JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the appointment of opposite party No. 4 as Reader in History under opposite party. No. 1. 2. Advertisement No. Estt. I/I041-C/Vol. VI/16982/92, dated 2-12-92 was issued for several posts under the Utkal University including the three posts of Reader in History. The essential qualifications as indicated in Clause-(B) of such advertisement for the post were as follows: (B) Reader/Placement Officer: Goods academic record with Doctoral degree or equivalent-published work. Candidates from outside the University system shall also possess at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at the Master's level. Eight years experience in teaching and/or research including upto three years for research degree and has made some work in the area of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational renovation, design of new courses and curricula. The relevant provision relating to post of Reader in History was as follows: Reader/Placement Officer/Reader-Cum- Principal: ... 5. History-Three (One VIII plan), one D.S. A. with specialization in History of Orissa..... 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the present Petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and several others filed applications. The Petitioner filed one application wherein it was indicated that he had applied for the post of Reader in History. Against the column relating to specialisation, the Petitioner had indicated about his specialisation in Modern Indian History (Orissa History). The dispute presently raised relates to selection of opposite party No. 4 against the post of Reader in History (D.S. A. with specialisation in History of Orissa). It is not disputed that so far as the other two posts of Reader were concerned, a common interview was held wherein the Petitioner was placed third, whereas opposite party No. 4 was placed further down below, Two other persons who were placed 1st. and 2nd. were appointed against the to other posts of Reader in History including one meant to be fined up as VIIIth. Plan post. Opposite party No. 4 was appointed as a Reader in History against the post ear-marked as "D.S. A. with specialisation in History of Orissa". It is not disputed that for the latter post, no separate interview was held and opposite party No. 4 was appointed solely on the basts that he was the only eligible candidate who had separately applied for the post of Reader in History (D.S. A. with specialisation in History of Orissa). 4. It is not disputed that for the latter post, no separate interview was held and opposite party No. 4 was appointed solely on the basts that he was the only eligible candidate who had separately applied for the post of Reader in History (D.S. A. with specialisation in History of Orissa). 4. The Petitioner has challenged such appointment on several grounds. It is first contended that though the Petitioner had indicated about his specialisation in History of Orissa, his application was not considered for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa) on the specious ground that the Petitioner had merely filed only one application which was considered as application for the other two posts and had not filed separate application for being considered for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa). It appears from the admitted facts that opposite party No. 4 and one other candidate, who was found ineligible, had filed two separate applications, one for the two posts of Reader in History, and the other for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa). It is contended by the Petitioner that in the advertisement, there was no requirement that separate applications were to be filed for the three posts of Reader in History. To emphasize such point, the Petitioner has produced subsequent advertisement of the very same University as per Annexure-2, wherein it had been specifically indicated that separate applications must be submitted for posts having specific specialisations. It has been submitted that in the absence of any such specific condition in the advertisement, there was no justification for the University not to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa), as the Petitioner was otherwise eligible having specialisation in History of Orissa. 5. It has been submitted that in the absence of any such specific condition in the advertisement, there was no justification for the University not to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa), as the Petitioner was otherwise eligible having specialisation in History of Orissa. 5. To combat such submission, the counsel for the University has submitted that the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa) being different from the two other posts and requiring specialisation in History of Orissa, it was expected of the candidates to apply separately for such post as had been done by opposite party No. 4 and another candidate and since the Petitioner had not specifically applied for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa), his case had not been considered. Similar submission has been made by the counsel for opposite party No. 4. 6. If it was the intention of the University that separate application should be filed for different posts having specialisation in a particular subject, it should have been so indicated in the advertisement. It is not disputed that the University had considered the single application of all other candidates for the two other posts of Reader, one of which has been characterized as VIIlth. Plan post. If there was no necessity of filing separate application for each of two other posts of Reader in History, one of which had been characterized as VIIIth. Plan post, we fail to understand as to why a separate application was required to be made for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa). It is, of course, true that for being considered for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A.), specializations in History of Orissa was necessary. Whether a particular candidate has got specialisation in History of Orissa, or not, is discernible from the applications wherein a n the candidates had indicated their specialisation. Even though initially there was some dispute, from the application form of the A Petitioner produced by the University, it is now apperent that the Petitioner had indicated that he had specialisation in History of Modern India (History of Orissa). Various papers/published works and books of the Petitioner had also been indicated along with the application. Even though initially there was some dispute, from the application form of the A Petitioner produced by the University, it is now apperent that the Petitioner had indicated that he had specialisation in History of Modern India (History of Orissa). Various papers/published works and books of the Petitioner had also been indicated along with the application. The application of the Petitioner was not ignored on the ground that he did not have specialisation in History of Orissa. It has not been considered on the admitted ground that he had not filed a separate application indicating that he had also applied for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa). It is thus evident that the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Reader in History (D.S.A. with specialisation in History of Orissa) has not been considered on the basis of an arbitrary and illegal assumption of the University that a separate application was required to be made by the Petitioner. Since the application of the Petitioner has not been considered, there cannot be any doubt that his candidature for such post must be considered along with that of opposite party No. 4 and selection of opposite party No. 4 must be taken to be vitiated. 7. The Petitioner has also challenged the selection of opposite party No. 4 on several other grounds including the question of eligibility of opposite party No. 4. It is contended that opposite party. No. 4 had less than 55% of marks at the Master's level and as such he was not eligible as per the advertisement. A mere reading of the advertisement as per Annexure-1, however, demolishes such contention. The relevant extract of the advertisement reads, ... Candidates from outside the University system shall also possess at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at the Master's level. (Emphasis added) The underlined portion of the advertisement makes it clear that the requirement relating to having at least 55% marks is not applicable to candidates who are already in the University system, that is to say, who are already employed under the University, obviously as Lecturer. Though admittedly, opposite party No. 4 had less than 55% of marks at Master's level, it is not disputed that he had already been appointed as a Lecturer in History in the same University from 1984. Though admittedly, opposite party No. 4 had less than 55% of marks at Master's level, it is not disputed that he had already been appointed as a Lecturer in History in the same University from 1984. In view of the specific and clear language in the advertisement, there cannot be any doubt that the requirement of having at least 55% of marks was not applicable to opposite party No. 4 and was only applicable to outside candidates. 8. Allied with the aforesaid submission, the Petitioner also submitted that consideration of a candidate having less than 55% of marks at Master's level for appointment in a post of Lecturer or superior posts of Reader and Professor is against the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. Such contention of the Petitioner cannot be accepted for obvious reasons. The guidelines relied upon by the Petitioner had been issued after initial appointment of opposite party No. 4 as a Lecturer. Moreover, the guidelines are advisory in nature and cannot be considered to be mandatory. It is also not disputed that in appropriate cases, the University has the authority to condone such requirement relating to a particular percentage. Since opposite party No. 4 had already been appointed as a Lecturer, the contention to the effect that his application should have been rejected on the ground of eligibility as per the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, cannot be accepted. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the experts' panel constituted for the purpose of interviewing the candidates was not in accordance with the requirements and moreover, the experts did not have necessary specialisation in Orissa History. Such submission of the Petitioner is without any merit. Apart from the fact that Petitioner himself had appeared at the interview, the contention that the various specialists were not eligible to interview candidates for a post having specialization in Orissa History is too vague to merit any serious consideration. Moreover, admittedly, no interview has been held so far as the post now occupied by opposite patty No. 4 is concerned and as such, the point is merely academic. 10. Moreover, admittedly, no interview has been held so far as the post now occupied by opposite patty No. 4 is concerned and as such, the point is merely academic. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also alleged that opposite party No. 4 being an employee under the Utkal University, the authorities of the Utkal University have deliberately shown him favour by selecting him as the Reader in History (D.S. A. with specialisation in History of Orissa) even without holding any interview. Law is well settled that allegations relating to mala-fides must be clearly established and vague assertions cannot take the place of proof of such allegations. In absence of any specific material, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the Petitioner. 11. Though all other contentions of the Petitioner have been rejected, the application of the Petitioner is to succeed on the first ground already discussed. The Petitioner's case for being appointed to the post of Reader (D.S. A. with specialisation in History of Orissa) should have been considered along with opposite party No. 4 It may be that even the other candidates who had similarly filed single applications were also eligible for such post depending upon the area of their specialisation. However, since the other candidates have not challenged, it is unnecessary to examine whether they were eligible or not and should have beep considered. It is, therefore, directed that the University should now consider the application of the Petitioner vis-a-vis that of the opposite party No. 4 by holding the interview as envisaged under the rules governing such appointment. It is made dear that the cases of Petitioner and opposite party No. 4 should be considered on the basis of qualifications and material circumstances including experience as available on the date of selection and any subsequent qualification, experience or material of either party would be of no avail. It is further made clear that until such new selection takes place, opposite party No. 4 shall continue to hold the same post. If ultimately the Petitioner is selected in preference to opposite party No. 4, he should be appointed in place of opposite party No. 4. However, if after fresh selection, opposite party No. 4 is selected, he shall continue in the said past. If ultimately the Petitioner is selected in preference to opposite party No. 4, he should be appointed in place of opposite party No. 4. However, if after fresh selection, opposite party No. 4 is selected, he shall continue in the said past. It is also directed that the University will complete the fresh consideration as directed herein within 4 (four) months from the date of communication of this order. 12. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ application is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Pradipta Ray, J. 13. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed