ORDER: This judgment will dispose of W.P. Nos.21235 of 1994 and 229 of 1995. While the first writ petition is filed by Madurai Kamarajar Manonmanian Sundaranar University Teachers’ Association and three Professors working in Arulmigu Palani Andavar College of Arts and Culture, the second-mentioned writ petition is filed only by Dr.S.Palanichamy, who was the 2nd petitioner is the earlier-mentioned writ petition. The controversy involved in both these petitions is common, that is about the selection of Principal of this College and hence, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the first-mentioned writ petition, it was pointed out by the petitioners that the fourth-respondent college was a Private College where, for the last 21 years, only the seniormost person, serving as the Professor, used to be appointed as the Principal. They pointed out that the Secretary of the said college invited applications for the selection of the Principal as the erstwhile Principal had retired. It was claimed in the petition further that though the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 therein were the seniormost Professors serving in that college and were meritorious Professors, having rich experience in teaching and also scholars, it was decided to break away the long tradition of appointing the seniormost Professor as the principal of the college and Jayabalan was going to be appointed as the Principal as he had the political clout since his brother-in-law was a Member of Parliament. Very significantly, in this writ petition (W.P.No.21235 of 1994), the said Jayabalan was not joined as a party-respondent. It was pointed out that the Secretary had issued a circular dated 30-7-1994, inviting applications for the post of Principal from amongst the Professors. The main objection was that no guidelines were framed by the 3rd and 4th respondents, who were at the helm of affairs nor was any objective criteria fixed for selection to the post of Principal. It was claimed that there was no system of maintaining Annual Confidential Reports and as such, nothing was available for the so-called Selection Committee to select the Principal. 3. It was claimed that there was no system of maintaining Annual Confidential Reports and as such, nothing was available for the so-called Selection Committee to select the Principal. 3. One more submission was made and that was that as per Sec.11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act"), a "College Committee" was bound to include the Principal of the college and two seniormost Professors employed in the college and as per the proviso to Sec.13(1) of the Act, the said College Committee had to meet at least once in three months. That this was the Committee responsible for appointing the Teachers and other persons of the Private college. The petitioners challenged the legality of the constitution of the College Committee of the 4th respondent college and pointed out that under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), the College Committee was bound to consist of (a) representatives of the Educational Committee; (b) Principal of the College; (c) two seniormost Professors of the College; and (d) a nominee of the University. It was also pointed out relying on Rule 8(4) of the Rules that whenever a vacancy in the category of seniormost Professor arose, the next seniormost Professor was bound to be nominated. It was then contended that this was a salutary provision, which was observed by the respondents only in breach. Petitioners pointed out that there were three representatives from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownment Board as the 4th respondent college was being run by the funds of the temple, which is governed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act but, for six months prior to the filing of the petition, the respondents were avoiding to constitute the College Committee by naming the seniormost Professors as the Members of the College Committee. It is pointed out that only the 2nd petitioner was nominated and the other vacancy for the seniormost Professor was not filled and as such, the Committee was a truncated Committee. It was then pointed that representations were made to the 3rd and 4th respondents to select a seniormost Professor as Principal of the college but, there was no response from the respondents. It was then pointed that representations were made to the 3rd and 4th respondents to select a seniormost Professor as Principal of the college but, there was no response from the respondents. It was pointed out that 22.12.1994 was the date fixed for the interview and, therefore, an order of injunction was prayed for in the petition, restraining the respondents from holding the interview. 4. When this writ petition came up for hearing in the motion hearing, the interim orders were not granted by this Court. In the result, the interviews proceeded and after the interview, as was expressed by the petitioners S.Jayabalan came to be selected as the Principal of the 4th respondent college. Therefore, the 2nd petitioner in W.P. No.21235 of 1994, filed the second writ petition W.P. No.229 of 1995, challenging the selection of S. Jayabalan, who was now joined as the 5th respondent to the writ petition. 5. While reiterating that the 5th respondent could not be selected, it was pointed out in W.P. No.229 of 1995 that in addition to the challenge regarding legality of the constitution of Selection Committee, there was one more challenge available and that was the “mala fides” on the part of the Selection Committee and also “bias” in favour of the 5th respondent on account of his political clout. It was pointed out that the interview was merely an eyewash and an empty formality. It is pointed out that in all fifteen candidates, including the petitioner, applied for the post and that the petitioner was the seniormost amongst them while the 5th respondent was tenth in the order of seniority amongst those fifteen candidates, yet he was selected in spite of the fact that his educational qualifications did not match with the educational qualifications of the petitioner. It was again reiterated that no proper guidelines for assessing the relative merits and abilities of the candidates were framed and, therefore, the selection was bad as also the selection process. 6. Both the petitions have been opposed by the College as well as the contesting respondents as well as the selected candidate. Separate counters have been filed by them. The stand taken by the respondents in the first petition is that there was no question of the College Committee being truncated. 6. Both the petitions have been opposed by the College as well as the contesting respondents as well as the selected candidate. Separate counters have been filed by them. The stand taken by the respondents in the first petition is that there was no question of the College Committee being truncated. It was pointed out that since the erstwhile Principal was out of the service because of his retirement, the next seniormost Professor was acting as the Principal (In charge). It is also pointed out that Dr.S.Palanichamy was also nominated and included in the College Committee. Therefore, it could not be said that the Committee was a truncated Committee. It was secondly pointed out that the story that the committee had not decided upon the norms for the selection and that no objective material available to it for the selection of the Principal was a myth and that, in fact, the Committee had before it the complete details of the candidates appearing for the interview. As regards the mala fides and bias in favour of the 5th respondent in the second writ petition, it was suggested that there was no question of any bias being there in favour of Mr. S. Jayabalan and that Mr. Jayabalan was selected on his own merits. The selected Principal also refuted all the allegations regarding the bias and pointed out that the petitioners and more particularly the 2nd petitioner in the first writ petition and the sole petitioner in the second writ petition had made much of his own merits. It is pointed out generally that once the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in the first writ petition and the sole petitioner in the second writ petition had taken part in the interview, who were not selected, they could not later on turn around and challenge the selection process itself or the selection of the 5th respondent Mr. S. Jayabalan. It was pointed out further that such course was impermissible under the service jurisprudence and also in the light of the Supreme Court judgments. 7. On the backdrop of this conflicting stands, it has to be decided as to whether the objections raised by the petitioners are worthy to be accepted. 8. Mr. Ramasubramanian, in his usual persuasive style, drew the attention of the court to the various provisions of the Act and the Rules. 7. On the backdrop of this conflicting stands, it has to be decided as to whether the objections raised by the petitioners are worthy to be accepted. 8. Mr. Ramasubramanian, in his usual persuasive style, drew the attention of the court to the various provisions of the Act and the Rules. He pointed out that under Rule 11 of the Rules, the inclusion of two seniormost Professors in the College committee was a must. He also invited my attention to Rule 8 of the Rules and pointed out that under that provision also there ought to be two seniormost Professors in the College Committee. The learned counsel argued that the College Committee in the present case was a truncated committee as it did not have the two seniormost Professors, the 2nd petitioner Dr.S. Palanichamy being one of them. 9. In the reply, the respondents pointed out that Mr. Palanichamy was not seniormost Professor but, there was one gentleman above him by name Prof. N.Sivaramakrishan, who was acting as Principal (in-charge) of the college. He was, naturally, in dual as Principal (In charge) as also the seniormost Professor of the college. It was then pointed out in paragraph 7 that Dr.S. Palanichamy himself was appointed as a Member of the College Committee by order dated 13.12.1994 and that he still continues to be a Member of the College Committee. However, since he was himself a candidate for the post of Principal, he was asked not to attend the Committee Meetings for this purpose and an order to that effect came to be served on him on 17.12.1994. The respondents, therefore, have come up with a clear case that this was not a Committee which could be termed as a truncated Committee since it was only for the purposes of interview that Dr. Palanichamy was asked not to take part in the deliberations of the College Committee. The stand of the respondents in this regard is perfectly justified. The 2nd petitioner, Dr. Palanichamy, has not controverted the statement at the Bar that he still continues to be the Member of the College Committee. If that was so, the two seniormost Professors, viz., Prof. Sivaramakrishnan and Prof. Palanichamy were the Members of the College Committee and Prof. Sivaramakrishnan was also in the Committee in other capacity as Principal (In charge) of the College. Palanichamy, has not controverted the statement at the Bar that he still continues to be the Member of the College Committee. If that was so, the two seniormost Professors, viz., Prof. Sivaramakrishnan and Prof. Palanichamy were the Members of the College Committee and Prof. Sivaramakrishnan was also in the Committee in other capacity as Principal (In charge) of the College. It has already come on record that there were three other representatives from the H.R. & C.E. Board as also the University representative. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the College Committee was not a truncated one. The contention of the petitioners in this behalf is, therefore, rejected. 10. The learned counsel then earnestly argued that this Committee, which was also to act as the Selection Committee as per the provisions of Sec.14 of the Act did not meet and did not thrash out the objective criteria for the selection. He argued that it was essential to fix the norms for the selection by separately meeting. Here also, the respondents point out that the contention of the petitioners that the norms were not fixed for the selection is a myth. During the hearing, the respondents produced before me a tabular statement, which showed all the details regarding the fifteen candidates, who appeared for the interview, including their qualifications, merits, extra curricular activities, administrative capacity etc. It was urged that it was not essential to hold a meeting to fix the norms as the selection was to be made by the experienced members of the Committee, which included an I.A.S. Officer, who acted as the Chairman of the Committee. I am satisfied that it is not as if the norms were never fixed by the committee for selection. Mr. Ramasubramanian, however, earnestly urged and contended that there had to be a transparency in the selection methods and the respondents should have come forth with a record showing as to how the evaluation was done and on what basis. For that purpose, Mr. Ramasubramanian relied on few judgments of the Apex court and of this court also. 11. My attention was invited to the decision reported in R.S.Das v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 593, which is a case in respect of the selection in Indian Administrative Service by promotion. The selection list made by the Punjab State Civil Service Commission came to be challenged on various grounds. 11. My attention was invited to the decision reported in R.S.Das v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 593, which is a case in respect of the selection in Indian Administrative Service by promotion. The selection list made by the Punjab State Civil Service Commission came to be challenged on various grounds. The High Court had dismissed all the writ petitions and it was urged before the Supreme Court that the select-list was vitiated as no reasons were recorded for superseding certain appellants and that there was violation of relevant regulations. I do not think this case is of any assistance to the learned counsel as there is nothing in this case, which is even distantly similar to the case at hand. There can be no question about the principles laid down in this judgment. However, according to me, this judgment is not relevant for the purposes for deciding the issue at hand. 12. The second decision referred to by the learned counsel is reported in D.V.Bakshi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2374. This was the case where 50% of the total-marks were reserved for the oral test and that was challenged on the ground that it gives arbitrary powers to the authorities to “pick and choose” the candidates. The learned counsel probably wanted to suggest that the oral interview, by which the selection was made, as was done in the present case, was not a proper method for selection of the candidates. In the reported decision, everything turned on the basis of the regulations and such regulations are not there in the case at hands. This is apart from the fact that the Supreme Court has found that the prescribing 50% of the total-marks for the oral interview was not incorrect and did not vitiate the selection. On the other hand, in paragraph 5, the Supreme Court specifically sounded a word of caution that the general charges in respect of nepotism and favouritism would be of no consequence. The learned counsel invited my attention to the following observations: “If an oral test is, therefore, a ‘must’ as in this case, a heavy responsibility is cast on the examiners to maintain a proper record of the oral test in respect of each candidate and marks must preferably be assigned under each head considered relevant to evaluate the candidate. The learned counsel invited my attention to the following observations: “If an oral test is, therefore, a ‘must’ as in this case, a heavy responsibility is cast on the examiners to maintain a proper record of the oral test in respect of each candidate and marks must preferably be assigned under each head considered relevant to evaluate the candidate. Once this care is taken the element of subjectivity will be largely checked and the marks assigned under different heads at the oral test will more or less faithfully reflect the fitness of the candidate. In the matter of evaluation some degree of honest error must be countenanced. However, if there is any allegation of nepotism or favouritism, the same can be checked with reference to the record so maintained. Since the oral test is a highly subjective one and is susceptible to misuse, the degree of proof required for bringing home the charge of nepotism or favouritism may be light. But that is not to say that a mere allegation based on the fact that passing of an oral test is a ‘must’ or that the marks reserved for the oral test are excessive will per se, without anything more, set the court, probing into the records of the oral test.” From these observations, the learned counsel suggested that since there were no records maintained as indicated in the aforesaid judgment, the whole selection was bad. I do not agree with the contention raised. In the first place, as has already been suggested, there was a comparative tabular statement prepared by the Selection Committee and it is not as if the interviews were taken at random without considering the inter se merits and abilities of the candidates. That is the stand of the respondents also. They have pointed out that the members of the Selection Committee included three Government Officers, who had nothing to do with the so-called politics, and had interviewed the candidates with the open-mind on the basis of the norms fixed. It was not as if no norms were fixed. In this behalf, it must be said that this was a case where fifteen candidates have to be interviewed and that too, for a “singular post” of Principal of the College. It was not as if a number of candidates were to be selected out of hundred others. It was not as if no norms were fixed. In this behalf, it must be said that this was a case where fifteen candidates have to be interviewed and that too, for a “singular post” of Principal of the College. It was not as if a number of candidates were to be selected out of hundred others. The members of the Selection Committee must be presumed to know the mettle of each of the candidates as each of the candidate offered for the interview was serving in that very same college for number of years. Mr. Ramasubramanian tried to suggest feebly that the members of the Selection Committee were the Government Officers, who used to be transferred periodically, and, therefore, they were not expected to know the merits and abilities of each candidate individually. I am afraid that such a contention cannot be countenanced. The members of the College Committee by their very role of managing the college would be expected to know about each and every candidate and his merit and ability. The observations made applicable in selection of hundreds of candidates out of thousands of participants in the interview would not ipso facto apply to such a selection even if the general principles would be apposite and applicable. There can be no doubt that the selection should be free from nepotism, favouritism and discrimination and that the Selection Committee should take particular care. This particular care seems to have been taken here by putting an objective and graphic picture in the form of comparative tabular statement. The expectation of the petitioners that the committee should justify by showing as to how many marks were given to each candidate on what aspect would be too much to expect in the circumstances of this particular case where, the interview was only of fifteen candidates, who were all serving in the same college for years together and that too, for a “singular post” of Principal. The learned counsel was not able to show a single precedent of this nature. 13. There can be no dispute that the relevant criteria for selection is not “seniority” alone. This observation is being made as much was made by the 2nd petitioner Dr.S. Palanichamy regarding his seniority and the further fact that the selected candidate was at No.10 amongst the fifteen candidates appearing for the interview. 13. There can be no dispute that the relevant criteria for selection is not “seniority” alone. This observation is being made as much was made by the 2nd petitioner Dr.S. Palanichamy regarding his seniority and the further fact that the selected candidate was at No.10 amongst the fifteen candidates appearing for the interview. It is an admitted position that for selection to the post of Principal in a private college, the criteria is ‘merit and ability“and not”seniority“. The question of”seniority“would come only when the ‘merit and ability” are approximately equal between two candidates. The learned counsel earnestly argued that as to on what basis merit and ability were to be seen was not prefixed by the Selection Committees and that the Committee was bound to frame the norms for fixing the merit and ability by providing remarks and that such remarks should be made known to the court. Though it would be ideal to do so, I do not think that in this case, it was necessary. This is apart from the fact that the Committee actually had before it the comparative tabular statement in respect of each candidate and the administrative efficiency, teaching experience, etc. On the backdrop of the fact that the Committee was interviewing the persons, who were known to the Committee for years together and the persons who were serving in the same college, in my opinion, the task of the Selection Committee would be easier. It must be kept in mind that the pronouncements of the Apex Court regarding the principles of selection are in order to defeat the nepotism, favouritism and partiality in interview and to see that the selection is just and fair. Once the court is convinced that there was no nepotism or favouritism in the selection process, the court will not insist on the mathematical and mechanical approach on the part of the Selection Committee in judging each candidate in respect of each of the quality. Some play will have to be given to the discretion of the College Committee also in such case where the College Committee had to select a candidate as Principal of the college, who had to be at the helm of affairs and to lead the institution. Some play will have to be given to the discretion of the College Committee also in such case where the College Committee had to select a candidate as Principal of the college, who had to be at the helm of affairs and to lead the institution. Under such circumstances, even if such a selected candidate is relatively a junior person, the due consideration will have to be given to the discretion of the Members of the Selection Committee, which is also an Interviewing Committee. 14. In this behalf a wanton allegation came to be made that a selected candidate had a relative, who was then a sitting member of Parliament and that his wife was also selected as Principal in some other college. I fail to follow as to how this by itself becomes a disqualification for the selected candidate. Much was made by the learned counsel contending that the apprehension on the part of the petitioners was made public even in the first writ petition itself when the interview process had not completed. Though undoubtedly that is one of the factors to be considered, it could also mean a mute admission regarding the abilities of the selected candidate on the part of the petitioners. Merely because his name came to be expressed in the first writ petition and ultimately he was selected by itself would not mean that the selection of the fifth respondent in the second writ petition was a foregone conclusion. The learned counsel relied on an unreported single Bench decision of this Court, dated 6.12.1994 in W.P. Nos.14602 of 1994 etc. On facts, this case is entirely different. The learned counsel heavily relied on the observations in paragraph 8. This was a case where several candidates had to be selected out of several others serving in the State of Tamil Nadu. I do not think that there could be any semblance of similarly of the selection process in the said decision with the selection process which is questioned here. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Janaki Prasad v. State of J. & K., A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 930 and Parvez Quadir v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 446. These decisions are not apposite for the purposes of the present case on facts. 15. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Janaki Prasad v. State of J. & K., A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 930 and Parvez Quadir v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 446. These decisions are not apposite for the purposes of the present case on facts. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases pointed out that this is a case where the candidate who offered for the interview and found himself as not selected was trying to challenge the selection process and, therefore, such exercise was not permissible. The learned counsel invited my attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court, to which I was a party, reported in Pattabiraman v. Murugavel and others, (1999)2 M.L.J. 707 . In that judgment, this court, relying upon the Supreme Court decision reported in Madan Lal v. State of J. & K., (1995)3 S.C.C. 486 , held that once the candidate takes a calculated chance and appears before the Interview Committee and then only because of the result of the interview was not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and contend that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted or the process of interview was bad. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried to get out of the rigour of this judgment by suggesting that even prior to the interview, the petitioners had protested and, therefore, it should be taken that they had appeared for the interview under protest. That may not be by itself sufficient for enabling the petitioner to challenge the selection process. In my opinion, the factor of protest would not be available in view of the broad observations made in Madan Lal’s case, cited supra. In that view, in fact, the petitions were bound to fail at the threshold. This is apart from the fact that I do not find from anywhere on record of the first writ petition any protest regarding the method of interview. The three representations dated 12.10.1994, 25.11.1994 and 29.11.1994 do not suggest that any exception was taken by the petitioner to the so-called non-fixation of norms and the method of oral interview. All these representations predominantly go to suggest that only the seniormost Professor should be appointed as Principal of the college. There is not even a word of protest regarding the selection method. All these representations predominantly go to suggest that only the seniormost Professor should be appointed as Principal of the college. There is not even a word of protest regarding the selection method. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that they had appeared under protest is also not correct and has to be rejected. 16. In short, both the writ petitions are absolutely without any merits. They deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed but, without any orders as to the costs. Connected W.M.P. Nos. 332 and 885 of 1995 are closed.