: 1989(4) SLR 257 , (21) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla & another : 1997(3) Supreme Today 386 , (22) Viswa Ranjan Sahoo anothers v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda & others: AIR 1996 SC 2552 , (23) Krishna Yadav & another v. State of Haryana & others: AIR 1994 SC 2166 & (24) Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board & others etc: 1996(5) JT (SC) 219 . 52. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and in my view they are neither attracted nor applicable to the instant writ petitions in view of my observations as made herein above. 53. In support of their contentions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents-University, U.N. Bhandari placed reliance upon the following decisions : (25) Secy.(Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. & another v. Dr. 53. In support of their contentions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents-University, U.N. Bhandari placed reliance upon the following decisions : (25) Secy.(Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. & another v. Dr. Anitapuri and others : 1996(6) SC 282 , (26) Ashok Kumar Yadav & others v. State of Haryana & others etc.: 1985(4) SCC 417 , (27) Smt. Sarswati Parida & etc. v. State of Orissa & others: AIR 1997 Orissa 146 , (28) Madan Lal & others v. State of J & K & others : 1995 (3) SCC 486 , (29) Mr. G. Sarana v. University of Lukhnow: AIR 1976 SC 2428 , (30) Jai Shankar Prasad, Advocate v. State of Bihar and others: 1993(2) SCC 597 , (31) Dr. P.K. Jaiswal v. M.S. Devi Mukherjee & others : 1992 (2) SCC 148 , (32) Nanik Tanwani v. Malviya Regional Engineering College, Jaipur & another : 1993(2) RLR 543 , (33) Dr. Umakant Saral v. State of Bihar and others : AIR 1973 SC 964 , (34) Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Davholkar etc.: AIR 1975 SC 2092 , (35) Peoples' Union for Democratic rights & others v. Union of India & others: AIR 1982 SC 1473 , (36) West Bangal Board of Education for Admission to Engineering, Medical & Technological Degree College & others v. Dr. Jintendra Lal Banerjee & others : AIR 1984 Cal 52 , (37) Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & others: AIR 1986 SC 1043 , (38) Bank Jewal Appraiser's Association v. North Melvas Gramin Bank & others: 1995 (71) FLR page 6 , (39) Prabodh Verma & others etc. etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others etc. etc.: AIR 1985 SC 167 , (40) Barium Chemicals Ltd. & another v. Company Law Board & another. AIR 1967 SC 295 , (41) A.K. Kraipak & others v. Union of India & others: AIR 1970 SC 150 , (42) Nibaran Vora v. Union of India & others : AIR 1992 GAU 54 , (43) The Chancellor & another etc. v. Dr. Vijayananda Kar & others: 1993(6) JT(SC) 473 , (44) Ashok Kumar Yadav & others etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & others etc. etc.: AIR 1987 SC 454 , and (45) National Institute of Mental & Neuro Sciences v. Dr.K. Kalyana Raman & others : AIR 1992 SC 1806 . 54. v. Dr. Vijayananda Kar & others: 1993(6) JT(SC) 473 , (44) Ashok Kumar Yadav & others etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & others etc. etc.: AIR 1987 SC 454 , and (45) National Institute of Mental & Neuro Sciences v. Dr.K. Kalyana Raman & others : AIR 1992 SC 1806 . 54. In the matter of Secretary Health and Anr. v. Dr. Anitapuri and others (supra) an Advertisement was issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications from amongst eligible candidates for filling in posts of Dental officers having BDS as minimum qualification but preference for higher dental qualifications was stipulated. The question which had arisen for consideration was as to whether respondent No. 1 who had BDS degree, was in terms of the said advertisement, entitled to be selected and appointed as of right. Answering the said question in negative the Apex Court observed as under:- "When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference would be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the higher candidates with higher qualification. It cannot be construed to mean that a person with a higher qualification is automatically entitled to be selected and appointed. In adjudging the suitability of person for the post, the expert body like Public Service Commission in the absence of any statutory criteria has the discretion of involving its mode of evaluation of merit and selection of the candidate. The competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of the qualification he possesses but also taking into account the other necessary factors like career of the candidate throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field in which the selection is going to be held, his general aptitude for the job to be ascertained in course of interview, extra curricular activities like sports and other allied subjects, personality of the candidate as assessed in the interview and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability of the candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be held. Hence the High Court was wholly in error in holding that a person possessing M.D.S. degree like respondent No. 1 was entitled to be selected and appointed." It was further observed as under: "It is well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established." Following the ratio of its earlier decision in the matter of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 1981(1) SCC 722 . 55. In the matter of Dr. P.K. Jaiswal v. Ms. Devi Mukherji and others (supra) the question which arose for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether the right to be considered for selection gives a vested right to the said candidate to be selected or appointed to the post in question ? Answering the said question in negative it was observed by the Apex Court as under : "If the Commission issues an advertisement at the behest of the Government and pursuant thereto calls a candidate for interview the candidate has a right to be considered for selection but not a right to be selected or to appointment to the post in question. The right to selection crystallizes only after the candidate is called for interview pursuant to the Advertisement." 56. In the matter of Smt. Sarswati Parida & etc. v. State of Orissa and others (Supra) the Advisory Committee which was constituted by the Health Department of the State Government had recommended only one candidate for appointment in the Community Health Center whose appointment was challenged on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the procedure. Repelling the contentions of the petitioners, the Apex Court in Appeal against the decision of the State Service Tribunal held that even if the recommendations of the Advisory Committee were not in accordance with the procedure, the decision of the Government cannot be faulted as it took independent decision as would be apparent from the relevant documents on the record wherein there was a specific clause that other things being equal, person who has crossed age limit for entry into Government service shall be given preference. It was further held that since the relevant criteria as stipulated under the rules for selection of the candidates was adhered to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee were not open to challenge. 57. In the matter of Madan Lal & others v. State of J & K & others (Supra) the question which arose for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether the candidates who had obtained more marks in the written test as compared to the selected respondents is in the realm of assessment of relative merits of the candidates considered by the expert committee before whom they had appeared for viva voce. Repelling the contentions of the petitioners, the Apex Court observed as under : "The question as to whether the candidates who had got more marks in the written test as compared to the selected respondents is in realm of assessment of relative merits of candidates considered by the expert committee before whom these candidates appeared for the viva voce. Merely on the basis of petitioners' apprehension or suspicion that they were deliberately given less marks at the oral interview as compared to the rival candidates, it cannot be said that the process of assessment was vitiated. It has to be kept in view that there is not even a whisper in the petition about any personal bias of the Members of the Interview Committee against the petitioners. They have also not alleged any mala fides on the part of the Interview Committee in this connection. Consequently, the attack on assessment of the merits of the petitioners cannot be countenanced. The Supreme Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the assessment made by the committee." 58. In the matter of Ashok Kumar Yadav & others v. State of Haryana & others etc. (Supra) in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission about 6,000 candidates applied for recruitment and appeared in the written examination held by the Public Service Commission out of which 1300 obtained more than 45% marks and thus qualified for being called for interview. The Haryana Public Service Commission invited all 1300 candidates who qualified the viva voce test for interview which lasted for almost half a year. The Haryana Public Service Commission invited all 1300 candidates who qualified the viva voce test for interview which lasted for almost half a year. There were several grounds on which the validity of selections made by the HPSC was challenged and declaration was sought by the petitioners that they were entitled to be selected as falling within the list of first 119 successful candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the selections made by the HPSC with the direction to the Haryana Government to forthwith declare the result of the candidates of all the categories on the basis of written examination alone scrupulously excluding all consideration of viva voce test. The Division Bench of the High Court even went to the extent of holding the appointments of Chairman and Members of the HPSC as having been made wholly for caste consideration and political affiliation. In appeal before the Apex Court preferred by the State of Haryana & others against the decision- of the High Court it was observed that suspicion cannot take place of proof and it is not possible to strike down the allegations made on the ground that affiliation of merits of the candidates in the viva voce test might be arbitrary. It was further observed that the court cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by interviewing body unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives, it is only if the assessment is patently arbitrary or the risk of arbitrariness is so high that a reasonable person would regard arbitrariness as inevitable, that the assessment of marks at the viva voce test may be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. It was further observed as under: "Court cannot undertake an inquiry in to the question whether the Chairman and Members of the PSC (in this case Haryana PSC) were men of integrity, calibre and qualification or not. Such an enquiry is totally irrelevant because even if they are men lacking in integrity, calibre and qualification, it would not make their appointments invalid, so long as the constitutional and legal requirements in regard to appointments were fulfilled. Selections made by the Chairman and members of the PSC may be quashed if they are found to be vitiated by influence of extraneous considerations or are made in breach of rules. Selections made by the Chairman and members of the PSC may be quashed if they are found to be vitiated by influence of extraneous considerations or are made in breach of rules. But the validity of their appointments cannot be questioned collaterally merely by showing in a general sort of way that they were not meant of high integrity, calibre or qualification, while considering the challenge to the selections made by them. The title to the office of the Chairman and members of the PSC cannot be allowed to be placed in jeopardy for challenging the selections made by them." 59. In the matter of Nanik Tanwani v. MREC, Jaipur and another (Supra) the petitioner joined service of MREC in 1969 after being appointed as associated lecturer in structural engineering. He subsequently claimed promotion to the post of Reader in the merit promotion scheme and other consequential benefits. From the report of the Selection Committee perused by the court it was apparent that after evaluation of the performance of the candidates and after considering the entire service record including the report of the experts, selection committee had recommended the name of non-petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner in the order of preference. Repelling the contentions of the petitioners learned single Judge of this court held that since the selection committee itself did recommend the petitioner for promotion, negative plea of arbitrariness in the process of selection and there was no illegality committed by the selection committee in making recommendations after giving due weightage to the report of the experts. 60. I am fortified in my observations also from the Division Bench Judgment of this court in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal D.B. Civil Special Appeal (writ) No. 794/97 decided on 1.8.1997 wherein the technique of scaling normalisation and moderation in allowing the answer sheets in the competitive examination, where the candidates had appeared in mass, was adopted by the R.P.S.C. being an accepted procedure. The results declared by the R.P.S.C. were challenged before learned Single Judge of this court and subsequently before division bench vide C.W.P. Nos. The results declared by the R.P.S.C. were challenged before learned Single Judge of this court and subsequently before division bench vide C.W.P. Nos. 3272/97 & 3473/1997 which were treated as public interest litigations by learned single Judge with a direction to the R.P.S.C. to declare the result of the main examination and a committee was appointed consisting of 3 judicial officers headed by learned District Judge, Ajmer to monitor the process of result. This decision was challenged by the R.P.S.C. and some other candidates in aforesaid D.B. Special Appeals. Learned Division Bench of this court by giving detailed hearing to the learned counsel for the parties and relying upon the various decisions of the apex court as well as the other high courts finally arrived at the conclusion that once the candidates had taken part in the selection process and thereafter declared unsuccessful, it was not open to them to challenge either the selection process or the procedure adopted by the statutory bodies like the R.P.S.C. and the decision of the learned Single Judge was set aside with the observations that the writ petitions were not maintainable as public interest litigations, allegations of bias and favoritism had not been accepted. The Chairman had committed no illegality in applying the technique of moderation in the examination and the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that the technique of moderation could be made applicable only in those examinations where the number of candidates is 33000 or more and finally the scrutiny regarding the applicability of the said technique is beyond the power of judicial review of the High Court as the decision had been taken by an expert body conducting the examinations, more so when it was done by a constitutional authority against which no malafides could be established. The R.P.S.C. was directed to declare the result of 1994 examination on or after 7.8.1977. 61. The R.P.S.C. was directed to declare the result of 1994 examination on or after 7.8.1977. 61. On behalf of respondents in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3074/96, it was contended by Shri Jagdeep Dhankar who had appeared for private respondents as aforesaid inter alia that the University statutes and the Act of 1987 provides a comprehensive mechanism and necessarily involves commendable degree of transparency and objectivity in the matter of constitution of statutory Selection Committee in which eminent authority are involved such as (1) The Chancellor (H.E. the Governor of Rajasthan), (2) The State Government, (3) The Academic Council, (4) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (5) All India Council of Technical Education & (6) Indian Council of Agriculture Research. 62. It may be pertinently referred to herein that the Vice-Chancellor of the University does not enjoy any unqualified authority to make inclusion of even one individual in the statutory selection committee. The mechanism, thus, insulates the selection process from any kind of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or bias. 63. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents that in view of aforementioned statutory requirements the selection committee enjoys competence only to make recommendations which require approval of the Board of Management and in the event of any disapproval, matter is required to receive consideration and the decision of Chancellor (HE the Governor of Rajasthan) will be final. 64. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar Shri Jagdeep Dhankar placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex court in the matter of Suresh Chand Verma v. Chancellor, Nagpur University: AIR 1990 SC 2023 , the ratio of which has already been examined as referred to above. 65. I find great force in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents Shri U.N. Bhandari and Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar and in my view the ratio of the decisions cited by learned counsel for the respondents are fully attracted to the instant writ petitions. Since the legal issues which have been agitated by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions stand conclusively determined by the apex court in the above mentioned decisions including its decision in the matter of Suresh Chand Verma v. Chancellor, Nagpur University (supra) hence they need not be discussed separately. 66. Since the legal issues which have been agitated by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions stand conclusively determined by the apex court in the above mentioned decisions including its decision in the matter of Suresh Chand Verma v. Chancellor, Nagpur University (supra) hence they need not be discussed separately. 66. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as also legal position on the subject and also perused the relevant documents from the summoned record. 67. As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the writ petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed with no order as to costs. The summoned record be returned back to the concerned department.Petition dismissed. *******