N. K. JAIN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single judge, dated 17-7-2c91 (Ekanath Ekbote v Gulbarga University and Another), wherein the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the impugned orders at Annexures-E and F and dismissed the petition holding that the appointment of the second respondent was neither illegal nor invalid. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that 1st respondent-University issued a notification dated 19-1-1994 inviting applications for various posts but the same was not acted upon by the 1st respondent, and subsequently it issued another notification dated 1-6-1994 in respect of the same posts for which applications were called for in the earlier notification. In pursuance of the notification dated 1-6-1994, the appellant and 4 others applied for the post of Professor in the 1st respondent-University. The syndicate of the University having accepted the recommendations of the board of Appointment in its meeting held on 31-5-1995, on the same day, issued an appointment order to the 2nd respondent appointing her to the post of Professor. The same was challenged by the appellant in the said writ petition and the same was dismissed by the learned Single judge. Hence, this writ appeal. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the appellant is that the 2nd respondent did not possess the requisite qualification as she did not have 10 years of experience in post-graduate teaching and/or research at the University/national Level Institutions and she could not have been appointed to the said post, and the learned Single judge erred in not interfering with the impugned orders. ( 4 ) SRI S. M. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the 2nd respondent at the relevant point of time had experience of 6 years 7 months and 7 days with regard to teaching experience and even after adding the 3 years of experience with regard to the research awarded by the University, the 2nd respondent had total experience of 9 years 7 months and 7 days which is less than 10 years. He submits that the 1st respondent should not have appointed 2nd respondent as a Professor when she did not possess 10 years of teaching experience in post-graduate teaching as prescribed in the notification. He submits that the 1st respondent should not have appointed 2nd respondent as a Professor when she did not possess 10 years of teaching experience in post-graduate teaching as prescribed in the notification. He submits that the teaching experience in a B. Ed, college cannot be equated with the teaching experience in post-graduate teaching, which is clear from the resolution dated 17-5-1997 wherein the Syndicate approved the agenda/resolution dated 19-4-1997, with a modification that the courses mentioned as 'post-graduate courses' require to be read as 'graduate courses', and that when there was some confusion even in the thinking of the University, the experience of teaching in a B. Ed, college should not have been taken into consideration and the 2nd respondent should not have been invited to attend the interview. He submits that even though the 2nd respondent had only 9 years 7 months and 7 days of experience including the experience in B. Ed, course, the learned Single judge erred in not interfering with the recommendation made by the board of Appointment and not quashing the impugned orders merely by observing that since her teaching experience was never doubted by the experts in the Selection Committee, it might not be proper for that court to annul the selection and appointment only on the ground that teaching experience was short by nearly 4 months than the qualification prescribed. He also submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that a similar order passed by another learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. S. P. Padma prasad v Registrar of Gulbarga University, which was affirmed by the supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7297 of 2000, and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in G. N. Nayak v Goa university and Others. S. P. Padma prasad v Registrar of Gulbarga University, which was affirmed by the supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7297 of 2000, and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in G. N. Nayak v Goa university and Others. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri N. B. Bhat, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that having regard to the 2nd respondent's postgraduate teaching experience of 6 years 7 months and 7 days, the weightage of 3 years for the research work was given to the appellant as well as the 2nd respondent and on account of her significant contribution to the knowledge she was recommended by the Board of Appointment, was called for interview and has been appointed, and the learned Single judge has rightly not interfered with the impugned orders, and therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. He submits that the decision in G. N. Nayak's case, supra, is not helpful to the facts of the given case. ( 6 ) SRI V. Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that, considering the fact situation and the case-law the learned single Judge has rightly not interfered with her appointment, more particularly when the University has come to the conclusion that adding the weightage of 3 years, which was granted to all the candidates, was sufficient to make her eligible for being appointed as Professor. Learned counsel submits that no interference with the impugned orders is re quired and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Sarup v State of haryana and Others and Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Others v Abahi kumar and Others. ( 7 ) IN rejoinder, learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the principle laid down in the case cited, but submits that inter se merit of the candidates was considered in those cases and as such they are not helpful. ( 8 ) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record and the case-laws on the point. ( 8 ) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record and the case-laws on the point. ( 9 ) SO far as the law is concerned, it is well-settled that this Court should not ordinarily interfere with the decisions of the academic authorities and the question as to whether a candidate fulfills the requisite qualifications or not, is a matter, which is entirely within the dominion of the academic bodies and the concerned Selection Committees consisting of experts on the subject. It is also well-settled that this Court not being a Court of Appeal cannot re-appreciate the facts nor scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates, as the Court has no such expertise in the field. However, in an appropriate case, where the procedure has not been followed or the selection is tainted with mala fides, the same can be interfered with. ( 10 ) THE only point is whether the experience gained by teaching B. Ed, can be taken into consideration while considering the prescribed minimum qualification of 10 years experience in the post-graduate teaching. The qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of professor is:"the minimum qualification prescribed for the above posts are as perugc norms, viz: professor. An eminent scholar with published work of high quality actively engaged in research with 10 years of experience in post-graduate teaching and/or research at the University/national level Institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level, or an outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge". Admittedly, all the candidates have been given weightage of 3 years for the research work done. On consideration, the University has come to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent was actively engaged in research work, had teaching experience at B. Ed, college and also had experience of 10 years including post-graduate teaching and her appointment on the basis of the recommendation of the Board of Appointment cannot be held to be illegal, as according to the ratio of the Supreme Court, University is the Competent Authority to consider the experience part laid down in the conditions of eligibility. Therefore, after considering all these aspects, once the University found her eligible and suitable for the post, the same cannot be interfered with on the alleged ground. Therefore, after considering all these aspects, once the University found her eligible and suitable for the post, the same cannot be interfered with on the alleged ground. The other argument that at a later stage the University in its meeting held on 17-5-1997 modified the resolution that teaching experience in B. Ed, college should not be taken into consideration is not helpful for the reason the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that there was any prohibition for not considering the experience of teaching at B. Ed, college at that point of time and in the absence of any bias, the selection made on that basis cannot be vitiated. ( 11 ) WE shall now refer to the decisions cited before us. So far as G. N. Nayak's case, supra, is concerned, in that case a fresh advertisement was issued maintaining the essential qualification advertised in the earlier advertisement but with some modification with regard to the additional qualification. A fresh Selection Committee was constituted wherein the respondent 2 participated in it and the Committee recommended the appointment of the appellant. On filing of a writ petition by the 5th respondent therein, the same was allowed by the high Court. The Apex Court after considering the various decisions of that Court held that:"it is noteworthy that it was not respondent 5's case that respondent 2's praise of the appellant was unmerited or that respondent 2 had any extraneous reasons or reason other than the competence of the appellant for selecting the appellant as Professor. We are also not persuaded as the High Court was, to infer bias merely because at the previous selection in September 1995 the appellant was found unsuitable. . . . . . 35. As for the failure to keep any record as to the grading of the candidates under Statute 15, the procedure to be followed by the selection Committee in making recommendations are required to be such as may be laid down in the ordinances. No ordinance was drawn to our notice which prescribes a particular mode of rating the respective merits of the candidates. When appointments are being made to posts as high as that of a Professor, it may not be necessary to give marks as the means of assessment. No ordinance was drawn to our notice which prescribes a particular mode of rating the respective merits of the candidates. When appointments are being made to posts as high as that of a Professor, it may not be necessary to give marks as the means of assessment. But whatever the method of measurement of suitability used by the Selection committee, it was a unanimous decision and the Courts will, in the circumstances obtaining in this case, have to respect that (Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B. S. Mahajan)". In Ram Sarup's case, supra, their Lordship observed where requirement of minimum experience of holding a particular post was not satisfied, the appointment is irregular but the same would automatically be regularised if the candidate acquired the required experience while holding that post, and reversion after completion of that period would therefore be invalid and in the facts of the case on hand, their Lordships held that: "once his appointment became regular on the expiry of this period of five years on his fulfilling the requirements for appointment as Labour cum-Conciliation officer and becoming eligible for that purpose, he could not thereafter be reverted to the post of Statistical Officer. The order of reversion passed against the appellant, was, therefore, clearly illegal and it must be set aside", and allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the Single Judge of High Court and quashed the order of reversion. In the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary, supra, the selection was challenged on the ground of lack of necessary qualification and experience and the High Court referred the matter to the Transport Commissioner. The Apex Court held that the matter was wrongly entrusted to transport Commissioner when the Bihar Public Service Commission, an autonomous and Competent Authority, had been specifically entrusted with the matter concerned. It was also found by the Apex Court that none of the selected candidates, except one, lacking necessary qualification and with regard to extending benefit of the equitable consideration, their Lordships said that they had extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who had worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents did not come in that class. The effect of the conclusion arrived by their Lordships was that appointments made long back following a selection need not be disturbed. The effect of the conclusion arrived by their Lordships was that appointments made long back following a selection need not be disturbed. Their Lordships considering various decisions of that Court allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions. In the instant case the learned Single Judge has found that the appoint ment of the 2nd respondent is neither illegal nor invalid and considering that the appointment made long back not be disturbed, applying the same analogy, so no interference is required. ( 12 ) SO far as the other argument that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 3498 of 1998 is concerned, the same is not helpful as in that case the university had prescribed a minimum of 55% marks as eligibility criteria and persons who had less percentage of the marks than 65% were appointed, whereas in the present case, as stated the University has taken note of the experience and the question of eligibility of the 2nd respondent for being appointed as Professor. As stated, nothing has been placed on record to show that decision arrived at by the University on the basis of the opinion of the Board of Appointment is tainted with mala fides and the case relied on by the appellant's Counsel is not helpful to the facts of the given case. ( 13 ) THE learned Single Judge has considered the respective case-law and by an elaborate order has not interfered and the reasons assigned by him cannot be said to be invalid. ( 14 ) IN view of what we have stated above and on consideration, we find no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge so as to call for any interference. The writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .