( 1 ) UNDER appeal is the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The order was passed on writ petition filed by the same two writ petitioners, one in respect of the post of Dean of the respondent-University and the other in respect of the post of Director (Research) in the same University. Both the writ petitioners were unsuccessful candidates for the posts. The High Court found that the writ petitioners has established their case but denied them relief on the ground that a period of nine years had elapsed after the appointment of the third respondents in each of the writ petitions to the posts. ( 2 ) THE appeal is only by one of the two writ petitioners, namely Dr. C. M. Singh, and the appeal is restricted to the post of Dean. This is because the third respondent in one of writ petitions, who was appointed Director (Research), has now retired. ( 3 ) THE challenge in the writ petitions was that on the last date for receipt of the application the two-third respondents had not completed the minimum period of service in the concerned post as required by the rules, and that, therefore, they were not eligible for being considered for appointment to the posts of Dean and Director (Research ). It was also contended that the selection committee had not been properly constituted. The High Court found in favour of the writ petitioners on the first contention but not on the second. Having found in favour of the writ petitioners on the first contention, the High Court considered whether the appointment of the third respondents in each of the writ petitions was to be quashed "at this stage when a period of nine years had already elapsed". It noted that no interim order had been passed in the writ petitions. It applied the judgment of this Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 168 : (1993 AIR SCW 1488 : 1993 Lab IC 1250) and held that the two-third respondents, having worked for nine years by then, should not be disturbed. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petitions. It applied the judgment of this Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 168 : (1993 AIR SCW 1488 : 1993 Lab IC 1250) and held that the two-third respondents, having worked for nine years by then, should not be disturbed. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petitions. ( 4 ) THE only question that we are required to consider in these appeals, therefore, is whether, having held that the two-third respondents were not qualified to be appointed, the High Court could have declined relief to the writ petitioners only on the ground that the two-third respondents had worked on the posts for which they were selected for nine years. ( 5 ) THE High Court quoted in its judgment from the decision of this Court in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (1993 AIR SCW 1488 : 1993 Lab IC 1250), but it would appear that it did not realise the import of these sentences : "there is also no record before us to show as to how the selection committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits of the candidates and to relax minimum qualifications in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the consideration which weighed with the committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid, it would result in injustice to those who have been selected". These sentences show that the selection committee there had discretionary powers vested in it under the University Ordinance to relax the requisite qualifications. There is nothing on record before us to show that the selection committee in the instant case had discretionary powers to relax the qualifications of the candidates, or that it had exercised them. Apart therefrom, the language employed by this Court in Rekha Chaturvedis case would suggest that this Court was employing the powers conferred on it under Article 142 to do complete justice. The High Court does not have such powers. Having found on merits in favour of the writ petitioner, we do not think that the High Court was justified in declining any relief to them. The High Court does not have such powers. Having found on merits in favour of the writ petitioner, we do not think that the High Court was justified in declining any relief to them. ( 6 ) LOGICALLY, the consequence of what we have held must be that the appointments of the third respondents in each of the writ petitions must be quashed and that a selection committee should now be constituted to determine whether the appellant, who was qualified for the post of Dean, should be selected. To pass such an order now would be unduly harsh, particularly qua the third respondents in each of the writ petitions. We think that this is an appropriate case where our powers under Article 142 should be used to do complete justice. We think that complete justice will be done if the appointments of the third respondents in the two writ petition to the posts in question are not disturbed and it is ordered that the appellant shall stand higher in seniority as compared to them. All consequential reliefs, other than monetary reliefs, shall be granted to the appellant. ( 7 ) THE civil appeals are allowed in these terms. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.