P.Sathasivam, J.: Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge dated 21.12.1998 made in W.P.No.8372 of 1991, quashing the impugned orders dated 28.04.1990 and 10.5.1991 and issuing direction to promote the writ petitioner - S. Shesachari as Assistant Registrar with effect from 28.4.1990, Anna University has filed the above writ appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner - first respondent herein challenged the proceedings of the University dated 28.4.1990 and 10.5.1991, appointing the second and third respondents as Assistant Registrars respectively; after praying for quashing of those orders, as a consequential relief, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the University to promote him to the post of Assistant Registrar with effect from 28.4.1990. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the impugned orders are in violation of the Special Service Rules for the administrative posts, which prescribe qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar in the University. It is also his claim that the impugned orders are the out come of the unguided and unfettered powers being violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The experience, merit and ability of the writ petitioner were not considered and overlooked by the University. 3. The case of the appellant University is briefly stated hereunder: The appellant University was established under the Anna University Act, 1978. On its formation, the first respondent herein, who was employed as Assistant in the Chemical Technology, Department of Technical Education, Madras was transferred to the University under Sec.6(2)(a)(ii) of the Act and having exercised his option to serve the University, he joined the University on 21.6.1980 as Assistant. The second respondent, who was working as Deputy Inspector in the Department of Local Fund Accounts was sent on deputation to the appellant University as Superintendent with effect from 7.7.1980 and absorbed as Superintendent in the University with effect from 7.7.1980. The first respondent was promoted to the post of Superintendent only on 14.8.1981, as such he was junior to the second respondent in the cadre of Superintendent. The post of Superintendent is a feeder category for the post of Assistant Registrar. 4. Under the Special Service Rules framed by the appellant University for the administrative post, the post of Assistant Registrar is a selection post. The post of Superintendent is a feeder category for the post of Assistant Registrar. 4. Under the Special Service Rules framed by the appellant University for the administrative post, the post of Assistant Registrar is a selection post. The selection is to be made from among the candidates who have completed seven years of service in the post of Superintendent, based on the merit and ability and seniority will be considered only if merit and ability are approximately equal. The selection has to be made by a Selection Committee constituted from time to time for the purpose. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 herein having completed the minimum period of service of seven years as Superintendent, were called for interview along with others on 16.9.1989 to fill up three existing vacancies of Assistant Registrar. In the interview, the Selection Committee, after considering merit and ability of the candidates, prepared a panel. The Selection Committee did not find the first respondent as fit for promotion. The recommendation of the said Selection Committee was duly approved by the Syndicate by its resolution dated 19.9.1989. The first respondent did not challenge the selection list or the resolution of the Syndicate approving the selection list. 6. Pursuant to the resolution, promotion orders were issued to the first three candidates in the panel to fill up the then existing vacancies. Subsequently the 4th candidate in the panel was also promoted in a vacancy that arose. In the meanwhile, there was a vacancy for the post of Liaison Officer in the University. As per the Special Service Rules, the post of Liaison Officer shall be filled up by promotion or with two years experience with degree or with adequate experience and knowledge in Court matters. Since the second respondent alone possessed the prescribed qualification, he was temporarily appointed/promotted as Liaison Officer in the proceedings dated 21.12.1989. There was no question of considering either the first respondent or anyone, as none of them possessed the prescribed qualification and no one questioned the same at the relevant time. 7. The Syndicate, based on the request made by the Director, College of Engineering, upgraded the post of Liaison Officer to the post of Assistant Registrar in April, 1990. Even at this stage, the first respondent did not come before this Court to challenge the promotion of the second respondent. 7. The Syndicate, based on the request made by the Director, College of Engineering, upgraded the post of Liaison Officer to the post of Assistant Registrar in April, 1990. Even at this stage, the first respondent did not come before this Court to challenge the promotion of the second respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent was again called for an interview on 3.4.1991 along with the third respondent and one other to fill up the vacancy that arose. The Selection Committee, after considering the merits of the candidates, placed the third respondent, who was junior to the first respondent on the top of the panel list while placing the first respondent as second, and the third respondent was promoted as Assistant Registrar on 10.5.1991. It is only at this stage the writ petitioner has approached this Court. The first respondent herein has not challenged the selection list prepared by the Selection Committee and also the resolution of the Syndicate approving the recommendations. The order of the learned Judge is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. K.K.Raman, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1806. The observation of the learned Judge against the Selection Committee is not justified in law. 8. Heard Mr.P.Subbaya, learned counsel for the appellant University and Mr.R.Singaravelan for the first respondent. None appeared for respondents 2 and 3. 9. Mr.P.Subbaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant after taking us through all the relevant materials, qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Registrar and the service particulars of respondents 1 to 3 would contend that the post of Assistant Registrar is a selection post and promotion is based on merit and ability and seniority will be considered where merit and ability are approximately equal; hence the learned Judge has committed an illegality by interfering with the selection of respondents 2 and 3 merely on the ground of seniority. He also contended that the writ petitioner having participated in first and second selections, in the absence of any allegation against the Selection Committee, the learned Judge ought to have found that the writ petitioner could not challenge the promotion given to the second respondent, more particularly, after attending the second selection in 1991. He also contended that the writ petitioner having participated in first and second selections, in the absence of any allegation against the Selection Committee, the learned Judge ought to have found that the writ petitioner could not challenge the promotion given to the second respondent, more particularly, after attending the second selection in 1991. He further contended that the learned Judge committed an error in appraising the factual details as an appellate authority over the Selection Committee, which procedure has been deprecated by the Supreme Court. The learned Judge committed an error in making general allegation that the University has violated the rules without specifying the same. The conclusion of the learned Judge with reference to the merits and ability, experience etc., among the respondents is factually incorrect and may not be sustained. 10. On the other hand, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that inasmuch as on appreciation of entire materials and after holding that appointing respondents 2 and 3 as Assistant Registrars in preference to the first respondent herein is contrary to the Special Service Rules, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition, there is no ground for interference. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 12. Let us consider the relevant Rules applicable to the category of Assistant Registrar. “I. SPECIAL SERVICE RULES FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE POSTS. 1.1 Category: Assistant Registrar 1.2 Qualification: (i) A Post-Graduate Degree with not less than 10 years of qualifying service/experience or a Bachelors’ Degree with not less than 12 years of qualifying service/experience of which there should be a minimum of two years of satisfactory service in one or more of the following posts: (1) Personal Assistant to the Principal, College of Engineering, Guindy; (2) Accounts Officer, Madras Institute of Technology; and (3) Chief Superintendent, A.C. College of Technology/School of Architecture and Planning. (OR) (ii) Minimum General Educational qualification with not less than 18 years of qualifying service/experience in office administration of which there should be a minimum period of two years experience in one or more of the posts referred to above. NOTE: (1) ..... (2) ..... 1.3 ...... 1.4. Mode of Recruitment/Selection: 1.4.1 (1) Recruitment to this post will be made from the category of feeder posts referred to under Rule 1.2 above on a selection basis. NOTE: (1) ..... (2) ..... 1.3 ...... 1.4. Mode of Recruitment/Selection: 1.4.1 (1) Recruitment to this post will be made from the category of feeder posts referred to under Rule 1.2 above on a selection basis. This being a selection category, recruitment shall be made only on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered where merit and ability are approximately equal. OR By deputation from any other sources, when in the opinion of the Syndicate, that such appointment is found expedient in the interest of administration. NOTE: ....... (ii) There shall be a Selection Committee consisting of the following: 1. Vice-Chancellor - Chairman 2. One Syndicate Member nomination by the Syndicate. 3. One expert from outside the University nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. 4. Registrar - Member Secretary.” 13. It is clear from the above Rules, the post of Assistant Registrar is a Selection Post, as such seniority has no place for any consideration, except where merit and ability are approximately equal. We have also referred to the Constitution of Selection Committee of higher officers of the University, including the Vice-Chancellor. It is also not disputed that the first respondent was considered for promotion along with the other eligible candidates including respondents 2 and 3 herein. As rightly argued by Mr.Subbaya, the first respondent having actually participated in the selection process and having failed to get selected is precluded from challenging the selection. All the respondents were interviewed by the said Committee, including the first respondent. We have already referred to the fact that no mala fide or bias has been alleged against the said Committee. Under Rule 1.2 (i) (b) of the said Rules, respondents 1 and 2 became eligible for consideration for promotion as Assistant Registrar on 7.7.1987 and 15.8.1988 respectively, having completed seven years of service in the post of Superintendent along with others. 14. It is further seen that in the year 1989, three vacancies of Assistant Registrar arose, for which the first respondent herein was called for interview along with the others on 16.9.1989. The Selection Committee after considering the merit and ability of the candidates recommended the following candidates for panel to the post of Assistant Registrar in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 in the existing as well as future vacancies. “1. M.K.Subramanian 2. E.Paranthaman 3. C.M.Bakthavachalan 4. K.Valsarajan 5. Inbaraj Samuel”. The said panel was valid for one year. The Selection Committee after considering the merit and ability of the candidates recommended the following candidates for panel to the post of Assistant Registrar in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 in the existing as well as future vacancies. “1. M.K.Subramanian 2. E.Paranthaman 3. C.M.Bakthavachalan 4. K.Valsarajan 5. Inbaraj Samuel”. The said panel was valid for one year. The first three candidates were appointed as Assistant Registrar in the existing vacancies on 30.9.1989. It is brought to our notice that another vacancy arose within a period of three months and the same was filled up by placing K.Valsarajan, who was 4th in the panel. Subsequently, the second respondent was appointed as Liaison Officer with effect from 22.12.1989. The said post of Liaison Officer was upgraded as Assistant Registrar on 20.4.1990. Since the second respondent was already in the panel for Assistant Registrar, he was appointed as Assistant Registrar with effect from 30.4.1990 in the upgraded post. Admittedly, this was not challenged by the first respondent. 15. In the year 1991, vacancy of Assistant Registrar arose, when the following persons, including the first respondent herein were called for interview by the Selection Committee on 3.4.1991. “1. S.Seshachari 2. S.N.Balasubramanian 3. L.Muthuvel” The Selection Committee has recommended the following panel in the order given below for appointment as Assistant Registrar. “1. L.Muthuvel 2. S.Seshachari 3. S.V.Balasubramanian.” Based on the same, orders of promotion were first issued to L.Muthuvel, as he was first in the panel though he was junior to the first respondent in the post of Superintendent. By order dated 6.9.1991, first respondent and N.Balasubramanian were appointed as Assistant Registrars, as they were next in the panel. A perusal of all these particulars which are given in the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar of Anna University clearly establish that there is no substance in the claim made by the first respondent herein. It is also clear from the records produced that the first respondent herein was not found fit by the Selection Committee for inclusion in the panel dated 16.9.1989 for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar. Even in the subsequent interview conducted by the Selection Committee, he was pushed down in the panel below his junior L.Muthuvel - third respondent herein, which show that the first respondent had relatively lesser merit and ability as against other respondents. 16. Even in the subsequent interview conducted by the Selection Committee, he was pushed down in the panel below his junior L.Muthuvel - third respondent herein, which show that the first respondent had relatively lesser merit and ability as against other respondents. 16. It is also brought to our notice that according to Clause 9(b) of the General Service Statutes of the University, qualifying period of service/experience wherever referred to in the Statutes shall mean and include the total period of service put in by an employee both in the University, in its Constituent institutions and also in the Government of Tamil Nadu or University of Madras as the case may be, prior to his absorption in the University. The second respondent had a continuous service as Audit Assistant for more than 16 years in the office of the Local Fund Accounts Department prior to his absorption in the University and served more than nine years in the post of Superintendent in the University and therefore he is fully qualified to hold the post of Assistant Registrar from the date of his appointment to the post. Inasmuch as the second respondent was in the panel for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar, he was appointed as Assistant Registrar. It is also relevant to note that the first respondent has approached this Court and filed a writ petition only after the third respondent was given promotion. We have already observed that the seniority list showing the second respondent above the first respondent in the category of Superintendent was never challenged by the first respondent. Only when he lost in the selection to the post of Assistant Registrar, he has come forward with the writ petition to this Court. Learned Judge misread by the material aspects, particularly, the Service Rules applicable to the respondents and service details of all of them and committed an error in issuing direction to the University, as if the seniority alone is the criteria for the post of Assistant Registrar. We are satisfied that there is no error of law or infirmity in the procedure followed by the University and it is unfortunate that the learned Judge has made unwarranted comment against the Selection Committee consisting of qualified officers of the University, including the Vice-Chancellor. We are satisfied that there is no error of law or infirmity in the procedure followed by the University and it is unfortunate that the learned Judge has made unwarranted comment against the Selection Committee consisting of qualified officers of the University, including the Vice-Chancellor. In the light of what is stated above, the order of the learned Judge dated 21.12.1998 made in W.P.No.8372 of 1991 is set aside; consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. No costs.