Judgment 1. The prayer in this writ petition was for the issuance of a rule nisi, requiring the respondents to show-cause as to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued, directing them to forbear from giving effect or further effect to, and rescind and cancel the order appointing respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 to the post of lecturer in Veterinary Surgery and Radiology. The grievance of the petitioner in short was, that although the petitioner had the requisite qualifications, the respondent authorities wrongfully and illegally had appointed the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 as lecturers in the four vacant posts in the department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology in the West Bengal University of Animal Fishery Sciences, hereinafter, referred to as the University. As regards respondent No.4, the petitioner had no grievance. According to the petitioner, none of the other three successful candidates, being respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 had the necessary qualification of Ph. D. in Veterinary Surgery and Radiology. It had also been alleged in the petition that in 1998, the respondent authorities had advertised for the post of a lecturer but no appointment had been made, because the respondent authorities wanted to wait till candi9ates of their choice could be appointed. 2. It had been alleged in the petition that in terms of Rule 105(3) of the Statutes of the University, the Selection Committee did "not prepare and submit a panel of 12 candidates, by arranging their names in order of merit" in respect of the four posts for which the advertisement had been published. According to the petitioner, the Constitution of the Selection Committee was bad, since the Vice Chancellor had appointed two external experts, whose names did not appear in the panel of experts, approved by the Council on the recommendation of Faculty Council-Members. It was submitted by Advocate for the petitioner, that the respondent No.7, at the time of interview, did not even have the minimum qualification for the advertised post of lecturer. He argued that the University authorities had appointed lecturers not in accordance with its rules and statutes, but in accordance with their whim and favouritism. In support of his submissions, he cited and relied on an unreported decision dated January 15, 2001, in W. P. No. 1978 of 2000 (1) Dr . Md. Ketab Ali v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 3. In support of his submissions, he cited and relied on an unreported decision dated January 15, 2001, in W. P. No. 1978 of 2000 (1) Dr . Md. Ketab Ali v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 3. There was nothing to prevent the University authorities from publishing advertisements such as the first advertisement, it was argued by Advocate for the respondent authorities, and for their own reasons deciding not to pursue the matter of appointment. He submitted that the petitioner had participated in the appointment proceedings, and having failed to obtain appointment, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the procedure which had been adopted by the authorities. It was contended by him, that the appointment of the two experts by the Vice Chancellor was lawful and in accordance with the rules of the University. He submitted that during the course of the hearing of this application, earlier, a prayer had been made on behalf of the respondents, by Counsel, for leave to produce all records relating to the appointment of the two external experts in order to establish that the panel had been duly approved by the Council. The prayer had been allowed, and the matter had been adjourned. He argued that Section 10 of the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Act, provided specifically, that in the event of an emergency, the Vice Chancellor was authorised to take any action and have it ratified by the appropriate authority later. The appointment by the Vice Chancellor of the two external experts, according to him was ratified soon, thereafter, by the Council, in the next available meeting. The facts in the unreported decision relied on by the petitioner, according to him were quite different to those in this case, and the ratio enunciated in that decision was not applicable in this case. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decisions reported in (2) 1999(2) CHN 289 , and (3) 1997 (4) SCC 426 . He argued that the private respondents had already been appointed in pursuance of the decision of the Selection Committee, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner could not be given any relief. In support of his submissions, he cited and relied on the decision reported in (4) 1996 (3) SCC 320 . He argued that the private respondents had already been appointed in pursuance of the decision of the Selection Committee, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner could not be given any relief. In support of his submissions, he cited and relied on the decision reported in (4) 1996 (3) SCC 320 . According to him, the Selection Committee had made its selection in compliance with the rules of the University, in that respect, and that the Court would be slow to interfere on the mere allegation by an unsuccessful candidate, who had not objected to the selection process earlier, and in support of the contention, he cited and relied on the decision reported in (5) AIR 1990 SC 140. 4. The private respondents were represented in Court by Advocate who submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the University Statutes, preference was to be given to those candidates who would possess B.F.Sc. or M.F.Sc. degree. He relied on the provisions contained in Statute 6. The contents of the advertisement, he argued, was incorrect to the extent that preference would be given .to candidates with Ph.D. degree. According to him, there was no question of giving any preference to candidates with Ph. D. degree in accordance with the rules of the University. He submitted that in the advertisement there was clear indication that "Normal reservation of posts for SC/ST candidates will be applicable in accordance with the order of the Government of West Bengal", and no further clarification or additional particulars were required in law to be published. 5. The contention by Advocate for the respondents, that the University authorities were at liberty to publish an advertisement, and if thought fit, thereafter, not to proceed further in the matter was not wholly acceptable. The University was a public authority, dealing with the careers of students, in their formative period when they are full of expectations and ambitions. It is only when the authorities require to appoint lecturers that advertisements are published in the newspapers. When the advertisement is not given further effect and more than a year later another advertisement is published in the newspapers for the appointment of lecturers, it may be reasonable for the public to wonder as to how did the University serve the best interest of the students, without the lecturers during the period between the two advertisements. When the advertisement is not given further effect and more than a year later another advertisement is published in the newspapers for the appointment of lecturers, it may be reasonable for the public to wonder as to how did the University serve the best interest of the students, without the lecturers during the period between the two advertisements. Silence on the part of the University authorities, as was the case in the facts and circumstances before this Court, sent out but wrong signals. The advertisement which had been published in a newspaper on August 16, 1999, admittedly, invited applications inter alia, for four vacant posts of lecturers, in the University in its department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology. In the advertisement, it had been mentioned specially that "Ph. D. degree will be given preference." Yet, in serial No.9 of the "Recruitment of Employees for Appointment in the University (Officials and- Teachers)" which was Schedule 1 to the First Statutes of the University which was applicable for the appointment of lecturers provided :- "9. Lecturer/Assistant Professor Rs. 2,200/- -4,000/-. (a) A minimum of Master's degree in a subject/discipline (required for the particular post) of the concerned Faculty having at least 55% marks throughout the career in aggregate or O.G.P.A. of 2.75 out of 4.00. (b) Ph. D. degree in concerned subject. (c) Evidence of published research papers on the concerned subject in a reputed journal. (d) Preference will be given to the candidates having B. F. Sc. and M.F. Sc. degree with some teaching and research experience and qualified NET/GATE Exam., in respect of posts in Fishery Faculty. (e) Age not above 35 years." In other words, the, requirements clearly were that a candidate with a Master's degree was to have obtained, "at least 55% marks throughout the career in aggregate or O.G.P.A. of 2.75 out of 4.00", while a candidate having a Ph. D. degree was not required to fulfil any other conditions. There was no question of any preference being given by the authorities to a candidate with Ph. D. degree, but in accordance with the rules of the University, the candidate had priority to those who did not have the degree, before the Selection Committee. The advertisement published on August 16, 1999 was, therefore, clearly not in conformity with the provisions contained in the First Statute of the University. D. degree, but in accordance with the rules of the University, the candidate had priority to those who did not have the degree, before the Selection Committee. The advertisement published on August 16, 1999 was, therefore, clearly not in conformity with the provisions contained in the First Statute of the University. There was no explanation before this Court in respect to this incorrect publication. The argument, by Advocate for the private respondents, that candidates with "B. F. Sc. and M. F. Sc. degree with some teaching and research experience and qualified NET/GATE Exam., in respect of posts, in Fishery Faculty" was of course an instance of total non-application of mind. In making such argument the fact that the subject-matter of this application related to posts in Veterinary Surgery and Radiology and not Fishery Faculty had been quite ignored. The incorrect provision mentioned above which was included in the second advertisement, significantly was not found in the first advertisement. 6. The University authorities had failed to indicate specifically as to the precise number of seats which would be reserved for the schedule caste and schedule tribe candidates in the diverse vacancies in the departments. A general declaration that the rules of reservation would apply, I would find did not afford the intending candidates an even opportunity to choose as to whether in view of the number of reservation in the post it would be worthwhile to apply, be the candidates in any category. The position has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, in the decision reported in (6) 1990(4) SCC 55 ; in the words that "The possibility that many eligible candidates belonging to both reserved and unreserved categories might not have taken the risk and chosen to gamble cannot be ruled out". Indeed the facts in this case were somewhat different to those before the Supreme Court but it had been clarified in the judgment, "whether it occurred in the present case or not is immaterial for testing the validity and propriety of the method followed by the University............". In the advertisement published on August 16, 1999 applications had been invited for the posts of professors, readers and lecturers, in some 25 Departments of the University and nothing had been mentioned as to the number of posts where reservation was applicable. In the advertisement published on August 16, 1999 applications had been invited for the posts of professors, readers and lecturers, in some 25 Departments of the University and nothing had been mentioned as to the number of posts where reservation was applicable. The fact that advertisement did not disclose the exact number of reservations in the posts, for which applications had been invited, I would be of the view, rendered the very purpose of the principle of reservation infructuous, and, consequently, the publication must be held to be bad in law. The candidates from the reserved or the regular category would not be in a position to know as to whether they should apply and take the chance. Such choice, was the prerogative of the candidates, and any attempt to deprive the candidates of such prerogative would be in violation of the principles of natural Justice. 7. In Paragraph 21 of the petition, it had been alleged, that the respondent authorities in violation of the provisions contained in the University Statutes, had failed and neglected to prepare the necessary panel of candidates. In dealing with the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the affidavit-in-opposition, there was no specific denial in that respect. The relevant Statute being Statute No. 105(3) of the University Statutes provides :- "The Selection/Standing Committee shall prepare a panel of at least three candidates, names arranged in order of merit in respect of each post. At least, three candidates for filling the conditions of recruitment shall have to turn up and to be interviewed by the committee for preparing a valid panel." 8. Admittedly, the Selection Committee had been constituted by the Vice Chancellor without complying with the provisions contained in Schedule 1 to the University Statutes. The relevant provision in the abovementioned Schedule 1 with regard to Constitution of Selection Committee and Appointing Authority is set out hereinbelow :- "I(c) Two external experts (subject-matter specialised) nominated by the Vice Chancellor out of panel of experts approved by the Council on the recommendation of Faculty Council-Members." It was alleged on behalf of the respondent authorities, that as because there was an emergency, and the Faculty Council was not functional, the Vice Chancellor exercised his power under Section 10 of the abovementioned Act, nominating the two external experts. Section 10 of the Act provides :- "The Vice Chancellor may take any action in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action. He shall in such cases and as soon as may be, thereafter, report such action to the authority which shall ordinarily have dealt with the matter." There was no dispute among the parties that the interview of the candidates was held on April 5,2000 and, obviously, the Selection Committee had been constituted before that date. The Vice Chancellor, however, reported the matter and Council ratified the Constitution of the Selection Committee on April 18, 2000. According to the authorities, it was submitted by Advocate, the clause "as soon as, thereafter, report such action" had been complied with by obtaining ratification in, the 'next available meeting'. It would appear to me that such contention by the respondent authorities was not in consonance with the allegation that there existed an emergency. In that event, surely the proper course of action would have been to call an emergent meeting of the Council for the purpose of obtaining the necessary ratification. In the circumstances, any function by the Selection Committee, until it's Constitution had been ratified by the Council in accordance with the provisions of the Act, must be considered to be invalid and without the force of law. That it was an emergent situation, requiring the Vice Chancellor to exercise his discretion was not the case of the respondent authorities, and there was no evidence before this Court in that respect. Indeed, the advertisement had been published on August 16, 1999 and the alleged appointments had been confirmed on April 19, 2000, which was almost an year. 9. In those circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the University authorities had misconducted the process for the appointment of lecturers in the department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, and that the process was bad, for non-compliance with the relevant rules and regulations of the University, partiality in considering candidates with lesser academic qualifications in priority to those with superior, and failing to specify precisely the number of reserved seats in the various vacancies, in the advertisement published in the local newspaper. The respondent authorities were in violation of the principles of natural Justice, fair-play and in particular violation of the provisions contained in Statute 105(3) of the First Statutes of the University, and also Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner had indeed participated in the selection process, and was unsuccessful and the petitioner would generally be estopped from making an application challenging the process. The facts and circumstances disclosed in this application however, effectively confirmed that the Vice Chancellor's nomination of the two external experts was in utter violation of the diverse rules of the University in that respect. The Selection Committee, which had been constituted wrongfully and illegally had purported to select completely disregarding the mandatory provisions of Rule 9 of Schedule 1, referred above. It was most strange that without there existing a state of emergency, the Council in its wisdom should have ratified the Vice Chancellor's wrongful and illegal nomination. I have already observed, that more than a year bad elapsed between the publication of the advertisement and the appointments, and it was not the case of the respondents that at the time of the nomination by the Vice Chancellor, there was any emergency. I am afraid, on the face of the records, the conduct of the Vice Chancellor was wrongful, illegal and with intent By reason of the above, in the words of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (7) 1995(3) SCC 486 , both the nomination by the Vice Chancellor and the decision of the Selection Committee were steeped with. "Glaring illegalities", and, consequently, it followed that there was, therefore, no scope for the application of the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence by the petitioner, in the present circumstances. The contentions by the petitioner, I am inclined to be of the view, deserve every consideration by this Court, and intervention by Court was most certainly warranted. 10. For those reasons, the appointments of the respondent Nos. 4. 5, 6 & 7 are quashed and set aside, and the respondent authorities shall forthwith terminate the services of those respondents. The University authorities, if so advised, would be at liberty to publish fresh advertisements for the four posts of lecturer in the Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, and give appoint in accordance with law. 4. 5, 6 & 7 are quashed and set aside, and the respondent authorities shall forthwith terminate the services of those respondents. The University authorities, if so advised, would be at liberty to publish fresh advertisements for the four posts of lecturer in the Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, and give appoint in accordance with law. The University authorities shall comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of obtaining a certified xerox of this order. The Vice Chancellor shall pay costs of this application reasonably assessed at 500 G.Ms. Xerox of this order shall be made available to the parties duly countersigned by the Assistant Court Officer of this Court upon an undertaking by the respective Advocates to obtain a certified xerox of this order on the usual terms.