ORDER Raveendran, C.J. -- 1. The appellant was working as Principal of . Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Bilaspur, since 1984. The first respondent Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh, District-Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred to as the 'University'), invited applications for the post of Registrar by advertisement dated 20.1.1994. The appellant was one of the applicants for the said post. The Selection Committee interviewed the candidates on 8.7.1994 and submitted a panel of three names - Dr. V.K. Chakravarty (the petitioner). Dr. Sabhapati Singh (third respondent) and one Dr. P.P. Joshi, to the Karyakarini Samiti (Executive Council) of the University. The Executive Council considered the recommendations of the Selection Committee and by resolution dated 17.7.1994, appointed the third respondent (second name in the panel) as Registrar. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No. 3031/1994 seeking for the following reliefs : (i) for quashing the resolution dated 17.7.1994 of the Executive Council of the University appointing the third respondent as Registrar; (ii) for a direction to the University to appoint him as the Registrar from the date on which the third respondent was appointed as Registrar; and (iii) for consequential benefits. 3. The appellant contended that as the Selection Committee constituted under Statute 14 had considered the comparative merit of the candidates and prepared a panel of three names, it should be inferred that the panel of names was prepared in the order of merit and therefore the appellant, as the first in the list, ought to have been preferred and appointed as Registrar. Alternatively, the appellant contended that failure to appoint him, by accepting the panel in the order of merit prepared by the Selection Committee, amounted to refusal to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and, consequently, the Executive Council ought to have recorded its reasons therefor and submitted the matter to the Kulapati for final orders as required by clause(iv) of Statute 14, instead of appointing the second named person in the panel of names as the Registrar. 4. On the other hand, the University contended that the Selection Committee was not required to prepare a panel of names in the order of merit, nor was the University bound to appoint first named person in the panel. 4. On the other hand, the University contended that the Selection Committee was not required to prepare a panel of names in the order of merit, nor was the University bound to appoint first named person in the panel. It was also contended that the Executive Council found certain misrepresentation of facts in the application for appointment submitted by the appellant and, therefore, did not consider him a fit person to be appointed to the crucial post of Registrar. In regard to the contention based on Clause (iv) of Statute 14, the University contended that the question of referring the case to Kulapati for final decision did not arise, as the Executive Council accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee by selecting the second . person in the panel, as the Registrar. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the University removed the third respondent and re-advertised the post of Registrar. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 23.2.1998. The learned Single Judge held that as per the statute, the Selection Committee was not required to submit the panel of names, in the order of merit. He further held that in the absence of a specific denial by the University, in regard to the allegation that the panel was prepared as per merit, it should be assumed that the panel of three names submitted by the Selection Committee was in the order of merit. He, however, held that the Executive Council was not a mere rubber stamp and, therefore, even if the panel of names recommended by the Selection Committee was arranged in the order of merit, it was not bound to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee by appointing the first name in the panel; and that the Selection Committee was only a recommending body and the Executive Council had the discretion to appoint any person from out of the panel submitted by the Selection Committee. The learned Single Judge also held that when the Executive Council appointed anyone from among the names in the panel recommended by the Selection Committee, it could not be said that the Executive Council did not accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Consequently, he held that there was no need to refer the matter to the Kulapati. 6. The learned Single Judge also held that when the Executive Council appointed anyone from among the names in the panel recommended by the Selection Committee, it could not be said that the Executive Council did not accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Consequently, he held that there was no need to refer the matter to the Kulapati. 6. The order dated 23.2.1998 of the learned Single Judge is challenged by the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that having regard to the termination of service of third respondent during the pendency of the writ petition, the challenge to his appointment became infructuous. He also conceded that as more than 10 years have elapsed, there is no question of appellant being appointed as Registrar at this stage. He, however, submitted that as the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the wrong premises that the Executive Council could appoint anyone of the three persons in the panel as Registrar, instead of appointing first in the panel, the appellant would press for a decision on merits as the decision of the learned Single Judge may adversely affect him or other candidates seeking appointment, in future. 7. Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is the relevant statute. Section 18 thereof provides that the Kula Sachiva (Registrar) shall be a whole-time officer and shall act as the Secretary of the Vishwavidyalaya Sabha, of the Karyakarini Sarniti of the Shikshan Samiti and Vitta Samiti. Section 23 provides that Karyakarini Samiti shall be the executive body of the University. Sub-section (2)(m) of section 23 authorises the Karyakarini Sarniti to appoint the officers, teachers and other servants of the University (save as otherwise provided for by the Act or the Statutes). Section 31 of the Act provides that the Statutes (made by the Vishwavidyalaya Sabha) may provide for the appointment, powers and duties of the officers of the Vishwavidyalaya. Statute 14 framed by the Vishwavidyalaya Sabha related to constitution of a Selection Committee for recommending the appointment of the Registrar Professors, Readers and Lecturers. Relevant portion of the said Statute 14 is extracted below : "SELECTION COMMITTEE 14. The Selection Committee for any appointment specified In column of the table hereto annexed shall consist of : (1) The Upa Kulapati, (2) The Adhyacharya, if any. Relevant portion of the said Statute 14 is extracted below : "SELECTION COMMITTEE 14. The Selection Committee for any appointment specified In column of the table hereto annexed shall consist of : (1) The Upa Kulapati, (2) The Adhyacharya, if any. (3) A nominee of the Kulapati, and (4) The persons specified in the corresponding entries in column 2 of this table. THE TABLE (1) (2) Two expert in the special subject to be Professor, Reader nominated by the Upa Kulapati from among and Lecturer a panel recommended by the Shiksha Samiti of the Vishwavidyalaya. Kula Sachive One member of the Karyakarini Samiti (Registrar) nominated by it. xxx xxx xxx (iv) The Selection Committee shall consider and submit to the Karyakarini Samiti recommendations as to the appointment referred to it. If the Karyakarini Samiti is unable to accept the recommendations made by the Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Kulapati for final orders." 8. What is significant is that the Statute 14 merely requires the Selection Committee to make recommendations to the Karyakarini Samiti to make appointment. It does not require the Selection Committee to prepare a panel of three names, nor does it require the Selection Committee to draw up such panel in the order of merit. Nor does the Statute require the Karyakarini Samiti to appoint only the first person in the panel as the Registrar. Neither the appellant nor the respondents have produced the actual recommendations of the Selection Committee. There is nothing on record to show that the panel of names was prepared by the Selection Committee in the order of merit. The entire case of the appellant is on the assumption that the panel of names are always prepared by the Selection Committee in the order of merit, akin to the merit lists prepared by the Public Service Commission. We therefore find that the following questions arise for our consideration: (i) Whether, in absence. of any provision requiring the Selection Committee to prepare a panel of names in the order of merit, the Karyakarini Samiti should proceed on the assumption that the panel recommended by the Selection Committee was prepared in the order of merit, and appoint only the first among the panel. of any provision requiring the Selection Committee to prepare a panel of names in the order of merit, the Karyakarini Samiti should proceed on the assumption that the panel recommended by the Selection Committee was prepared in the order of merit, and appoint only the first among the panel. (ii) Whether, the appointment of second named person from the panel of three, instead of first named person, amounts to non-acceptance of the recommendations of toe Selection Committee and as a consequence the Karyakarini Samiti ought to have submitted the matter to the Kulapati for final orders with reasons for such non-acceptance. Re : Point No. (i) : 9. In the absence of any provision in the Act, Rules or Statutes requiring preparation of a panel of names in the order of merit, it cannot be assumed that the panel of names given by the Selection Committee is in the order of merit or that the Karyakarini Samiti should appoint only the first among the three names in the panel on the assumption that he was the most meritorious among the three. The general rule and practice is that whenever a panel is required to be prepared in the order of merit, the Act or the Statutes would specifically require that such a procedure be followed. Reference to provisions from Statutes in pari materia will demonstrate this position. (9.1) Section 49 of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, dealing with appointment to teaching posts is an example where there is a requirement to prepare a panel in the order of merit and a further requirement to make appointment in the order of merit. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that no person shall be appointed as a Professor, Reader or Lecturer except on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted in accordance with sub-section (2). Sub-section (4) thereof provides that the Committee shall investigate the merits of the various candidates, and shall recommend to the Executive Council, the names, if any, of persons, who it consider suitable for the posts arranged in order of merit. Sub-section (4) thereof provides that the Committee shall investigate the merits of the various candidates, and shall recommend to the Executive Council, the names, if any, of persons, who it consider suitable for the posts arranged in order of merit. Sub-section (5) provides that out of the names so recommended under sub-section (4), the Executive Council shall appoint persons in order of merit and where the Executive Council proposes to make the appointment otherwise than in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the committee, the Executive Council shall record its reasons in writing and submit its proposal for sanction of the Kuladhipati. Statute No.6 of the Indira Gandhi Agriculture University, Raipur, Statutes 198, relates to procedure of Selection Committee and specifically provides thus : "The Selection Committee shall recommend a panel of not more than three names arranged in order of merit, for each vacancy, to the Vice-Chancellor." (9.2) By way of contrast, we may next refer to some provisions which do not require preparation of panels in the order of merit. Section 12 of the Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Act relating to Upa-Kalapati, provides thus : ''The Upa Kulapati shall be appointed by the Kulapati from a panel of not less than three names recommended by the Committee constituted in the manner laid down in sub-section (2)." Section 13 of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, which deals with appointment of Kulpati, reads as under : "(1) The Kulpati shall be appointed by the Kuladhipati from a panel of not less than three persons recommended by the committee constituted under sub-section (2) or sub-section (6)." Similar is the provision for appointment of Vice-Chancellor under section 14 of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1987. These provisions are clear examples where the Selection Committee is required to prepare a panel of three names, but not required to prepare the panel in order of merit. When the provision does not require preparation of a panel in order of merit, it is not necessary to appoint only the first from among the three names in the panel. It is permissible to appoint anyone from the panel. Statute 14 with which we are concerned is similar to section 12 of the Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956, section 13 of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and section 14 of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1987. 10. It is permissible to appoint anyone from the panel. Statute 14 with which we are concerned is similar to section 12 of the Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956, section 13 of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 and section 14 of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1987. 10. It is thus clear that there is no legal requirement or presumption that the panel of three names should be in the order of merit or that the first person in the panel alone should be appointed, unless such a requirement is specifically provided in the Act, Rules or Statutes. It is also clear that wherever the Legislature or a Rule/Statute making Authority wanted the recommendations of the Selection Committee to be in the order of merit or wanted that the appointment should be strictly in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the Selection Committee, it would specifically provide for the same in the Act, Rules or Statutes. It, therefore, follows that where a specific provision for order of merit is not made, the names in the panel submitted by the Selection Committee has to be considered as being on par with each other. Therefore the Appointing Authority is at liberty to appoint any one from such panel. 11. The appellant contends that the Statute 14 should, in public interest, be interpreted as requiring the Selection Committee to prepare a panel in the order of merit and requiring the Karyakarini Samiti to appoint the candidate who is the most meritorious, namely, the first among the panel. It is for the rule-making authority to prescribe the mode of selection and the minimum qualifications for selection, which are policy matters of academic and technical nature. It is well settled that in such matters, the wisdom of Legislature or its delegates as to how the particular selection is to be made, should prevail. Courts and Tribunals will neither add to nor subtract from the requirements prescribed for selection. Nor will they prescribe a new method of selection or entrench upon the power of the rule-making authority. The argument based on public interest is not of much assistance, as what is in public interest is itself a debatable issue and is a matter for the Rule making Authority to decide. The Courts will interfere only on the ground of unreasonableness, arbitrariness or mala fides. The argument based on public interest is not of much assistance, as what is in public interest is itself a debatable issue and is a matter for the Rule making Authority to decide. The Courts will interfere only on the ground of unreasonableness, arbitrariness or mala fides. The Courts will not interfere on the ground that the method prescribed by the Rule Making Authority requires to be improved by substituting, or adding to or subtracting from it. In short, they will not evolve standards not found in the Statute {vide J. Rangaswamy v. Government of A.P. [ AIR 1990 SC 535 ], S.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation [ AIR 1993 SC 2285 ] and Mangej Singh v. Union of India [(1989) 9 SCC 471]}. 12. We, therefore, answer the first point in the negative. In this case, the Karyakarini Samiti has considered the three names. For valid reasons, if found that the appellant though first in the panel, was not fit to be appointed as the Registrar. It had no obligation under law to appoint the first among the panel of names. There was, therefore, no irregularity in the appointment of third respondent as Registrar. Re : Point (ii) : 13. Clause (iv) to Statute 14 provides that if the Karyakarini Samiti is unable to accept the recommendations made by the Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Kulapati for final orders. The Karyakarini Samiti did not submit the case to Kulapati for final orders. When the Karyakarini Samiti appointed one• among the three persons in the panel of names recommended by the Selection Committee, it accepted the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. It is not a case of the Karyakarini Samiti failing to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Therefore, there was no need for the Karyakarini Samiti to submit the case to the Kulapati. The second point is answered accordingly. 14. There is no merit in this Appeal. We, therefore, dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal, though for reasons different from those given by the learned Single Judge in regard to the first point.