Judgment A.K.Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing Annexure-17 which has been issued by the Registrar, Patna University, appointing the respondent No. 3 to the post of Senior Technical Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 1,000-1,820./-. There is also a prayer in this writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post in the Department of Zoology, Patna University. 2. The main ground on which the appointment of respondent No. 3 has been challenged by the petitioner is that in making the said appointment, the respondent-University has not followed the provisions of the Patna University Act and, particularly, the Statutes of the Patna University made under the said Act. 3. There are several undisputed facts which are noted hereinafter. 4. The post of Senior Technical Assistant (hereinafter called the said post) was created in the year 1983 on recommendation of the University Grants Commission in the pay-scale of Rs. 1,000-1,820.00 . When the said post was created, the respondent No. 3 was, admittedly, working on the post of Laboratory-in-charge. Apart from this, it has also been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that there is no promotional link between the said post of Senior Technical Assistant and that of Laboratory-in-charge. Prior to the appointment of the respondent No. 3 on the said post, he was working on the post of Laboratory-in-charge in the pay-scale of Rs. 390.00 . 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said post is a post in the superior service within the meaning of Clause 2(XV) of the Statutes. In the said Statutes under the said clause, superior service has been defined to mean any kind of service which is not inferior. Inferior service has been defined under Clause 2(iv) to mean any kind of service which has been specifically classed, as such, by the Syndic ate from time to time and the maximum pay of which does not ordinarily exceed Rs. 300.00 per month, Counsel also relied upon Clause 5 and various sub-clauses of Statutes. 6. Since some arguments have been made on interpretation of various sub-clauses of Clause 5 of the Statutes, this Court sets out Clauses 5(a)(b)(c)(d).of the said Statutes. 300.00 per month, Counsel also relied upon Clause 5 and various sub-clauses of Statutes. 6. Since some arguments have been made on interpretation of various sub-clauses of Clause 5 of the Statutes, this Court sets out Clauses 5(a)(b)(c)(d).of the said Statutes. 5.(a) When a vacancy occurs or new post is sanctioned in the superior service other than those specified in Clause (4) above, the Registrar shall submit a note to the Vice-Chancellor for taking steps to fill the post. (b) The Registrar shall, along with the note, submit to the Vice-Chancellor the names of all those persons in the University Service and holding substantive appointment in the immediate lower grade, and who satisfy the prescribed qualifications. (c) In case of officers other than those specified in Clause (4) above the Vice-Chancellor shall, with the approval of the Chancellor, decide whether the post is to be filled by promotion or by direct recruitment after proper advertisement. (d) The Vice-Chancellor shall, after the above steps are taken, (i) Where he is empowered to do so without reference to the State Public Service Commission or the Syndicate, order the appointment of a University Servant to the vacant post by promotion or order the vacancy to be advertised; (ii) Where the appointment is to be made by the Syndicate without reference to the State Public Service Commission, place the papers with such recommendations, if any, before the Syndicate for orders, which may appoint the University servant by promotion or order the vacancy to be advertised; (iii) Where reference to the State Public Service Commission is obligatory, order the submission of necessary papers to the State Public Service Commission; Relying on the various sub-clauses of Clause 5 of the said Statutes, as set out above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that in the instant case it was incumbent upon the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision with the approval of the Chancellor as to whether the post in question is to be filled-up by promotion or by direct recruitment after proper advertisement. In instant case, it has further been urged that the so-called appointment of respondent No. 3 to the said post has been made by the Vice-Chancellor by way of so-called promotion but before doing the same the Vice-Chancellor has hot taken the approval of the Chancellor whether to fill up the said post by way of promotion or by way of direct recruitment. Thus, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a serious infirmity in the process of appointment which, however, was made not in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes. So it is void and, as such, has to be set aside by this Court. It is not disputed in the instant case that the Chancellors approval has not been taken before appointing respondent No. 3 to the said post. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has urged that Clause 5 of the said Statutes on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners Counsel does not apply in the case of the present appointment. In support of his contention, he has further urged that the power vested on Vice-Chancellor to appoint is under Sec. 11(6) of the Patna University Act, 19 lower grade have not been considered. Only the case of the respondent No. 3 alone has been considered. Therefore, the promotion has also not been given in accordance with the requirement of the said Statutes. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent. No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 3, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for appointment to the said post and he had not applied for the said post. Therefore, this challenge at the instance of the petitioner, who is not eligible for being appointed to the said post, should not be entertained. 9. This Court proposes to examine the last submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent. No. 3 first, inasmuch as, the same is questioning the locus of the petitioner. If the challenge of the respondent No. 3 on this point succeeds, no other point need be examined. 10. 9. This Court proposes to examine the last submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent. No. 3 first, inasmuch as, the same is questioning the locus of the petitioner. If the challenge of the respondent No. 3 on this point succeeds, no other point need be examined. 10. This writ petitioner has tiled this petition in the year 1987 so it is rather late in the date to consider the petitioners locus when the writ petition has been admitted and kept pending before this Court for all these years, i.e., for the last twelve years. Apart from that, this Court is of the opinion that the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is an appointment to a public post and such appointments are to be made in accordance with Statutes which have been framed in order to ensure valid appointment by giving proper opportunity to all the eligible candidates. Therefore, those Statutes, framed by the University, obviously, have of public purpose of ensuring equality of opportunity in matters of appointment. This concept of equality of opportunity is a constitutional compulsion and a great deal of public interest is involved in such appointment. Therefore, when the matter has been brought to the notice of the Court and the Court has admitted the writ petition, it cannot be dismissed at the stage of final hearing, merely, on the ground that the petitioner has no locus to be appointed to the said post. Assuming the petitioner has no right to be appointed to the post at the same time, it is true that if such post is occupied by a person whose appointment has not been made in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes then the Court has ample jurisdiction to quash such appointment. In matters of public law, the traditional rigours of locus standi have been relaxed long ago. Therefore, this objection on the ground of locus of the petitioner is overruled. 11. Now examining the main question, this Court finds that as the said post is, admittedly, a post in the superior service and not a post which is mentioned under Clause 4 of the said Statutes, provisions of Clause 5 of the said Statutes are applicable in this case. Hence, argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 cannot be accepted by this Court. It is clear from Sub-sec. Hence, argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 cannot be accepted by this Court. It is clear from Sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 11 of the Act that the Vice-Chancellor has to exercise his power of appointment subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. The Statutes provide that the Vice-Chancellor cannot act as a free wheeler by appointing in any manner which he thinks fit and proper and especially when such mode of appointment is not in conformity with the Statutes. It is expected that the Vice-Chancellor holding such a high and responsible post should properly obey the mandrel of the Statutes and will not throw to the winds the requirements laid down therein. 12. The Court also cannot accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the University that for not seeking the approval of the Chancellor, the appointment of the respondent has not been vitiated. The right of the Chancellor, as given under Sec. 10(7) of the said Act, shows that all his rights have not been specified. This Court sets out below Sub-sec. 7 of Sec. 10 of the said Act. The Chancellor shall have such other powers as are conferred on him by this Act or the Statutes. It is clear that the said Sub-sec. is in the nature of a residuary clause and confers on the Chancellors such powers as are conferred by the Act or the Statutes. Now in the instant case, Statutes confer on the Chancellor a right to be consulted by the Vice-Chancellor. 13 On a plain reading of the said Statutes, it is very clear that if the appointment is not made in respect of posts specified in Clause 4 which, admittedly, is not the case here, in that case, Vice-Chancellor should with the approval of the Chancellor decide whether the post is to be filled-up by promotion or by direct recruitment after proper advertisement. Here, the language is clearly mandatory in nature and there is no reason for this Court to think that it should be construed as directory. It is quite possible that in some cases where power is conferred in mandatory terms Courts may construe it as directory. Here, the language is clearly mandatory in nature and there is no reason for this Court to think that it should be construed as directory. It is quite possible that in some cases where power is conferred in mandatory terms Courts may construe it as directory. But, the learned Counsellor the University has not advanced any reason why the Court should make a departure from the clear intention of the Statutes to hold that such power under Sec. 5(c) is to be construed as directory. 14. It is a well known canon of construction that when the language of the enactment is clear, the clear intention must be given effect to. Here the clear intention being mandatory, it is difficult for the Court to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the University that requirement of seeking the approval of Chancellor is directory. 15. Apart from this, this Court finds that the said requirement of seeking the approval of the Chancellor is based on public interest. The decision to fill up the post whether by promotion or by direct recruitment becomes a very vital decision in some cases. So the decision has not been advisedly allowed to rest on the Vice-Chancellor alone. In many cases, the Vice-Chancellor is not free from local pulls and pressures in matters of appointment. As a result of which on many an occasion intelligible persons are promoted to fill up vital posts. This ultimately affects the Universities standard of excellence at the cost of public interest. Normally, the Governor of the State is the Chancellor of the University and is the highest executive in the State. As Chancellor is not directly connected with the running of the University, and can really take a dispassionate and fair view, so the Chancellor is best suited to take a proper decision both in public interest and also in larger interest of University and the education of the State. Therefore, this provision under Sec. 5(c) of the Statutes has been engrafted with a public purpose and its plain meaning cannot be whittled down by an exercise in innovative interpretation. The requirement of seeking the Chancellors approval relates to a procedure for recruitment of an eligible candidate. In matters of recruitment, even the word may has been construed to mean mandatory by the apex Court, See Keshav Chandra Jain V/s. Union of India reported in -- . 16. The requirement of seeking the Chancellors approval relates to a procedure for recruitment of an eligible candidate. In matters of recruitment, even the word may has been construed to mean mandatory by the apex Court, See Keshav Chandra Jain V/s. Union of India reported in -- . 16. Here the expression used is shall. So the intention of the framers of the Statute is clear. The dictum of Lord Atkin in Pakla Narayan Swami V/s. Emperor AIR 1939 Privy Council p. 47 at p. 51-52 is very lucid on this aspect. The learned Judge said it so clearly that it bears repetition. The learned Judge said "when the meaning of the words is plain, it is not the duty of Courts to busy themselves with supposed intentions". 17. In the instant case, the stand taken by the University in its affidavit dated 3.9.1987 is rather unfortunate. In para 13 of the affidavit, University has stated that the approval of the Chancellor for filling up the said post is not required, in view of the provision of Sec. 11(6) of the Act and Clause 5(b)(d)(i) of the Statutes. This Court fails to understand when under the Statutes in clear words enjoin upon the Vice-Chancellor, the duty to seek such approval how can such a stand be taken. This Court, therefore, holds that the requirement of taking the approval of the Chancellor is a mandatory requirement and such approval must be .a prior approval. But, as the same has not been taken, the appointment of respondent No. 3 suffers from a Serious infirmity. 18. In sofaras the criticism of the petitioner about the so called appointment of the respondent No. 3 by way of promotion, this Court finds that the said submissions has also some, substance. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the University, it has been stated that when the said post was sanctioned by the University Grants Commission, name of the respondent No. 3 was recommended by the Head of the Zoology Department and, thereupon, the Registrar sent a written proposal to the Vice-Chancellor and he ordered the appointment of respondent No. 3. It is thus clear that case of all the eligible persons were not considered. In para 14 of the said counter-affidavit, the University has taken the same stand that there is no question of filling up the post by promotion on a general procedure. It is thus clear that case of all the eligible persons were not considered. In para 14 of the said counter-affidavit, the University has taken the same stand that there is no question of filling up the post by promotion on a general procedure. Therefore, it appears that even for the purpose of promotion only the case of respondent No. 3 has been considered. The said position is also accepted by the respondent No 3 in the counter-affidavit. In para 11 of the affidavit, he has specifically stated that he is the only employee, who is found eligible for promotion arid, as such, he was promoted to the said post. It is, therefore, clear that there is no case of considering other persons for the said post except respondent No. 3. 19. This Court need not go into the question whether the petitioner has the necessary educational qualification for appointment to the post. Since at the instance of the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed showing glaring illegality to the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the said post and such illegality amounts to violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the opinion that the infirmities in the appointment of respondent No. 3 go to the root of the matter and once this has come to the notice of the Court, this Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No. 3 is holding the said post for all these years. Actually, the petition was filed by 1987. Therefore, there is no delay on behalf of the petitioner in moving this Court. So, the appointment of the respondent No. 3 to the said post in the Department of Zoology of the Patna University is hereby quashed but the respondent No. 3 can continue on the post of Laboratory-in-charge. But, no part of the salary of the respondent No. 3 received as Senior Technical Assistant should be recovered from him by the University. 20. The said post of Senior Technical Assistant must be filled up strictly in accordance with the provision contained in Clause 5(c) of the Statutes. But, no part of the salary of the respondent No. 3 received as Senior Technical Assistant should be recovered from him by the University. 20. The said post of Senior Technical Assistant must be filled up strictly in accordance with the provision contained in Clause 5(c) of the Statutes. It is open to the University to either fill up the said post by promotion or by way of direct recruitment but before doing so the Vice-Chancellor must seek approval of the Chancellor in accordance with the said provision If the ultimate decision, after seeking the approval of the Chancellor is to fill up the said post by direct recruitment, in that case advertisement must be inserted and both the respondent No. 3 and petitioner will also be entitled to apply provided they fulfil the requisite qualification mentioned in such advertisement. 21. With the aforesaid observation/direction this petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Annexure-17 is quashed. No order as to cost.