JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.7.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition has been partly allowed and the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 to the writ petition i.e. appellant herein namely Dr. B.K. Sharma, on the post of Reader in mathematics in M.D.S. University, Ajmer has been cancelled and set aside and the writ petition has been allowed only on the ground of bias. 2. The respondent No.2 herein was the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge. On 11.7.1990, he filed the petition with the allegation that he had been appointed Lecturer in Mathematics in the year 1966, the selection scale was given to him w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and at the time of filing of the petition, he was working in the Government College, Ajmer. The University of Ajmer issued an advertisement in the Rajasthan Patrika (a widely circulated daily Newspaper of Rajasthan) dated 24.2.1989 inviting applications for two posts of Readers in the Department of Mathematics. The petitioner had applied for this post of Associate Professor (Reader). The respondent No.3 to the petition i.e. the appellant before us had also applied for the said post of Associate Professor (Reader) in mathematics and one Dr. B.S. Bhatt was also a candidate for these posts alongwith other candidates. The selections were held in the month of February, 1990. In these selections the appellant namely Dr. B.K. Sharma and the respondent No. 3 Dr. B.S. Bhatt were selected. On the basis of these selections, the appointment was given to them on 24.2.1990. Dr. Bhatt did not join at all whereas the appellant joined on 28.2.1990. 3. Aggrieved from his non-selection and the selection of the present appellant the original petitioner Dr. D.C. Gokhru preferred a 'representation dated 8.5.1990 to the Chancellor of University and thereafter filed this petition on 11 July, 1990 seeking to challenge the selections and made the following prayers: (i) To call for the relevant record of the selection and appointment on the posts of Associate Professor (Reader) in the pursuance of advertisement (Annexure-1), (ii) To quash and set aside the selection and appointment of non- petitioner No.2 and 3 on the post of Associate Professor (Reader) in University of Ajmer. (iii) To direct the non-petitioner No.3 to quit the office of Associate professor(Reader) in the University of Ajmer and further permanently restrain non-petitioner No.2 from joining on the post of Reader in University of Ajmer. (iv) To hold that the petitioner is more suitable and competent for selection to the post of Associate Professor (Reader) in University of Ajmer and to further direct that he should be selected and appointed on one of the posts. (v) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be found just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (vi) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner. 4. On 18.7.1990, the petition was admitted and in response to the notice issued by the Court, the reply dated 27.8.1990 was filed in this Court on 30.8.1990 by the University of Ajmer. The respondent no. 3 i.e. Dr. B.S. Bhatt in the writ petition had not filed any reply as he did not avail the appointment on the basis of selections but the present appellant filed the separate reply dated 15.8.1990 on 6.9.1990. 5. The selection and appointment of the appellant herein was challenged by the original petitioner Dr. D.C. Gokhru on more than one grounds but all other grounds failed except that one Shri T.P. Joshi who was the member of the Selection Committee was interested in the present appellant and therefore section did suffer from bias. 6. So far as the pleadings of the parties are concerned, in pars II of the writ petition, it was averred by the petitioner that Shri T.P. Joshi was sitting as a member in Selection Committee who was personally interested in Dr. B.K. Sharma being his brother-in-law. Therefore, the selection made by the Selection Committee consisting of Dr. T.P. Joshi was against the principle of fair play and suffers from bias The reply of the University in para 11 stating therein was that there is nothing on record to show that Shri T.P. Joshi was close relative and personally interested in Dr. B.K. Sharma being his brother-in- law. The University has also pleaded that no material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation made by him. A copy of letter dated 22.8.1990 received from T.P. Joshi an I.A.S. Officer and a post- graduate in Hindi. B.K. Sharma being his brother-in- law. The University has also pleaded that no material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation made by him. A copy of letter dated 22.8.1990 received from T.P. Joshi an I.A.S. Officer and a post- graduate in Hindi. In a subject like Mathematics, unless a man knows the, specialised intricacies of the subject, he cannot have any major role to play. The subject experts consisted of Dr. H.P. Dixit, Vice-Chancellor, Jabalpur University and Director, Advanced center of Mathematics and Dr. J.B. Shukla, Winner of S.S Bhatnagar Award. It was further stated that the inference drawn by the petitioner that non- petitioner No. 3 Dr. B.K. Sharma would not have been selected but for the presence of Dr. T.P. Joshi who was his close relation in the Selection Committee is absolutely incorrect because Dr. T.P. Joshi was not the brother-in-law of Dr. B.K. Sharma. The selection was made on the unanimous recommendation of the Selection Committee consisting of two eminent experts of Mathematics. 7. The present appellant submitted the reply. In para 10 thereof replying the contents of Para 11 of the writ petition that the allegations of close relationship between him and Shri T.P. Joshi and that Shri T.P. Joshi had taken personal interest in the matter of his selection were denied and it was stated that Shri T.P. Joshi is neither gainer nor a looser brother-in-law. He had no exchange of visits or any reciprocal subsisting visiting terms with Dr. T.P. Joshi. A copy of the affidavit was filed as Annexure-R/3/1 attested by the Notary Public. His late father Sh. Nawal Kishore ji had two daughters and none of them was married to Dr. T.P. Joshi and no sister of Dr. T.P. Joshi was married to him. He had no exchange of visits or any reciprocal subsisting terms with Dr. T.P. Joshi. 8. A rejoinder dated 31.10.1990 was filed and in this rejoinder, it was stated that he had ascertained and found that wife of Dr. T.P. Joshi and wife of Dr. B.K. Sharma are first cousins being daughters of Shri Sampatlalji Vyas and Shri Bhuralal Ji Vyas respectively who were real brothers. T.P. Joshi. 8. A rejoinder dated 31.10.1990 was filed and in this rejoinder, it was stated that he had ascertained and found that wife of Dr. T.P. Joshi and wife of Dr. B.K. Sharma are first cousins being daughters of Shri Sampatlalji Vyas and Shri Bhuralal Ji Vyas respectively who were real brothers. It is also stated in the later part of para 4 that under Section 7 of the Act of 1974 all the Universities in State invariably obtain certificates from all the members of Selection Committee about their personal interest or relationship in any of the candidate appearing in the interview. But in this case, the University did not obtain any such certificate from the Members of the Selection Committee. It is also stated that the relationship of Shri T.P. Joshi and B.K. Sharma is widely known as would be clear from the news paper report appearing in 'Nav Bharat Times' dated 15.5.1990. A copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-8 with the rejoinder. This newspaper report appeared in 'Nav Bharat Times' issued on 15.5.1990 against the Selection Committee of Readers and Professors. The newspaper report has been made by one Shri Anil Lodha. The University had also filed a reply to the rejoinder on 16.11.1990. 9. While Mr. Paras Kuhad has as S.A.I.L. ed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it has also been as S.A.I.L. ed by the University, Mr. N.K. Maloo on behalf of the respondent No.2, i.e. Dr. D.C. Gokhru has tried to defend the judgment and has argued that it was certainly a case of bias and even if it is taken that Dr. B.K. Sharma was not a close relative of Shri T.P. Joshi, at least it is established that the wife of Shri T.P. Joshi and the wife of Dr. B.K. Sharma were cousins Mr. Paras Kuhad has submitted that the wife of Shri T.P. Joshi had expired long back and there was no blood relationship and in the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the selections suffered from any bias so as to vitiate the selection proceedings. He has cited before us the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 651 para 104 , the case of J aswant Singh Nirmal v. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp. He has cited before us the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in 1994 (6) SCC 651 para 104 , the case of J aswant Singh Nirmal v. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 313: [1991(2) SLR 124 (SC)] para 6,7 at page 314 and 1997 (2) RLW 1348 R.P.S.C. v. R.C. Pilwal . He also submitted that it is the close ties of kinship with the decision-maker and not every relationship which vitates the order. He submitted that in the case of Tata Cellular son of one of the members of Tender evaluation committee was an official of the tenderer company which was selected and yet, the Supreme Court has held that the decision is not vitiated on the ground of bias. 10. He also submitted that the present appellant was also working in the Government College as Associate Professor, he gave up this job and joined the appointment in question. The appointment was given on the basis of the selections in the month of February 1990, the original petitioner dr. D.C. Gokhru had not raised any objection at the time of selection and he having taken the chance before the Selection Committee was estopped to raise this plea against the appellants selection. It was also submitted that for the first time he had represented in the month of May, 1990 and by that time the appellant had already joined the appointment in question in February 1990 after giving up the appointment which he was already holding. 11. The petition should also have been dismissed on the ground of delay. He has further submitted that it is not only a case of delay but a case of laches inasmuch as the position of the parties has altered irretrievably. 12. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also noticed that after the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 1.7.1996. M.D.S. College, Ajmer passed an order on 9.7.1996 cancelling the appellant's appointment order dated 24.2.1990 with immediate effect. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also noticed that after the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 1.7.1996. M.D.S. College, Ajmer passed an order on 9.7.1996 cancelling the appellant's appointment order dated 24.2.1990 with immediate effect. This appeal was filed on 9.7.1996 and the Division Bench passed an interim order on 30.8.1996 whereby the stay of the operation of the order passed by learned Single Judge, was declined on the ground of balance of convenience and direction was given that even if selection is made for the post of Reader in Mathematics no appointment shall be given till the decision of this appeal. 13. Learned counsel has 'submitted that though the post of Reader had been advertised, no selections were made. 14. We find that it is a fact that Shri T.P. Joshi was a member of the Selection Committee as a Government nominee coming from a different discipline and was not at all in a position to outweigh the opinions of the experts body. Statutes are framed under Section 21 of the University of Ajmer Act, Statute 10(2) provides as under: "10(2). A selection committee shall consist of the following members, namely:- (a) Vice-Chancellor: ex officio Chairman ; (b) One expert from outside the University to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor; (c) The Dean of the factulty concerned; (d) A nominee of the Chancellor; (e) A nominee of the Board; (f) A nominee of the Government; and (g) One internal member other than the Chairman of the Board of Studies to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor every year. 15. In the facts of this case even if it is taken that Shri T.P. Joshi had relationship with the present appellant as the wives of both these persons were cousins, in the opinion of this Court, looking to the constitution of the committee and the fact and circumstances of this case , it can't be said that Shri T.P. Joshi was in a position to influence the other six members of the selection committee as above. He was only one of the seven members and such relationship even if admitted cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that there was any such likelihood of bias in favour of the appellant so as to vitiate the selection. The wife of Shri T.P. Joshi had died long back and several years before the selection and the present appellant had stated that he was not even on visiting terms Shri T.P. Joshi. The ground on which the selection has been set aside by the learned Single Judge is too fartetched remote vagour and bold. For the above reasons, in absence of the real likelihood of the bias merely because it has been taken as a ground or pretexts to challenge the selection by an unsuccessful candidate, selection could not be set aside. The selection committee was only a recommendatory body and it is not the ultimate decision taking body and it can also be very easily noted that Shri T.P. Joshi could hardly matter in these selections when there were experts and persons of-eminence and much higher status than him. 16. We may also observe that the filing of the petition as late as in the month of August, 1990 by the original petitioner is certainly not a simple case of delay in the facts of the present case. It is a case of laches because by that time the present appellant had already given up his appointment which he was holding and by availing this assignment on the basis of impugned selections, he had alterated his position irretrievably. The delay of number of years may not be fatal in a given case but in the facts of this case, the original petitioner did not raise any objection against the Selection Committee; appeared before it in the interviews and after being unsuccessful before the Selection Committee, he has challenged the selections by saying that he was not knowing that Shri T.P. Joshi was related to Shri B.K. Sharma at the time when he appeared before the Selection Committee, but the fact remains that by the time he challenged These selections the appointment had already been given to the present appellant and he had also availed the same by giving up the earlier regular job held by him. The appellant lost his appointment in the DAV College in the year 1990 when he joined this assignment and this appointment was cancelled on 9.7.1996 after the Single Bench's order dated 1.7.1996. In absence of any legal infirmity in the order challenged by the original petitioner in the facts of this case he was estopped by the principle of equitable estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act from challenging the appointment which had been given in 1990. 17. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the consequential order passed by the University on 9.7.1996 cancelling the appellants appointment dated 24.2.1990 on the basis of the order dated 1.7.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge is also set aside. 18. It was given out before us that the Date of Birth of the appellant is 19.3.1942 and on that basis he has already attained the age of superannuation yesterday. Mr. Bharat Vyas submitted that even if the University has opposed the appeal and also stands by the pleadings filed before the learned Single Judge but now even if this appeal is allowed and the order dated 9.7.1966 as had been passed by the University in pursuance of this Court's Order dated 1.7.1996 is set aside, no reliefs be given to the appellant as the University is not at fault. This submission of Mr. Vyas has been stated only to be rejected. The appellant was not at. fault and he cannot be made to suffer for somebody else's fault. 19. We have.considered the submissions seriously and find that this submission deserves to be out rightly rejected. Merely because the appeal which was directed to be heard by the Division Bench itself on 30.8.1996 could not be heard and decided for reasons more than one and the appeal has remained pending, we cannot deny the accrued reliefs to which the appellant is once found to be duly entitled. 20. Merely because the appeal which was directed to be heard by the Division Bench itself on 30.8.1996 could not be heard and decided for reasons more than one and the appeal has remained pending, we cannot deny the accrued reliefs to which the appellant is once found to be duly entitled. 20. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.7.1996 as well as the other order dated 9.7.1996 which has been passed by the University in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge and whereas the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation yesterday i.e. 18.3.2002, we can simply regret for it and direct that the appellant shall be treated to be continuing in service in the University as Associate Professor (Reader) in Mathematics as if the order dated 1.7.1996 had never been passed by the learned Single Judge and as if the consequential order dated 9.7.1996 had not been passed against him. The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the retiral benefits as if he had continued in service throughout till the date of superannuation. Parties may bear their own costs. 21. The writ petition is hereby dismissed and the appeal is hereby allowed.Appeal allowed. *******