S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful petitioners in writ petition Nos. 24672 of 1997 and 32064 of 1997 have filed these writ appeals and they are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 28-8-1998 made in the above two writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the appellants herein questioned the validity and legality of the order of Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural university, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, in appointing the third respondent in each of these writ appeals viz. , dr. P. V. S. Kishore (third respondent in w. A. NO. 1694 of 1998) and Dr. M. Mutha rao (third respondent in Writ Appeal no. 1965 of 1997) to the posts of Assistant professors in the faculties of Veterinary anatomy and Histology and Animal reproduction, Gynaecology and Obstetrics. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned in the writ appeals dismissed the writ petitions. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case be summarized as follows: The 1st respondent- university issued notification on 12-3-1996 calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to various posts, including the posts of Assistant Professors in the faculties of Veterinary Anatomy and histology and Animal Reproduction, gynaecology and Obstetrics prescribing the last date for receipt of applications as 30-4-1996. Subsequently, a modified notification was issued on 6-1-1997 calling for applications for appointment to the same posts notified in the notification dated 12-3-1996 fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 1-2-1997. In the second notification dated 6-1-1997, the 1st respondent-University directed that the applicants who sent in applications for appointment to the posts in pursuance of the earlier notification dated 12-3-1996 need not apply. In the present proceedings, we are concerned with the posts of Assistant professors in the faculties of (i) Veterinary anatomy and Histology, and (ii) Animal reproduction, Gynaecology and Obstetrics. The petitioners/appellants as well as the 3rd respondent in each of these writ appeals applied for the posts of Assistant Professors in pursuance of the above notifications. The 1st respondent-University, after processing the applications and conducting interviews in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules, appointed the third respondent in each of these writ appeals as Assistant Professors in the aforementioned disciplines, and the appellants/petitioners were not selected. The 1st respondent-University, after processing the applications and conducting interviews in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules, appointed the third respondent in each of these writ appeals as Assistant Professors in the aforementioned disciplines, and the appellants/petitioners were not selected. In those circumstances, the appellants filed the above writ petitions assailing the validity of the order of the 1st respondent-University appointing the third respondent in each of these writ appeals mainly on the ground that the selected candidates did not possess the National Eligibility Test Certificate (for short, NET), though the possession of that certificate is a mandatory requirement in terms of the Recruitment Rules. ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent-University, opposing the writ petitions, has filed counter affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it was contended that NET is not an essential qualification and that is only a desirable qualification for appointment to the post of assistant Professor. It was also contended that number of persons were appointed as assistant Professors in various other disciplines in the University, though they did not possess the NET qualification. In the additional counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent-University, it was contended that the prescribed qualifications for appointment to a teaching post in the university are prescribed by the Academic council, which is the competent authority and that it has decided to keep the options open for making eligible the candidates who are not qualified in the NET examination during transition period ; that the 1st respondent-University is guided by the guidelines and instructions issued by the indian Council for Agricultural Research (for short, ICAR) in all academic and technical matters and not by the Rules or regulations framed or administrative instructions issued by the University Grants commission (for short, UGC) and that the ugc guidelines will be binding on the 1st respondent-University only if ICAR approves such guidelines. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent in W. P. No. 32064 of 1997 and W. A. No. 1965 of 1998, has filed counter-affidavit contending that though he did not possess NET qualification as on the date of his appointment to the post, he was fully eligible in terms of the advertisement, because, it was stated in the advertisement that the 1st respondent-University was entitled to make appointments without reference to NET qualification during the transition period ; that he stood at S. No. 1 in the merit list and, therefore, his appointment was strictly in accordance with law and not liable to be interfered with; that UGC has no role to play in the appointment to the posts in question and the UGC Regulations are not applicable and only the ICAR is the competent authority to prescribe the qualifications to the posts. The 3rd respondent in W. A. No. 1694 of 1998, though served with notice, remained unrepresented both in the writ petition and in the writ appeal. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge, on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and examination of the relevant recruitment Rules, came to the conclusion that NET qualification is a pre-requisite qualification for appointment to the posts in question, but that qualification was not to be insisted by the University during the transition period . The learned Single Judge, however, took exception to the indecisiveness and vagueness on the part of the 1st respondent-University in not specifying what is transition period and felt that the 1st respondent-University should have specified what is transition period , so that the candidates who wanted to apply for the post would have known whether NET qualification is essential or it is only a desirable additional qualification. Although the learned Single Judge opined that NET qualification is a pre-requisite for appointment to the posts in question, taking into account the failure of the 1st respondent-University in not specifying what is the transition period , thought it just and appropriate not to interfere with the selection and appointment of the third respondent in each of the writ appeals to the posts of Assistant Professors. In that view of the matter the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these writ appeals by the aggrieved writ petitioners. In that view of the matter the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these writ appeals by the aggrieved writ petitioners. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri H. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the appellants, sri B. Siva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-University and smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 in W. A. No. 1965 of 1998. Sri H. Srinivasa Rao contended that admittedly the selected candidates did not possess NET qualification, which is a mandatory qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor and, therefore, the appointment of the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals, to the posts of assistant Professors, is ex facie illegal and in utter infraction of the Recruitment Rules. Sri Srinivasa Rao also contended that the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for recruitment to the posts of Assistant professors bind the 1st respondent- university and, in fact, the UGC regulations governing Recruitment to the posts of assistant Professors are also approved by the ICAR, and since the appointments are made in violation of those recruitment rules, they are liable to be interfered with by this court to enforce the rule of law. The learned counsel also contended that the plea of the university based on transition period is totally misconceived and the 1st respondent-University, as a matter of fact, should have insisted for NET certificate after 1-7-1996 from the applicants for the post. ( 7 ) SRI B. Siva Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the pass in NET is not a mandatory qualification, but it is only an additional desired qualification; the University is not bound by the Regulations framed by the ugc and on the other hand, they are guided and bound by the guidelines and instructions issued by ICAR from time to time; since appointments were made during the transition period , it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent in each of these writ appeals were not qualified to be appointed to the posts of Assistant Professors, and that their appointments were made strictly in accordance with law and the relevant recruitment Rules. Alternatively, the learned Standing Counsel contended that even assuming that the Regulations framed by the UGC are applicable to the posts of assistant Professor, which post is equivalent to the post of Lecturer, even then, those regulations are not applicable, because, the post of Assistant Professor in the faculty of veterinary Anatomy and Histology and animal Reproduction and Gynaecology and obstetrics cannot be regarded as a post equivalent to the post of Lecturer in Arts, or sciences, or Social Science, or Commerce, or education, or Physical Education, or Foreign languages or Law in terms of the UGC regulations. It was alternatively, but meekly contended by Sri B. Siva Reddy, that even assuming that the appointments of the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals are irregular and illegal and in violation of the ugc Regulations, even then, their appointments are not liable to be set aside, and the only course open to the UGC is to withhold the grants to be made out of its funds to the University. The learned standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and others in support of this alternative contention. The learned standing Counsel lastly contended that the courts will be very slow in interfering with the decisions taken by the Universities in academic matters including appointment of the academic staff and that the Court can interfere only where the Court finds weighty and substantive ground to do so and not otherwise. ( 8 ) SMT. The learned standing Counsel lastly contended that the courts will be very slow in interfering with the decisions taken by the Universities in academic matters including appointment of the academic staff and that the Court can interfere only where the Court finds weighty and substantive ground to do so and not otherwise. ( 8 ) SMT. A. Chayadevi, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent in w. A. No. 1965 of 1998, while adopting the arguments of Sri B. Siva Reddy, contended that the appellants/writ petitioners with their eyes wide open did not challenge the validity of the notifications dated 12-3-1996 and 6-1-1997 at the earliest point of time though it was specifically stated in the notifications that the University reserves power to make appointments without reference to NET qualification during transition period , and on the other hand, they actively participated in the selection process and only after the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals were selected and appointed to the posts of Assistant professors having due regard to their superior relative merit, they came forward to question their appointments by filing the writ petitions and, therefore, on that ground itself, the writ petitions filed by them are liable to be dismissed. Smt. A. Chaya Devi also contended that the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals, since their appointments from 13-10-1997, have been continuously serving in the posts and, if for any reason, their appointments are quashed, they will be put to unbearable hardship and that they will not be in a position to seek appointments elsewhere also because they are age-barred. Smt. A. Chaya Devi brought to our notice that her client had lost his lien in the post which he held before he was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor and if his appointment is now set at naught, he would be neither here nor there. Smt. A. Chaya Devi, on the other hand, submitted that after the appointments of the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals, even the writ petitioners were also appointed to the posts of Assistant professors in subsequent recruitments and that is also a strong circumstance which should persuade this Court not to interfere with the appointments of the 3rd respondent in each of these writ appeals. ( 9 ) THE following are the prescribed qualifications for the post of Assistant professors as could be seen from the notifications dated 12-3-1996 and 6-1-1997 calling for applications for appointment to various posts:" (1) A Bachelor s Degree in Veterinary science; (2) A Master s degree in the subject (discipline) concerned with atleast 55% marks or its equivalent grade; (3) A pass in S. S. C. with Telugu as one of the subjects; with the following conditions: persons eligible for appointment to the post of Asst. Professor or its equivalent should also have qualified themselves in National Eligibility Test to be specifically conducted for the purpose. However, it shall be open to the university to make appointments to the posts without reference to the comprehensive Test (National eligibility Test) during the transition period. "there is no controversy that both the appellants, by the time the third respondent in each of the writ appeals were selected and appointed to the posts in question, had acquired NET qualification whereas the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals admittedly did not posses the NET qualification. The above qualifications prescribed by the University in the notifications dated 12-3-1996 and 6-1-1997 issued by it are the same as prescribed by the Regulations framed by the UGC for recruitment to the post of Assistant professors. ( 10 ) THE UGC has been established under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short, the UGC Act), which was enacted by Parliament to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities. One of the functions entrusted to the UGC is to recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of the University education and advise the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation. The ugc has been empowered to make regulations consistent with the UGC Act and the Rules framed thereunder defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction. The ugc has been empowered to make regulations consistent with the UGC Act and the Rules framed thereunder defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction. The UGC, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 read with Section 14 of the UGC Act and in supersession of the Regulations issued under UGC letter No. F. l/93/74 (CP) Part V dated 13-6-1983 and Notification No. 1-93/74 (CP) dated 19-2-1985 and 26-11-1985, framed University Grants Commission (Qualifications Required of a Person to be appointed to the Teaching Staff of a university and Institutions Affiliated to it) regulations 1991 (for short; UGC regulations), Wherein qualifications were prescribed for appointment to various posts in the University or in any of the institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under clause (f) of Section 2 of the UGC Act or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said act. Clause (ii) of Regulation 1 of UGC regulations states that the Regulations shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, provincial Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the commission in consultation with the university concerned under clause (f) of section 2 of the UGC Act and every institution deemed to be a University under section 3 of the UGC Act. The 1st respondent-University is a University established under the State Act, Acharya n. G. Ranga Agricultural University Act, 1993. The UGC Act is a Central Legislation and it applies to every University established under Central or Provincial or state Act. There is nothing in the UGC Act to show that the Agricultural Universities are excluded from the purview of the UGC act. On the other hand, the words every university occurring in clause (ii) of regulation 1 of the UGC Regulations clearly indicate that the said Regulations are applicable to the 1st respondent-University also. There is nothing in the UGC Act to show that the Agricultural Universities are excluded from the purview of the UGC act. On the other hand, the words every university occurring in clause (ii) of regulation 1 of the UGC Regulations clearly indicate that the said Regulations are applicable to the 1st respondent-University also. Under the heading qualifications, the Regulations mandate that no person shall be appointed to a teaching post in University or in any of the institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognized under clause (f) of Section 2 of the UGC Act or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subject as provided in Schedule I. In other words, unless a candidate for a particular post in the University possesses the required qualifications as set out in Schedule I, he cannot be appointed to the post. Para 3 (A) (a) of Schedule I deals with the prescribed qualifications for the post of Lecturer, which post is said to be equivalent to the post of assistant Professor in the 1st respondent- university. Para 3 (A) (a) of Schedule I reads as follows: (3) A. LECTURER (a) Arts. Science, Social Sciences, commerce, Education, Physical education, Foreign Languages and law. Good academic record with atleast 55% marks or an equivalent grade at master s degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign university. Candidates besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. " ( 11 ) THE qualifications prescribed in the notifications issued by the 1st respondent on 12-3-1996 and 6-1-1997 do tally with the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Lecturer in Arts, Science, Social sciences, Commerce, Education, Physical education, Foreign Languages and Law. As prescribed in Schedule-I, NET qualification is also prescribed in the notifications issued by the University. As prescribed in Schedule-I, NET qualification is also prescribed in the notifications issued by the University. At this stage itself, we may dispose of the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-University that the qualifications prescribed under Para 3 (A) (a) of Schedule I of the UGC Regulations are applicable to the post of Lecturer or assistant Professor only in the disciplines specified in Clause (a) and not the discipline of Agricultural Science. In other words, according to the learned Standing Counsel, agricultural Science cannot be regarded as science within the meaning of that term in clause (a) of Para 3 (A) of the UGC regulations. This contention is required to be noticed only to be rejected. Undoubtedly, agricultural Science is a species of the genus science and, therefore, Agricultural science has to be considered as a species of genus science . Genus science in clause (a) of Para 3 (A) of the UGC regulations includes all species of Science including Agricultural Science. It does not stand to reason why Agricultural Science, though undoubtedly a species of Science, should be excluded from the expression science . ( 12 ) THE records placed before the Court would make it clear that the 1st respondent- university was aware that the candidates to be appointed to the post of Assistant professors after 1-7-1996 should possess net qualification. It needs to be emphasized that ICAR in its letter dated 28-9-1996 made it very clear to all the universities by stating that in the meeting of the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities held on 1-3-1996 and 2-3-1996, it was resolved that all appointments to the post of Assistant professor, after 1-7-1996, should be made out of the candidates qualified in the NET examination. In fact, the University itself, in para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed in w. P. NO. 24672 of 1997, stated thus"ever since the introduction of NET examination for agricultural scientists by ICAR, this University has been in correspondence with other agricultural Universities in the country, as to know whether a pass in the NET examination has been made compulsory. Accordingly, the information from some of the other state Agricultural Universities has been received. 24672 of 1997, stated thus"ever since the introduction of NET examination for agricultural scientists by ICAR, this University has been in correspondence with other agricultural Universities in the country, as to know whether a pass in the NET examination has been made compulsory. Accordingly, the information from some of the other state Agricultural Universities has been received. Out of the 4 Universities, who have responded it is observed that two of them (viz) Rajendra Agricultural university Bihar and Punjab agricultural University, Ludhiana have indicated that a pass in the NET examination has not yet been made compulsory. But the Punjab agricultural University has communicated that the matter is under consideration . The ICAR in its letter dated 29-8-1996 (copy enclosed) has indicated that the Vice Chancellors conference held on 1st and 2nd March 1996 has decided that all appointments at the level of Assistant Professors after 1st July, 1996, would be made out of the candidates qualified in NET examination. In the same letter, the council invited suggestions from the universities for consideration of the committee appointed by them for this purpose. It is evident from the foregoing orders, making the pass in the NET examination mandatory , have yet to be communicated by the icar to the Agricultural Universities. "even assuming that the 1st respondent- university is not bound by the UGC regulations, but only by the guidelines and instructions issued by the ICAR, even then, in terms of the guidelines issued in the letter of ICAR dated 29-8-1996, the 1st respondent- university ought not to have appointed the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals, who admittedly did not acquire or possess net qualification on the dates of the employment Notifications issued by the university or on the last dates of receiving the applications in pursuance of the notifications or on the dates of interview or on the date of their appointments. Even if the impugned action is tested in terms of the admitted position that the 1st respondent- university is bound by the guidelines issued by ICAR only and eschewing the UGC regulations, even then, the appointments of the third respondent in each of the writ appeals in the concerned disciplines are ex facie irregular and illegal. Where the ICAR directed the 1st respondent to make appointments to the post of Asst. Where the ICAR directed the 1st respondent to make appointments to the post of Asst. Professor out of the candidates qualified in the NET examination only, which direction according to the University binds it, it was not at all open for the University to consider the applications of the candidates who did not possess that qualification, much less appoint such candidates to the posts. Sri B. Siva Reddy, however, made a feeble attempt by contending that the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals were appointed to the posts of Assistant professors in pursuance of the notifications dated 12-3-1996, whereas the above direction issued by the ICAR would apply to the appointments to be made after 1-7-1997 only and, therefore, it cannot be said that their appointments are irregular and illegal and in breach of the guidelines issued by the icar. This is totally misconceived contention. It is admitted fact that both the 3rd respondents in these writ appeals were appointed to the posts of Asst. Professors on 13-10-1997, long after the cut-off date 1-7-1997. ( 13 ) WE also do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-University that even in the event of the Court holding that the appointments of the 3rd respondent in each of these writ appeals are irregular and illegal, even then, the appointments cannot be interfered with in view of Clause (B) of ugc Regulations and the only course open to the UGC is to withhold the grant to the university. That power of the UGC to withhold the grant to the University where it finds violation of the Regulations and instructions issued by it by the concerned universities, is an independent power vested in the UGC and the legality or validity of exercise of such power by the ugc is not the subject matter of judicial review in these writ petitions/appeals. The subject matter of judicial review in these writ petitions/appeals is whether the appointments of the 3rd respondent in these writ appeals are legal and valid, and if the court finds that their appointments are irregular and illegal, the Court has to step in and interfere with the appointments in order to enforce public law requirements in order to maintain purity and legality in the domain of public employment and to uphold the rule of law enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution. In the instant case, the appointments of the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals is invalid not only for violation of UGC Regulations as approved by the ICAR but also for violation of guidelines issued by ICAR. Therefore, the argument based on the Judgment of the supreme Court in Raj Singh s case (supra) that even if the appointment is illegal, this court cannot interfere with the appointment, is totally misconceived and is grounded on the assumption that the power of this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution is on par with the power of the ugc under the UGC Act in case of appointments made in breach of the recruitment Rules or Regulations. It is not so. It is not only the power but also the duty of this Court flowing from Art. 14 read with articles 16 and 226 of the Constitution to see that appointments made to public service are in accordance with law and not in breach of law. Wherever the Court finds that the appointment to the public service is tainted by substantive illegality and/or unconstitutionality, it becomes the duty of the Court to step in and nullify such appointments. ( 14 ) THIS takes us to the other contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that in academic matters, the decision of the university cannot lightly be interfered with by the Courts. There cannot be any second opinion about this proposition. At the same time, it needs to be emphasized that since the guarantee of equal protection enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution embraces the entire realm of state action , it would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of his rights or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges, such as giving jobs or granting privileges or granting licences for entering into any business or inviting tenders for entering into a contract relating to Government business or issuing quotas etc. , It is trite that the 1st respondent-University, being a state within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, is bound by the postulates of Art. 14 of the constitution and its action can be tested and has to be tested on the touch-stone of Art. 14 postulates. , It is trite that the 1st respondent-University, being a state within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, is bound by the postulates of Art. 14 of the constitution and its action can be tested and has to be tested on the touch-stone of Art. 14 postulates. The University will not be justified in telling the Court not to interfere with the decision of the University even where it is demonstrated that the decision of the University is in blatant violation of the constitutional mandates and limitations and/or statutory provisions. The universities are also bound by the rule of law and they cannot be a law unto themselves. The self-imposed judicial restraint by the Constitutional Courts in reviewing the actions of the Universities, particularly in academic matters, does not mean that the Universities have licence to trample upon the constitutional and legal rights of the people and invade the constitutional limitations as despots. In dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B. S. Mahajan, the apex Court in para 9 held:". . . . IT is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction. " ( 15 ) IT is true, as contended by Sri B. Siva reddy, that it is not the function of the Court to sit in judgment over the decisions of the selection Committees as an appellate authority and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. It is because, the selection committees consist of experts in the field whereas the Courts are not experts. In that view of the matter, the questions such as whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court, in fact, has no such expertise and it cannot afford to assume such expertise also. But, undoubtedly, even the selection made by the expert selection committee can be interfered with by the Courts and the tribunals if the Courts or the Tribunals find that the selection and appointment of a candidate is in infraction of mandatory statutory provisions or on other permissible grounds of illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the selection Committee, or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is because, We, the People of India are governed by the constitution of India and Rule of Law which is held to be a basic feature of the Indian constitution and not by the opinions of the experts. It is not to suggest that the Courts should ignore the opinions of the experts in the decision-making. Undoubtedly, experts opinions are given due weightage by the courts so long as such opinions are tendered within the frame-work of the law and without violating the law. In other words, if the experts opinion is found to be in breach of the law, statute or otherwise, the courts have not only the power but also bound by duty to step in and correct the illegal act grounded on the so-called experts opinion. In other words, if the experts opinion is found to be in breach of the law, statute or otherwise, the courts have not only the power but also bound by duty to step in and correct the illegal act grounded on the so-called experts opinion. The other aspect which needs to be emphasized is that when the law maker in its wisdom prescribes a particular qualification for particular post, educational qualification-wise, skill-wise or experience- wise, the recruiting agency should resort to the recruitment strictly in accordance with those prescriptions and it cannot amend or modify those prescriptions to select a candidate who is otherwise disqualified for being considered and appointment to a post on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the experts constituting committee of the perceived superior quality or qualities in such candidate. If such a discretion is permitted to the experts constituting the selection Committee, then, the whole law of recruitment would be in disarray and total confusion and essential qualifications prescribed under the rules will be rendered as optionals. Such an interpretation can never be placed on rules, whether statutory or administrative, governing recruitment. ( 16 ) BEFORE concluding, the submission made by Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent in w. A. No. 1965 of 1998 not to interfere with the appointment of the 3rd respondent in the writ appeals on humanitarian and compassionate grounds needs to be noticed. Suffice it to state that the Courts would not be justified in perpetuating the apparent illegality in the field of public employment. The strength and efficacy of public service, to a great measure, depends upon the sustenance of the confidence of the people that appointments are made to public service by the public recruiting agencies strictly in accordance with law and not in violation of the relevant recruitment rules, and not on despotic self-perceived, benevolent, humanitarian and compassionate grounds or considerations. The appointments of the 3rd respondent in each of these writ appeals, even if we go by the admitted case of the University that it is bound by the guidelines and instructions issued by the ICAR only, cannot be sustained being violative of the directive issued by the ICAR in its letter dated 29-8-1996. The Supreme Court in State of tamil Nadu and others v. St. The Supreme Court in State of tamil Nadu and others v. St. Joseph Teachers training Institute and another, held that the court cannot be a party to direct anybody to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Supreme court also held that the Court cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian or compassionate grounds contrary to law. If the appointments of the 3rd respondent in each of the writ appeals are sustained, undoubtedly, it would offend the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under art. 16 (1) read with Art. 14 of the constitution. Constitutional Courts are there to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens as sentinels and not to perpetuate or abet violation thereof If the request of the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent is acceded to, it would tantamount to the court placing misplaced sympathy on wrong persons and further condemning the wronged persons. ( 17 ) IN conclusion, we hold that the appointments of the 3rd respondent in each of these writ appeals are irregular and illegal and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we allow these writ appeals, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in the writ appeals and allow Writ Petition nos. 24672 of 1997 and 32064 of 1997 and quash the impugned notification insofar as the third respondent in each of these appeals are concerned. Since it is said that the writ petitioners were subsequently appointed to the post of Assistant Professors in the concerned disciplines, issuing direction to the 1st respondent-University to consider their case for appointment to the posts would not arise. No costs.