Pratap Kumar Ray, JJ. ( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner who was a candidate for being empanelled as a selected candidate by the West Bengal College Service commission with reference to the vacancy as declared in terms of Advertisement no. 1 of 1999 published in the daily newspapers having wide circulation in respect of the subject Political Science under the University of Calcutta relating to the post of Lecturer has filed this writ application praying the following reliefs :" (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the respondents, their agents and/or Subordinates to include the name of your petitioner in the panel published on 17. 8. 2000 issued by West Bengal College Service commission. (b) A writ in the nature of Certiorari asking the respondents to produce and/or caused to be produced all papers, so that conscionable justice may be done; c) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above; d) Cost/costs; (e) Causes if any be shown to make the Rule absolute; (f) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (a); (g) Any other Writ/writs, Order/orders, Director/directions, as to your lordship may deem fit and proper. " ( 2 ) WITH reference to the said prayer as made, Affidavit-in-Opposition was filed by the College Service Commission affirming on 24th November, 2000 by one Sri Nitish Chandra Ganguly, Secretary of the said Commission, wherein it was contended that the writ application was not maintainable and no relief could be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner did not pass in the interview by securing minimum 50 per cent marks and as such, his candidature was not considered for being empanelled. It has been further contended that out of total 100 marks petitioner secured only 45. 7 marks in the oral interview and his name was not included in the merit panel. From the said affidavit it appears that in terms of the Advertisement No. 1 of 1999, 94 candidates applied but only 66 candidates ultimately appeared in the interview, wherefrom only 48 candidates were empanelled, who secured marks 50 per cent and above in the oral interview. It is further case of the Service Commission that there are as many as 5 other persons above the petitioner who secured more marks than the petitioner but less than 50 per cent, who also were not empanelled. It is further case of the Service Commission that there are as many as 5 other persons above the petitioner who secured more marks than the petitioner but less than 50 per cent, who also were not empanelled. ( 3 ) THIS writ application was initially moved before M. H. S. Ansari. J. (as His Lordship then was) on 31 st October, 2000, wherein his Lordship directed production of the marks sheet of oral interview of the petitioner and the candidates who have been empanelled and selected. On 13th November, 2000, since the service Commission did not file any show cause as to why the name of the petitioner was not empanelled, M. H. S. Ansari, J. (as His Lordship then was)passed an interim order to this effect: "in such circumstances there shall be an interim stay to the limited extent that the respondents shall not give effect to the panel for a period of two weeks from date. Meanwhile, let the respondent college Service Commission file their affidavit-in-opposition setting out their case and the reasons why the petitioner could not be selected or empanelled". On 8th December, 2000, said interim order was extended until further order of the writ application as the Service Commission prayed further adjournment to file affidavits. On 15th March, 2001 DP. Kundu, J. (as His Lordship then was)heard 3 interlocutory applications being CAN 1295/2001, CAN 1296/2001 and can 1747/2001. The applications CAN 1295/2001 and CAN 1747/2001 were the applications filed by the respective selectees who were empanelled for necessary recommendation of the College Service Commission in the vacant posts praying addition of them as party for the purpose of placing application of vacating interim order in terms of the application CAN 1296/2001. DP. Kundu, j. (as His Lordship then was) allowed the applications for addition of parties and accordingly respondents No. 4 and 5, namely, Mrs. Mahua Basu and Smt. Debarati Sen were added as parties. Since the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no grievance against those added parties, their application for vacating was allowed by the Court directing the Service commission to proceed in respect of appointment of the empanelled candidates subject to keeping of only one post of Lecturer vacant till the finality of the writ and until further order of the Court whichever would be earlier. ( 4 ) THE writ petitioner subsequently filed an application praying amendment of the writ application being CAN 5515/2002. In this amendment application, the petitioner had challenged the Regulation of College Service commission about fixation of the 100 marks in the oral interview being contrary to the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by setting up the case that such high marks of the oral interview and selection only on the basis of such oral interview caused an arbitrary and discriminatory action as it helped to choose the candidates as per choice of the Commission but not on merit, by way of allotting higher marks to their favoured candidates. A further amendment sought for assailing the issue that many candidates who were not even qualified with State Level Eligibility Test, in short "slet" or national Eligibility Test, in short "net", which was mandatory eligibility qualification fixed by the University Grants Commission in terms of their regulation of 1991 published by Notification No. F. 1-11/87 (CPP) dated 19th september, 1991 hereinafter referred to as University Grants Commission regulation and which was incorporated as a minimum eligibility qualification under Sections 9a and 9b of the West Bengal College Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 1992, to appear in the interview were allowed to appear in the interview and the selection of such type of candidates was de hors of the statutory regulation of University Grants Commission and in breach of the West bengal College Service Commission Act. It has been further contended in the amendment application that petitioner being qualified with "slet", satisfying the minimum eligibility qualification ought to have been interviewed along with the candidates qualified with NET/slet only, but without doing such, the Service commission allowed the appearance of many in-service lecturers already appointed in different Colleges but not qualified with NET/slet qualification, in the interview and thereby has caused prejudice to the petitioner's right for being considered on merit amongst the candidates qualified in terms of the statute fulfilling minimum eligibility qualification. This amendment application CAN 5515/2002 was heard on 6th August, 2002 in presence of learned Advocate appeared for the College Service Commission and was allowed directing the petitioner to file a compile copy of the amended writ application upon service of the same to the respondents. This amendment application CAN 5515/2002 was heard on 6th August, 2002 in presence of learned Advocate appeared for the College Service Commission and was allowed directing the petitioner to file a compile copy of the amended writ application upon service of the same to the respondents. The respondents were also directed to file their respective opposition, if any, and thereafter reply by the petitioner in the event of filing such opposition. ( 5 ) COLLEGE Service Commission filed opposition by contending, inter alia, that though there is an embargo under Section 9a of the West Bengal college Service Commission Act, 1978 as incorporated by Amendment Act of 1992 to consider any candidate not qualified with NET/slet qualification being the minimum eligibility qualification as fixed by the said Act in terms of the regulation of University Grants Commission fixing such minimum eligibility qualification, which is the parent body to regulate the qualification of the candidates who would be appointed as Lecturer in any affiliated ccollege under any University of India, but since by in-service Lecturers, who were appointed prior to the fixation of said minimum eligibility qualification by the Regulation of university Grants Commission priorto 19th September, 1991 when such eligibility test was introduced by the University Grants Commission as a minimum eligibility qualification for being appointed as a Lecturer in any college under any University in India, there was a demand of in-service candidates praying transfer in the different Colleges, which upon being considered by the State Government, a circular Letter being No. 627-Edn. (C. S.) dated 17th June, 1999 was issued providing a scope of existing teaching Lecturers who were serving in different colleges and enjoying the pay scale of University Grants Commission but not qualified with said qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission, to appear in the interview for their fresh selection and recommendation by the college Service Commission to different Colleges as per their choice of the university and/or different Colleges under the same University. It has been contended that by Entry 25 of List III under Schedule 2 of the Constitution of india the State Government was empowered to provide such scope to the teaching staff already employed in other Colleges on enjoying pay scale of university upon being placed in permanent posts. It has been contended that by Entry 25 of List III under Schedule 2 of the Constitution of india the State Government was empowered to provide such scope to the teaching staff already employed in other Colleges on enjoying pay scale of university upon being placed in permanent posts. ( 6 ) IT is further contended that Section 9a of the College Service commission Act has no applicability in such type of cases. It has been further asserted that out of selected candidates, 11 candidates were of such type who got appointment in terms of the recommendation of the College Service commission after they resigned from their respective posts in different colleges as were being held by them prior to such recommendation. It has been further asserted that those teaching employees selected by fresh selection in terms of the Advertisement No. 1 of 1999, wherein scope was given to them to apply got the continuity of their service. It has been contended further that amongst those 11 candidates, 2 candidates already were qualified with M. Phil, who were eligible to appear as per the Regulation of University Grants Commission. ( 7 ) AN application for vacating/variation of the order dated 6th August, 2002 whereby and whereunder the Court allowed the amendment of the writ application by giving a scope to the writ petitioner to challenge the two issues, namely, (i) fixation of 100 per cent marks in the oral interview and that too being the only mode of selection of the candidate whether violates Article 14 of the constitution of India and (ii) that there was a total breach of statutory provision, namely, the Regulation of University Grants Commission as well as Section 9a of West Bengal College Service Commission Act by act of interviewing the candidates not qualified with NET/slet qualification and their selection thereof. This application for vacating of the said order whereby amendment was allowed, was filed by the added respondent No. 4 being CAN 9400/2004 was taken up for hearing on 16th September, 2004 when the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4 submitted that as no copy praying amendment of the writ application was served, the order allowing such amendment may be recalled by this Court in view of the basic defect. Learned Advocate for the petitioner at this juncture, admitted that no copy of amendment application was served and in view of such, the Court by the order dated 16th September, 2004 recalled the order dated 6th August, 2002 whereby amendment application was allowed. But when the Court intended to give liberty to place amendment application for hearing further on service of the copy to the respondent No. 4, learned Advocate for the petitioner did not agree to such and submitted that petitioner was not inclined to place the amendment application. In that view, the amendment application also was dismissed on 16th September, 2004. ( 8 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that he had no grievance against the respondents No. 4 and 5 as both of them are qualified with minimum eligibility qualification, namely, pass of NET/slet examination in terms of Section 9a of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act and there was no necessity of keeping them as a party in this proceeding. As per the prayer of the petitioner, the names of the respondents No. 4 and 5, accordingly, were deleted from this writ proceeding by the said order dated 16th September, 2004. ( 9 ) ON that date, however, the Court suo moto considered that though the amendment application by which the petitioner was entitled to bring the issue on records for decision, namely, the breach of statutory provision by allowing the candidates not qualified with NET/slet in the interview and thereby their selection illegally, was rejected but as the said issue involved necessary point for adjudication of the writ effectively the same issue should be framed by the Court. The Court set up the following question for answer by the parties accordingly:"q. Whether the College Service Commission while entertaining the candidates for appointment in the post of Lecturer in terms of the advertisement, which is the subject matter of this writ application has appointed the candidates qualified with State Level Eligibility Test and/or national Eligibility Test, which is mandatory condition in terms of the statute being Sec. 9a of the West Bengal College Service Commission act, 1978 as incorporated by Amendment Act. 1992, which reads thus: 9a (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage to the contrary, it shall be the duty of the Commission to hold, in such manner as may be provided for by regulations, eligibility test at state Level of persons, who are candidates for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in Arts, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, physical Education, Foreign languages, Law Journalism and Mass communication, or Music in any University or Institution deemed to be a university or College or Government College, prior to the selection of such persons by any authority competent to make the selection for such appointment under any law for the time being in force. The standard of such eligibility test shall be at par with the standard of eligibility test at nnational level held by the University Grants Commission. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, custom or usage to the contrary, selection of persons for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in Arts, Sciences, social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Physical Education, Foreign languages, Law Journalism and Mass Communication, or Music in any university or Institution deemed to be a University or College or government College shall be made by the authority competent to make selection for such appointment under any law for the time being in force from amongst the persons found eligible for such selection on the basis of the eligibility test as aforesaid. " ( 10 ) THE College Service Commission also was directed to produce the relevant records and to satisfy the said point. ( 11 ) THE College Service Commission produced the records and submitted that 11 candidates were not eligible in terms of the said statutory provision. Due to that submission, the Court added them as parties in this proceeding to answer the issue by the order dated 20th January, 2005 by framing the point to this effect:"1. Without qualifying in the NET or SLET Examination whether they were eligible to appear at the interview for appointment as lecturers in colleges held by College Service Commission in terms of West Bengal college Service Commission Act and more particularly in terms of Section 9a (1) and (2 ). Without qualifying in the NET or SLET Examination whether they were eligible to appear at the interview for appointment as lecturers in colleges held by College Service Commission in terms of West Bengal college Service Commission Act and more particularly in terms of Section 9a (1) and (2 ). " ( 12 ) REGISTRY was directed to add them as parties in this proceeding and accordingly the following persons, namely, Sri Sujit Sen, Md. Mizanul Haque, sri Arun Kr. Dawn, Sri Sibtosh Bandhopadhyay, Sm. Sabita Chowdhuri, Sri pradyumpa Bandyopadhyay, Sri Saumitra Chakraborty, Abul Hashnat rafiquzzman, Sri Ashis Kr. Chakraborty, Sri Buddhadeb Mishra, Sri Samir Kr. Mukherjee were added as respondents No. 4 to 14. The copy of the writ application and the order of the Court were duly served. Those respondents appeared in the matter and filed their respective oppositions by contending, inter alia, that the State Government got the right to allow them to appear in the interview by issuing the said Circular Letter and same was not in breach of the west Bengal College Service Commission Act and/or Regulation of University grants Commission. Beside such, a point was taken by all the added parties praying recalling of the said order on the ground that since in the writ application the petitioner did not urge those points and even did not press the amendment application further, wherein those points were included and thereby suffered rejection of the amendment application as already referred to, this Court would not venture on those points further as adjudication of that issue would be nothing but stepping into the shoes of public interest litigation for which this Court had no jurisdiction. ( 13 ) THE parties argued at length on diverse dates. ( 13 ) THE parties argued at length on diverse dates. ( 14 ) HAVING regard to the respective submission of the parties, the following points emerged for adjudication: (1) Whether on the basis of the pleading of the writ petitioner wherein the writ petitioner simply pleaded that despite better performance, service Commission did not include him in the panel, there is any scope to grant any relief to the petitioner when the petitioner did not challenge the Advertisement No. 1 of 1999 inviting the in service college teachers not qualified with NET/slet qualification to appear in the interview, even if, there is a breach of West Bengal college Service Commission Act and more particularly, Section 9a, which starts with the word "notwithstanding", that means, with a non obstante clause prescribing that without such qualification no candidate could be considered. (2) Whether in the adversary system of the litigation when petitioner did not aver any materials and even despite giving opportunity to amend the writ petition did not agree to amend the writ application for adjudication of the points, namely, whether fixation of 100 per cent marks in the oral interview, which was the only basis and criteria for selection was de hors of the constitutional provision and whether empanelment and selection of the candidates irrespective of their status as teaching staff without being qualified with NET/slet examination, caused breach of Section 9a of the west Bengal College Service Commission Act read with Regulation of the University Grants Commission, could at all be considered in this writ. (3) What relief, if any. ( 15 ) IN course of hearing, as the presence of University Grants commission was required, the Court added the University Grants Commission who filed affidavit-in-opposition by contending, inter alia, that in breach of regulation framed by University Grants Commission, there was no scope by the State Government even to issue any Circular Letter, applying the principle of law that an executive decision cannot override the statutory regulation. ( 16 ) HAVING a scan of the writ application it appears before this Court that the petitioner did not agree to amend the writ to assail the circular of the state Government and the writ petitioner only made a grievance about non-inclusion of his name despite his best performance. ( 16 ) HAVING a scan of the writ application it appears before this Court that the petitioner did not agree to amend the writ to assail the circular of the state Government and the writ petitioner only made a grievance about non-inclusion of his name despite his best performance. In the writ application petitioner nowhere has set up a case of mala fide action on the part of members of the said Service Commission and more particularly against the members of the Selection Committee who interviewed him by making them as a party by name in this proceeding. As no mala fide action has been urged in the writ application by pointing out such mala fide conduct on adding them as a party by name, which is mandatory in such type of pleading, the Court should not venture to identify the issue about the mala fide action of the members of the selection Committee who interviewed the candidates. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case State of M. P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and ors. , reported in (1986)4 SCC 566 at para 39, wherein it is held that even if mala fide urged the mere words to that effect will not help to get any relief as it requires details mala fide action, Rajendra Roy v. Union of India and Anr. , reported in (1993)1 SCC 148 wherein the Apex Court held that "there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established and such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestion", the judgment passed in the case Dr. J. N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. , reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 89 and /. K. Mishra v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in (1997)6 SCC 228 whereby it is settled law that against whom even if any mala fide is alleged he must be impleaded as a party in the proceeding by name applying the principle of natural justice theory. In the instant case, however, in the writ petition there is no whisper of mala fide action against the members of the Selection Committee at all and they are also not added as a parties in this proceeding. In the instant case, however, in the writ petition there is no whisper of mala fide action against the members of the Selection Committee at all and they are also not added as a parties in this proceeding. ( 17 ) THE only point has been canvassed by the petitioner that he was a best qualified candidate in view of the marks obtained in different examination from Higher Secondary level to Post Graduation level and in addition to that since he qualified himself with the NET/slet examination and as his performance was better, he expected his empanelment in the panel and accordingly prayed for writ in terms of prayer (a) directing the Service Commission to empanel him. Petitioner even did not incline to amend the writ to determine the issue as to whether in-service teaching staff were eligible to appear in the interview when admittedly they were not qualified with NET/slet, a minimum qualification, prescribed by University Grants Commission by its Regulation, 1991 published in Notification No. F. 1-11/87 (CPP) dated 19th September, 1991, which also was incorporated in the Act by the State Legislatures under Section 9a of the west Bengal College Service Commission act by using the non obstante clause. ( 18 ) IT is a settled law that the Court of law will decide the lis with reference to the pleading of the parties. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case of Bharat Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181 , wherein the Court held "in a plaint or a written statement, the facts and no evidence are required to be pleaded,' in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it". Further reliance is placed to the judgment passed in the case Messers Trojan and Co. v. RM. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar, reported in AIR 1953 SC 235 , which has been relied in the case A. V. G. P. Chettiar and sons and Ors. v. T. Palanisamy Gounder, reported in (2002)5 SCC 337 , whereby it is settled that The decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found". v. T. Palanisamy Gounder, reported in (2002)5 SCC 337 , whereby it is settled that The decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found". ( 19 ) IN the writ application, since the petitioner did not plead about the ineligibility of the existing teaching staff to appear in the interview and no relief prayed for to that effect, the Court has to consider whether this point could be considered in this writ, though the Court framed the question and parties were given effective hearing, namely, the selectees who were admittedly not qualified except the 2 selectees, respondent Nos. 5 and 13 who are qualified with M. Phil qualification for whom there was no necessity to qualify NET/slet as per university Grants Commission Regulation. ( 20 ) BEFORE that, Court has to consider whether that question now has become an academic question and further whether the same is falling within the domain of public interest litigation. ( 21 ) AS already discussed that the petitioner's case is very simple to this effect only that despite his best performance, the respondents Service commission, did not include him in the panel. On such pleading, only the records of the case to be considered to ascertain as to whether the petitioner secured the minimum marks to reach in the panel. The allotment of the marks and its legality and validity cannot be the subject matter of such type of litigation as it is a settled law that it is the expert body, who is legally empowered and authorized to allot the marks to the candidates in the interview and the Court will not venture into the question about legality and validity of allotment of such marks as it is not within the domain of decision making field of the Court, since it is in the field of subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee who interviewed the candidates and the decision reached thereto being subjective in nature, which could not be adjudicated upon by the Court. This proposition is a settled law. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Air Vice marshal S. L Chhabra, VSM (Retd.) v. Union of India and Anr. , reported in 1993 supp. This proposition is a settled law. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Air Vice marshal S. L Chhabra, VSM (Retd.) v. Union of India and Anr. , reported in 1993 supp. (4) SCC 441, wherein the Apex Court held "court will not venture to assess merit or apprise it", Vijay Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , reported in (1990)2 SCC 746 for the proposition that expert bodies views should not be interfered with by the Court unless bias or mala fide alleged, the Chancellor and Anr. v. Dr. Bijayananda Karand Ors. , reported in (1994)1 SCC 169 for the proposition that "decision of an academic body should not be interfered with by the Court", Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. v. Dr. B. S. Mahajan and ors. , reported in (1990)1 SCC 305 for the legal principle that Court would not substitute relative merits of the candidates. ( 22 ) HAVING regard to such legal position, the Court on perusal of the records only is to satisfy itself as to whether any candidate who secured less marks than the petitioner was empanelled or not. On the basis of the records as produced, the Court is satisfied that no candidates who secured less marks than the petitioner in the interview was empanelled. All the candidates empanelled and thereafter appointed got marks 50 per cent or above. Furthermore, the empanelment of a candidate by fixing the minimum eligibility marks in the interview, which is in the instant case as per the Service Commission's contention was fixed to 50 per cent cannot be questioned as it is the employer concerned to decide and identify the minimum eligibility marks to empanel the respective candidates and the Court cannot substitute anything in this field unless it is challenged as ultra vires to the Constitution. Furthermore, no challenge has been made in this writ on fixation of 50 per cent marks in the oral interview as the minimum pass marks for being empanelled in the panel of lecturer who would be recommended for appointment. In that view of the matter, the Court will not surely dwelve into the legality or validity of fixation issue of marks in view of the settled legal position to that effect. In that view of the matter, the Court will not surely dwelve into the legality or validity of fixation issue of marks in view of the settled legal position to that effect. ( 23 ) HAVING regard to such state of affairs and the legal position as discussed and on the basis of the pleading of the petitioner, this Court is, accordingly, of the view that no case has been set up by the petitioner to grant any relief in terms of the prayer (a) as prayed for. ( 24 ) HAVING regard to such position, since no relief could be granted to the petitioner in terms of the prayer (a) as petitioner failed in the interview by not securing 50 per cent marks as fixed and as no candidate securing less marks than the petitioner has been appointed, writ application cannot succeed. ( 25 ) IN view of the aforesaid finding and observation of this Court, this court is, accordingly, of the view that the framing of the suo moto question by this Court now has become an academic question as even if that question is considered and answer goes against the added respondents, who are not qualified with NET/slet examination applying the settled legal position that statutory rules and regulations only could be modified, altered by amendment of such statutory regulation and by any executive decision even by exercising the power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India read with Article 166 of the constitution of India, Government there is no scope to alter, modify and vary the statutory provision on relying the judgment passed in the case B. N. Nagarajan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , reported in AIR 1979 SC 1676 , a judgment of three Judges Bench, wherein para 5 of the report, the Court held to this effect :"apart from repelling the contention that regularization connotes permanence, these observations furnish the second reason for rejection of the argument advanced on behalf of the promotees and that reason is that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 thereof in contravention of the rules. The regularization order was made long after the Probation rules, the seniority Rules and the Recruitment Rules were promulgated and could not therefore direct something which would do violence to any of the provisions thereof. " ( 26 ) SAME view was reiterated by the Court in the case A. Umaraniv. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors. , reported in (2004) 7 SCC 112 , a judgment of three Judges Bench. ( 27 ) THE petitioner as failed to secure even minimum 50 per cent marks in oral interview no relief could be granted by this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to go into that academic question as to whether there was any breach of minimum eligibility qualification prescribed by the said regulation framed by the University Grants Commission in respect of the candidates selected and appointed who are not qualified with NET/slet examination irrespective of their status as existing teaching staff at the material time as well as the breach of Section 9a and 9b of west Bengal College Service commission Act, which starts with the non obstante clause in the statues framed and constituted by State Legislatures. Even if, this point is answered against the added respondents except respondents No. 5 and 13 who are duly qualified and eligible due to their M. Phil qualification, the qualification which saved them from the rigour eligibility qualification to clear NET/slet, still then, the petitioner will not get any relief as the petitioner did not challenge the minimum pass marks in the interview, namely, 50 per cent as fixed by the Service Commission in their in-house circular to the members of the Selection Committee and/or the minimum marks as prescribed by the Selection Committee members itself as the case may be. Since no relief could be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the pleading, the Court is not inclined to decide that issue as to whether the selection and appointment of respondent added parties who are not qualified with NET/slet were void ab initio due to total breach of said Regulation of university Grants Commission and Section 9a read with Section 9b of College service Commission Act. This point is kept open for decision in appropriate case, if any challenge is made on that issue. This point is kept open for decision in appropriate case, if any challenge is made on that issue. ( 28 ) HAVING regard to aforesaid finding and observation, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ application. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. No order as to costs.