1. The present petition has been preferred by the two petitioners in person with a prayer for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the appointment dated 7.7.2006 appointing Dr. L.N. Lenka, (the private respondent No. 6) as Reader in the Department of Philosophy in reference to the advertisement dated 29.3.2006 in the North Eastern Hill University, Shillong CNEHU'). 2. The aforesaid advertisement dated 29.3.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) reveals that for one post of Reader of Philosophy the requirement was specialization in Philosophy of Religion/Philosophical Anthropology indicated as below; "(b) Reader: (i) a good academic record with doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In additional to this, candidates from outside the University system shall be required to possess at least 55 per cent marks or grade B in the 7-point scale in the letter grade O, A, B, C, D, E, F at the Master's Degree level. (ii) 5 (Five) years of teaching or Post-doctoral experience and contribution to scholarship as evidenced by the quality or publications/educational innovation/design of new courses/curricula shall be part of essential qualifications. 3. According to the petitioners, they had applied to the said post along with others as they are having specialization as required to the post of Reader but the Screening Committee headed by the Head of the Department of Philosophy of 'NEHU' as its Chairman has allowed only five candidates to be called for the interview, whereas none of them have requisite specialization but the petitioners were not called for the interview despite the fact that they are in possession of the required specialization. The Selection Committee comprising of seven persons, including the Vice-Chancellor of 'NEHU' as its Chairman has, vide its order dated 27.6.2006, recommended Dr. L.N. Lenka (private respondent No. 6) the sole candidate suitable for appointment to the post in order of merit. The petitioners had sent representation, dated, 5.7.2006 to the Vice-Chancellor and Chairman, Executive Council, NEHU, Shillong challenging the said appointment specifically requesting them not to appoint any person as 'Reader' in department of Philosophy of 'NEHU' as the said selection was defective and was suffering from many procedural deficiencies as well as was contrary to the provisions of the statute. According to the petitioners, Section OE.4.5.3(vi) of 'NEHU Ordinance' was not to be relaxed and changed. According to the petitioners, Section OE.4.5.3(vi) of 'NEHU Ordinance' was not to be relaxed and changed. When specialization in Philosophy of Religion was required for appointment to the post of Reader in Philosophy was indicated in the advertisement then the Screening Committee as well as the Selection Committee was not empowered to relax the requirement or criteria of specialization and to adopt the different parameters without any rhyme or reason and contrary to the provisions of law. According to the petitioners, as per section 20(2)(iii) of 'NEHU Statute' the composition of Selection Committee for the post of Reader in Philosophy shall be only experts having specialization in the subject concerned. 4. According to the petitioners, the following aspects are important to be taken into consideration while testing the legality and validity of the selection in question: (i) The experts constituting the Committee were expected to be in possession of the specialization in the subject concerned, i.e., specialization in Philosophy of Religion/Philosophical Anthropology however, specialization in the subject is lacking in all the experts; (ii) Even none of the candidates who participated in the selection were having specialization in Philosophy of Religion/Philosophical Anthropology; (iii) The records of the petitioners were not considered and their research and published works too were not looked into by the Screening Committee; (iv) The Selection Committee has not indicated any criteria or parameter in respect of allocating marks to the candidates on items, e.g., academic achievement as well as knowledge of the subject as well as personality test. (v) No panel of selected candidates according to merits was prepared and only private respondent No. 6 Dr. L.N. Lenka was recommended for appointment to the post of Reader in Philosophical Anthropology/ Philosophy of Religion. A. Many of the applicants possessing good academic record consistently right from the High School to the post-graduation in comparison to Dr. L.N. Lenka were denied to be brought in the panel of the selection and Dr. Lenka, the private respondent No. 6 was selected arbitrarily. A. Many of the applicants possessing good academic record consistently right from the High School to the post-graduation in comparison to Dr. L.N. Lenka were denied to be brought in the panel of the selection and Dr. Lenka, the private respondent No. 6 was selected arbitrarily. The outcome of the Selection Committee was to be presented to the Executive Committee and only after approval of the same, the appointment order was to be issued and thereafter the selected candidate is entitled to the post but in no case a candidate before issuance of appointment order only in reference to an offer has any legal right to join the post herein to the post of Reader in Philosophy in 'NEHLP only on the basis of the outcome of selection. Even in 1st, IInd, IIIrd and IVth Semester, 2006 and in IInd and IVth Semester of 2007 of the Time Table for teaching in the Department of Philosophy of 'NEHU' reveal that Dr. L.N. Lenka has either taught subject of Analytic Philosophy or Western Epistemology and the subject of Philosophy of Religion for which he was appointed as that subject was taught by some other teachers; B. The Executive Council said to have given approval of the appointment of Dr. L.N. Lenka to the post of 'Reader' but by misrepresenting has only indicated in the Agenda Book as the Reader in the subject of Religion/Philosophical Anthropology and not indicated the clear subject of "Philosophy of Religion". There is no proof on records to show that Dr. L.N. Lenka, i.e., appointed person as Reader was having a specialization in Philosophy of Religion/Philosophical Anthropology, Dr. Lenka has himself admitted in the year 2004 that he was having specialization Analytic in Philosophy which is evident and could be observed from page 9 of rejoinder to affidavit-in-opposition, 3rd line under (vi) of NEHU webside. C. From the annual report of the year 2003-04 marked as Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition it reveals that Dr. L.N. Lenka has himself admitted that his specialization is in Analytic Philosophy. D. In order to cover the lacuna and defects in respect of qualification of Dr. L.N. Lenka a reference was made in the Ph.D thesis by Dr. Lenka (in the year 2002) to project as if it may be known in the year 2002 itself, whereas, in view of last part of 3rd paragraph at page 9 of affidavit-in-reply when Dr. L.N. Lenka a reference was made in the Ph.D thesis by Dr. Lenka (in the year 2002) to project as if it may be known in the year 2002 itself, whereas, in view of last part of 3rd paragraph at page 9 of affidavit-in-reply when Dr. Lenka was not having specialization in Analytic Philosophy in the year 2004 then in any case Dr. Lenka cannot be said to have specialization in Philosophy of Religion at all. E. Only on the basis of the recommendation dated 7.7.2006 of the Executive Council more so, without issuance of appointment letter Dr. Lenka, has no legal right to join the post of Reader. 5. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent/'NEHU' that a Committee constituted by the Head of the Department of Philosophy of 'NEHU' has scrutinized all the applications of the proposed candidates including the petitioners and it was found that only six candidates were eligible to be called for the interview, out of which only four candidates appeared in the interview held on 27.6.2006 and the Selection Committee comprising of seven persons including Vice Chancellor as Chairman had on merit found Dr. L.N. Lenka most suitable, therefore, in an usual way Dr. Lanka alone was rightly recommended for appointment and no panel of selected candidate was necessary to be made and after the approval of the outcome of selection by the Executive Council on 7.7.2006 an appointment was given to Dr. L.N. Lenka who himself was serving in the same Department of Philosophy and on the same day, i.e., on 7.7.2006 the offer of appointment was given to Dr. Lenka whereupon he joined as a Reader in the Department of Philosophy on 7.7.2006 itself and has also submitted his joining and charge taking report. However, the appointment order appointing Dr. L.N. Lenka as a Reader could be issued on 27th July, 2006 by indicating that Dr. Lenka had been appointed on 7.7.2006 (AN) as a Reader in the Department of Philosophy. In fact draft appointment order was prepared on 27.7.2006 which after approval of Vice Chancellor was issued on 1.8.2008 appointing Dr. L.N. Lenka as a Reader of Philosophy with effect from 7.7.2006. The appointment has been made on merit and keeping in view the suitability of Dr. In fact draft appointment order was prepared on 27.7.2006 which after approval of Vice Chancellor was issued on 1.8.2008 appointing Dr. L.N. Lenka as a Reader of Philosophy with effect from 7.7.2006. The appointment has been made on merit and keeping in view the suitability of Dr. L.N. Lenka and also keeping in view his research and work published and the Screening Committee after analyzing his research and published work has observed that he is having specialization in Philosophy of Religion/Philosophical Anthropology. Such constituted Selection Committee consisting of expert members was on the basis of the list supplied by Professor Jagat Pal, Head of the Department of 'NEHU'. It is the subjective satisfaction of the members of the Selection Committee who approved Dr. L,N. Lenka as most proper candidate for appointment having specialization as required. Allowing Dr. Lenka to join on 7.7.2006 only on the basis of outcome of selection dated 27.6.2006 and approval dated 7.7.2006 of Executive Council without issuance of appointment letter (which was issued subsequently on 1.8.2006) cannot be fatal. Allow to join a candidate in reference to an offer of the appointment even without appointment order/letter only on the basis of approval of Executive Council shall not vitiate the appointment as in the appointment order dated 1.8.2006 itself it was indicated that the appointment would be effective from 7.7.2006. It has also been argued on behalf of 'NEHU' that the petitioners were not found eligible to be called for the interview even in reference to the remarks given by the members of the Screening Committee, wherein it was indicated that the petitioners were not having required specialization and the petitioner No. 1 Shri Xavier P. Mao was debarred by the Executive Council of NEHU vide its order dated 11.10.2001, from being member of any statutory body of the University and from being considered to any higher post either by way of promotion or through direct recruitment for coming 5 (five) years and in that respect even the letter of Professor Jagat Pal was placed before the Screening Committee in respect of his disentitlement from being considered to any post for five years from 11.10.2001. According to the learned counsel for the 'NEHU', in any case the candidates whose testimonials, academic qualification and research and published work were found more superiors, only those candidates were chosen and were taken as eligible candidates for being called for the interview. 6. The learned counsel for the 'NEHU' has submitted that clause (5) of statute 20 of the 'NEHU' provides specific procedure for the Selection Committee and para 5 also provides procedure of scrutiny which, for convenience, are given as below:-- "5(1) The applications of all candidates for the posts of Lecturers, Readers, Professors or equivalent posts or application for placement/promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme shall be forwarded by the University office to the Heads of the Department concerned. However, if the Head of the Department happens to be a Reader, the applications for the posts of Professors or equivalent will be forwarded to a Professor in the Department or failing which to the Dean of the School." "(2) The Head of the Department shall constitute a Committee of not less than three members of the staff in the Department not below the rank of a Reader including the Professor(s) (excluding Professors re-appointed after superannuation) in the Department to scrutinize the applications for the posts of Lecturers, Readers and equivalents and for preparing a list of candidates for interview. Similarly, a Committee will be constituted by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the School, as the case may be, for scrutinizing the applications for the posts of Professors or equivalent. This Committee will comprise not less than three persons and shall include all Professors in the Department (excluding Professors re-appointed after superannuation) and at least one Professor from another Department in the School or another School." 7. This Committee will comprise not less than three persons and shall include all Professors in the Department (excluding Professors re-appointed after superannuation) and at least one Professor from another Department in the School or another School." 7. Requirement for the Selection Committee, as indicated for the posts of Professors and Readers, according to the Statute, are as below: "2(A) The Selection Committee for the appointment to the posts of Professor/Reader in the University shall consist of the following: (i) Vice-Chancellor-Chairperson (ii) An academician nominated by the Visitor (iii) Three experts in the concerned subject/filed not below the rank of Professor nor in the service of the University and nominated by the Executive Council, out of panel of names recommended by the Academic Council, (iv) Dean of the School (v) Head of the Department/Centre At least four members, including two experts, shall constitute the quorum: Provided that for the post of Professor, the Head of the Department/ Centre shall not be a member of the Selection Committee if he/she is not a Professor: Provided further that for the post of Reader, the Lecturer-in-charge of the Department/Centre shall not be a member of the Selection Committee." 8. According to Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the 'NEHU' in any case Mr. Mao the petitioner No. 1 on 27.6.2006, i.e., on the date of selection was not entitled to be considered by virtue of placement of complaint letter by Professor Mr. Jagat Pal before the Screening Committee while scrutinizing the applications of the candidates. Such letter may vitiate the selection as apparently only those candidates were chosen for interview who were superior in educational qualifications. The petitioners were not awarded Ph. D degree whereas, all the candidates invited for the interview were in possession of having Ph.D. degree, therefore, no question arose to take out those candidates having equivalent research and published work. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S, Chakraborty has also made an endeavour to justify the genuineness of selection and the suitability of his candidature, e.g., Dr. L.N. Lenka to the post of Reader in 'NEHU' on the basis of the materials and pleading in the present petition. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S, Chakraborty has also made an endeavour to justify the genuineness of selection and the suitability of his candidature, e.g., Dr. L.N. Lenka to the post of Reader in 'NEHU' on the basis of the materials and pleading in the present petition. 10. For best known to 'NEHU the photo copies of the selection process only (not the originals) were produced before this court by the authorities of 'NEHU' despite specific directions and after scrutiny of these, it appears that in the selection in question members of the Committee including Vice Chancellor Professor P. Tandon were present. The selection said to have been made on 27.6.2006 has recommended only one candidate, i.e., Dr. L.N Lenka and a panel of Select List has not been prepared. 11. For one post of Reader on the subject showing specialization on Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Anthropology, requirement was MA with Doctorate Degree or equivalent. Publication of research work on the subject and five years teaching experience. Out of 13 candidates, 12 candidates were scrutinized and 6 candidates were chosen out as eligible candidates for interview by the Screening Committee. I find that one candidate has secured though high percentage in HSLC, PU, BA(Hons.) and MA in comparison to Dr. L.N. Lenka and that candidate is also a Ph.D. During the course of argument, the authorities have not produced the original records of the Selection Committee. The authorities have not indicated what criteria, parameters and what numbers were specified for different heads/aspects namely, academic achievements, knowledge of the subject, personality test. In absence of these nothing could be commented upon the subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee. Nothing is known how, the members of the Committee have applied their mind in order to assess the candidates and approving any candidate to the post of Reader. The Selection Committee has approved Dr. L.N. Lenka the only one candidate on 27.6.2006 and has recommended his name without preparing panel of candidates on merits. The offer of appointment was given on 7.7.2006, eventually, Dr. The Selection Committee has approved Dr. L.N. Lenka the only one candidate on 27.6.2006 and has recommended his name without preparing panel of candidates on merits. The offer of appointment was given on 7.7.2006, eventually, Dr. L.N. Lenka has joined same day, whereas, as revealed from the photo stat of the documents produced by the authorities and 'NEHU', the proposal for appointment was prepared by the Head of Department on 27.6.2006, the same was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University on 30.7.2006 and ultimately the appointment order/ letter was issued on 1.8.2006 indicating that appointment is being given with effect from 7.7.2006. In the service book also the service of Dr. L.N. Lenka is mentioned to have commended as a Reader with effect from 7.7.2006. 12. It is very anomalous rather unknown in service jurisprudence that a candidate shall have no legal right to a post only on the basis of recommendation of Selection Committee. A candidate only in reference to an offer to a post (Reader in present case) cannot be allowed to join without valid appointment order. No candidate has right to the post unless the appointment order is issued by the competent authority. It is the appointment order which gives legal entitlement to a post and ex post facto letter of appointment order/letter after allowing a candidate to join or to take charge to a post is unacceptable to the system and contrary to law. Such a view gets support by the observation made in para 26 of (2007) 1 SCC 683 (State ofUttaranchal and Another v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma where it was observed as follows: "Therefore, it is clear that unless a selection is made in accordance with the rules and in the absence of rules, in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the time being by executive instructions issued by the Government, there can be no automatic promotion or appointment to any post on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, unless the Government sanction such promotion and appointment." 13. The selection process must be fair and impartial. As held by the Supreme Court in para 8 of AIR 1992 SC 1806 (National Institute of Mental Health v, K. Kalyana Raman) the procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness or 'fair procedure' in the administrative action ought to be observed. The selection process must be fair and impartial. As held by the Supreme Court in para 8 of AIR 1992 SC 1806 (National Institute of Mental Health v, K. Kalyana Raman) the procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness or 'fair procedure' in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. 14. In fact, proper minutes of the proceedings are to be maintained. In this case I am of considered view that the minutes of the proceedings of the selection committee have not been maintained properly creating doubts as in view of the decision of Supreme Court in AIR 1984 SC 363 (B.S. Minhas v, Indian Statistical Institute), public bodies should maintain proper minutes of the proceedings regarding selection to obviate any suspicion or doubt. Such minutes along with relevant documents should be placed before the final selecting authority. 15. In the present case, the post of Reader having specialization in Philosophy of Religion/Philosophical Anthropology was to be fulfilled subject to fulfilling certain norms, conditions, qualifications and requirements specified as eligibility of the candidate. However, the Selection Committee cannot relax essential qualification unless it was expressly empowered to do so by the statute or rules applicable for the purpose. In my considered view the Selection Committee, in the present case, has adopted discretionary criteria without having any rationality and thereby has chosen the respondent No. 6 by favouring him and ignoring other meritorious candidates. In 2006 AIR SCW 6203 (Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman, U.P.S.C. Ors. where for fulfilling the post of Superintending Archaeologist the eligibility criteria was diploma in Archaeology, with field experience of 3 years as an essential qualification the hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the candidate having experience in epigraphy could not be said to fulfil essential qualification as archaeology and epigraphy were to be two different a disciplines and in those prevailing circumstances Public Service Commission was said not to relax the essential qualifications as it was not expressly empowered to do so. 16. In respect of the specialization no material has been produced before this court so as to know how candidates or aspirants were found to in possession of specialization in philosophy of Religion/Philosophy of Anthropology. The bio-date of Dr. 16. In respect of the specialization no material has been produced before this court so as to know how candidates or aspirants were found to in possession of specialization in philosophy of Religion/Philosophy of Anthropology. The bio-date of Dr. Lenka as divulged on Yahoo Internet as submitted by the petitioners in person indicate that in the personal bio data Dr. L.N. Lenka has indicated his specialization in the year 2004 as in Analytic Philosophy only. It means Dr. Lenka was having no specialization in Philosophy of Religion at relevant time. All the experts who were invited to be expert members in the Selection Committee were not having specialization on the above said two subjects. Mostly they were all experts of Indian Philosophy. 17. However, it has also not been divulged as to how the petitioners in person could also be said to be specialized in all the above two subjects. However, petitioners in person have very vehemently tried to impress this court that if his publication works could have been looked into they could have been called upon the interview. How they could be said to be at part with the candidates having Ph.D. A candidate being a holder of Ph.D degree or equivalent, published papers of research work was entitled to be called for the interview. Publication works of the petitioners could have been perused by the Expert Committee and the Screening Committee. Proper comments were to be made to that effect, however, no exercise on that aspect have been forth coming. The panel of candidates on merits as outcome of Selection Committee was to be prepared. No derogatory letter or confidential letter about a candidate was supposed to impress the Screening Committee behind his back, then how Prof. Jagat Pal, Head of Department himself being Head of Screening Committee has placed his own letter about Mr. Xavier P. Mao as a complaint material and conclusion of not calling his name in interview was arrived at by mentioning in the remark column of form that Mr. Mao was debarred. Such remarks were not desirable as the same had left the scope of vitiating the fairness of selection irrespective of the fact that Mr. Mao's candidature was not to be considered for five years, i.e., upto 10.10.2006 as he was otherwise not to be considered but his non-consideration was to be only after analyzing his work, etc. Mao was debarred. Such remarks were not desirable as the same had left the scope of vitiating the fairness of selection irrespective of the fact that Mr. Mao's candidature was not to be considered for five years, i.e., upto 10.10.2006 as he was otherwise not to be considered but his non-consideration was to be only after analyzing his work, etc. and then to say he cannot be called for interview. A peculiar feature, which has been highlighted by the Screening Committee as indicated in the Remark column that Mr. Mao was not entitled to be considered as the University had already debarred, him to be considered for 5 years from 11.10.2001. In that respect, it appears writ petition was filed before Single Bench, which was dismissed against which writ petition is pending. However, even on the date of selection, i.e., 27.6.2006 the embargo indicated by the University on 11.10.2001 was applicable, therefore, the Screening Committee was justified in not calling Mr. Mao for the interview conducted on 27.6.2006. 18. Many of the aspects have also been intended to be impressed upon, however, those are not relevant for adjudication of the case. Selection right from advertisement, screening, procedure and giving appointment to Dr. Lenka to the post of Reader in Department of Philosophy of 'NEHU' apart from being not in consonance to the statute are discriminatory, unfair, defective and non-production of original records also create doubt in view of the foregoing observations. The entire selection, process and appointment of Dr. Lenka are defective and full of procedural as well as legal deficiencies. The output of a defective system shall have no right to the post and salary. As such selection and appointment of Dr. Lenka, the respondent No. 6 to the post of Reader in 'NEHU' (Department of Philosophy) is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.