D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are by persons who had applied to the post of Asst. Professor in Fishery Microbiology subject in fisheries science discipline, responding to the Notification No. R/kvafsu (B) Rectt-Asst-Prof/06-07 dated 17-8-2006, published by the first respondent-Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences university, inviting applications from eligible persons to fill up the post. ( 2 ) THE post notified being one and the number of applicants being one too many, obviously there was a stiff competition and the University was required to go through a selection process to select most suitable candidate. The respondent-University purporting to go through such motions, having selected one M. T. Lakshmipathi (R-3), the petitioners who were aspirants to get the post being under the impression that they were only the eligible candidates, have questioned the selection before this Court in these two writ petitions, mainly challenging the selection on the premise that the university has selected an ineligible candidate, a candidate who did not even posses post graduate degree in fishery microbiology subject, though the notification indicated this was the essential qualification, but the applicants may have additional qualifications also. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS have mainly questioned the selection in terms of the order dated 18-12-2006, indicating the persons selected for various posts of professors, readers and assistant professors as had been notified under the notification dated 17-8-2006, particularly relating to the selection of third respondent whose name figures at S1. No. 39 of this list of selected candidates. It is for questioning the selection of third respondent these two petitions have been filed seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the selection of third respondent and also for a mandamus to direct the respondent-University to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of assistant professor in fishery microbiology. ( 4 ) NOTICES had been issued to the respondents initially and after preliminary hearing and on hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent-University as also the selected candidate, these petitions were admitted on 17-8-2007 and thereafter the petitions have been heard on different dates as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties and after conclusion of the arguments, the order as under is passed. ( 5 ) THE notification while indicates that applications are being invited from eligible persons who have qualified on the last date prescribed for filing of applications, which was 19-9-2006, the details of requisite qualification, eligibility conditions etc. , were supplemented by a notification displayed on the notice board of the University, which perhaps and were made available to the applicants. What is relevant for the purpose of these two petitions is one the applicants should have a good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent of grade B in 7 point scale with letter O, A, B, C, D, E and F grades at the master's degree level in the concerned subject from a recognized University, which is the foremost of education qualifications prescribed and the other amongst the general requirements viz. , clause-6 of the general requirements, which reads as under: "6. NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Assistant Professor even for the candidates having ph. D degree. However, the candidates who have completed M. Phil degree by 31st December 1993 or have submitted Ph. D thesis to the university in the concerned subject on or before 31st December 2002 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination. In case of candidates fail to obtain Ph. D degree, they shall have to pass the net examination. " which are the two eligibility criteria which arises for consideration and which have become the issue in the context of the selection of third respondent to the post. ( 6 ) CONTENTION on the part of the petitioner is that the selected candidate lacks this basis qualification of post-graduate degree in the subject concerned. Supplementary ground urged is that the composition of selection committee was not strictly in consonance with the requirement of the statute of the University viz. , Statute 30 (4) (a), according to which, the selection committee was required to be constituted in consonance with the UGC norms/rules and the deficiency pointed out in this regard is that while the UGC norms stipulate that there should be three persons who are experts in the subject, there was only one such person in the selection committee and therefore falls short of the UGC norms. ( 7 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance through Counsel. ( 7 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance through Counsel. While the state is represented by Sri S. Z. A. Khureshi, learned Additional government Advocate, the University is represented by Sri Shashidhar and the selected candidate is represented by Sri Satish M. Doddamani. ( 8 ) THE University has defended its action in selecting the third respondent to the post of assistant professor in fishery microbiology. It is also contended that the selection committee had been duly constituted in consonance with the statutory provisions; that it had occasion to interview the applicants, evaluation their performance based not only on the performance at the interview, but also on their academic attainments and had ranked them merit-wise by allotting marks under different heads, which is uniformly applied to all the applicants; that as per the merit-list prepared by the selection committee, third respondent topped the list and the selection committee having recommended the post to be given to the third respondent, the University has acted in consonance with the said recommendation and no fault can be found with the action of the University and that they have complied with the requirements of law and the writ petitions are without merit and are liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) I have heard Sri Prasanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner in w. P. No. 61 of 2007, Sri Dayanand S. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 19039 of 2006, Sri S. Z. A. Khureshi, learned AGA, appearing for the State, Sri Shashidhar, learned Counsel for the respondent-University and Sri Sathish M. Doddamani, learned Counsel for the selected candidate, at some length. ( 10 ) THOUGH many arguments have been advanced in the course of hearing, examination is being confined to the very relevant four issues. First issue is whether the selection committee is justified in selecting a candidate who even according to the notification and the University norms was not holding a post graduate degree in the subject of fishery microbiology. ( 10 ) THOUGH many arguments have been advanced in the course of hearing, examination is being confined to the very relevant four issues. First issue is whether the selection committee is justified in selecting a candidate who even according to the notification and the University norms was not holding a post graduate degree in the subject of fishery microbiology. ( 11 ) THE action of the selection committee is justified contending, inter alia, that the subject of fishery microbiology is a new subject even introduced in the University in the year 2000 for the first time; that the department itself is manned by professors and readers who are not necessarily holding the PG degree in the subject of fishery microbiology and the number of applicants having the educational/academic qualifications of PG degree in the subject of fishery microbiology is not numerous and that when otherwise eminent and highly qualified persons having the commensurate or equivalent qualification as that of PG degree in the subject of fishery microbiology were also available, the selection committee in its wisdom have thought it fit to evaluate the performance of such applicants also and haying selected on the basis of the merit inter se, the selection should not be nullified only on the technical ground that the selected candidate did not possess the qualification of PG degree in the subject of fishery microbiology. ( 12 ) IT is alternatively contended by Sri Satish M. Doddamani, learned counsel for selected candidate that one another essential qualification was the passing of national eligibility test (NET) in the subject; that none of the candidates possessed NET certificate in fishery microbiology; that all the four candidates virtually stand eliminated and in such a scenario, if the selection committee for the purpose of selection a most suitable applicant for the post had adopted the norm of an equivalent NET certificate, the same norm if had been applied by the selection committee in respect of the educational qualification of having PG degree in the subject and if had slightly relaxed that in favour of a person holding PG degree in the subject offish production and management subject, while is comparable to the subject of fishery microbiology, the selection of the committee should not be found fault with nor should be interfered with and the selection process should be left undisturbed. ( 13 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Sathish M. Doddamani is that the subject fishery microbiology being part of larger subject of fish production and management, it could be construed that a person holding the qualification of PG degree in the subject of fish production and management is also a person who can be construed as one possessing necessary knowledge, skill and proficiency in the subject of fishery microbiology and when such was the view of the selection committee which was an expert committee meant for selecting the most suitable applicant, that selection should not be disturbed by this Court on technicalities and only on the premise that the selected candidate technicality did not possess PG degree in the subject notified. ( 14 ) WITH regard to the composition of the committee, Sri Shashidhar, learned Counsel for the University has placed before the Court a notification dated 4-3-2003 as Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections filed by the University indicating that the Board of Regents in its 291st emergent meeting held on 26-11-2002 (item No. 10) had approved the constitution of the selection committee to be comprised of 1. The Vice-Chancellor to be the Chairperson of the selection committee; 2. Three experts in the concerned subject/field, out of the list recommended by the Vice-Chancellor approved by the executive Council/syndicate; 3. An academician who is the nominee of the Chancellor; 4. Dean of the Faculty concerned/head of the Department/division. for the purpose of Statute 30 (4) (a) of the University Statute; that the constitution of the committee being in consonance with this notification, which in itself is in consonance with the requirement or guidelines of the university Grants Commission, there was no flaw in the composition of the committee; that the selection made by such a committee cannot be found fault with on the premise that the constitution of the committee was not in consonance with Statute 30 (4) (a ). ( 15 ) THE only variation which had been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners is that while the requirement is of three experts on the committee, there was only one member in the committee, who was an expert in the subject concerned, but as per notification dated 4-3-2003, there is wider chace of the committee one comprised of three experts either in the subject or in the field, which would give a wider chance to the university in identifying the experts to be on the committee which was not in consonance with the UGC norms and therefore the selection committee itself is not properly constituted. But, Sri Shashidhar, learned counsel for the University has submitted that even as per the UGC norms, the requirement was only that of three experts in the subject or field, but this aspect of the matter was not being seriously contested by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that can be allowed to rest there and it can be accepted that the selection committee had been constituted in terms of the notification dated 4-3-2003 and in conformity with the requirement of statute 30 (4) (a ). ( 16 ) THEREFORE, the only issue is as to whether the selection calls for interference in the wake of the selection of third respondent, who admittedly did not possess the PG degree in the subject of fishery microbiology. ( 17 ) WHILE many submissions with varying hues and shades have been advanced on behalf of the University by its learned Counsel Sri Shashidhar and by Sri Satish M. Doddamani, learned Counsel for third respondent, to defend the action, perhaps, some of the arguments may be plausible also, what is examined in writ jurisdiction is fairness in State action, whether the action passes the test of providing equal opportunity by the Sate to all aspiring persons, which is the mandate under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The University being 'state' for the purpose of Article 12 is always expected to act in fair non-discriminatory manner. The University being 'state' for the purpose of Article 12 is always expected to act in fair non-discriminatory manner. Perhaps the judgment or a decision of the selection committee on the suitability of a candidate per se is not questionable in writ jurisdiction and this Court will not sit in appeal over such decision of the University-an academic body-on any academic issue and also the selection of the selection committee comprising of experts in the field, when it comes to a comparative competitive selection amongst many eligible suitable candidates, what is frowned upon is deviation from the norms totally as notified and as published by the university. Significance of the publication of the notification dated 17-8-2006 inviting applications from eligible candidates is that it is one which answers the requirement of Article 16 providing equal opportunity to all eligible candidates. When once the qualification such as post graduate degree in the particular subject, which is an educational qualification required on the part of the applicants who aspired for the post is stipulated and prescribed, it is not open either to the University or its selection committee to give a go-bye to this requirement and to treat a post-graduate degree in some other subject as an equivalent qualification and proceed to make selection on such premise. If that is permitted, what happens is many other persons who had similar equivalent post-graduate qualification are virtually kept out of the field denying equal opportunity to all such candidates. The question is not whether one applicant without postgraduate degree in the subject or less credentials or lacking on something else, is selected and therefore the selection is bad, but whether such opportunity had been accorded to all eligible persons at large. If the language or specification published in the notification expressly keeps out some such persons, the notification indicating that it is only persons having post graduate degree qualification with good academic record of not less than 55% marks etc. , in the particular subject to be the essential educational qualification, no other qualification can be substituted for this either as an equivalent or as a better qualification. The notification if fixes a particular criterion, the selection cannot be based on a different criterion or norm. , in the particular subject to be the essential educational qualification, no other qualification can be substituted for this either as an equivalent or as a better qualification. The notification if fixes a particular criterion, the selection cannot be based on a different criterion or norm. If the University had prescribed post-graduate degree in the particular subject as an essential qualification, the University is bound to adhere to this requirement and cannot deviate and so also the selection committee, which selects the candidates as a functionary of the university. Therefore, the University and its selection committee could have considered only the applicants with this basis educational qualification and not the candidature of third respondent, who admittedly did not possess this qualification. Therefore, the selection of third respondent inevitably has to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. ( 18 ) BUT the matter does not stop at that. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-University that the University may in such event be permitted to renotify the post and fill it up after going through the proper procedure yet again. ( 19 ) THIS submission is countered by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitting, inter alia, that when eligible candidates had applied and are available and their merits had been evaluated by the selection committee and all such persons had been ranked merit-wise, just because an ineligible candidate is selected, there is no need to go through the process of inviting applications once more nor the need for going through selection process yet again; that the University can very well proceed to select the next meritorious candidate in the list. ( 20 ) I find this submission very apt and applicable to the present situation. I say so for more than one reason. First the selection of an ineligible candidate amounts to arbitrary action on the part of the university, secondly the selecting an ineligible candidate and appointing such person can also be used as a ploy to keep out eligible candidate if the university or the selection committee does not like or is not disposed towards any other eligible candidate, who is otherwise topping the merit-list. That again leads to arbitrariness in the sense, the University can deliberately keep out the right candidate by selecting an ineligible candidate and when such a selection is challenged, come up with an answer that it will yet again go through the selection process by inviting applications afresh and thus achieve its design of eliminating a most merited candidate! That cannot be permitted. The University having gone through the selection process and the selection committee having ranked the applicants merit-wise, the selection should be of the most merited eligible candidate. Therefore, the University is directed to appoint the next meritorious candidate in the merit-list of applicants prepared by the selection committee. ( 21 ) IN this regard, I am unable to accept the submission of Sri Satish m. Doddamani, learned Counsel for third respondent that if the selection of the third respondent is to be annulled for want of education qualification, the entire selection process should also be quashed by applying the same norm, as, according to Sri Doddamani, all the four applicants lack requisite net qualification in the prescribed subject and therefore necessarily the post should be re-notified inviting fresh applications for the reason that the very argument had been examined by this Court earlier on this aspect as to whether the prescription of such qualification was a reality in the sense that it was a possibility. This Court had taken the view that if the university prescribes a qualification which is otherwise not attainable or can be obtained by persons who can apply to the post, such prescription should be held to be bad and that prescription alone should be quashed, in the order dated 5-7-2007 passed in WP No. 4343 of 2006 and connected cases. This reasoning precisely applies to the present situation also, as it is not disputed by any of the learned Counsel that the body conducting or holding NET has not conducted the test in the subject of fishery microbiology, but on the other hand, all the four applicants had an NET certificate in fish and fishery sciences. This reasoning precisely applies to the present situation also, as it is not disputed by any of the learned Counsel that the body conducting or holding NET has not conducted the test in the subject of fishery microbiology, but on the other hand, all the four applicants had an NET certificate in fish and fishery sciences. It is for this reason I am not accepting the submission of learned Counsel for the third respondent that the entire selection process itself should be quashed, when the general qualification of NET in fishery microbiology though is indicated as an essential qualification as per the condition No. 6 of the general qualifications, that being not reality and not a possibility, that cannot be put against any applicant, as unless the University clarifies this requirement in the next round of notification or in the interregnum the body conducting such tests should being holding tests in this subject also. Till then, prescribing such qualification will not be a reality. If that is the present situation, I do not find any substance in the contention that the entire selection process should be quashed on the premise that none of the applicants possessed NET certificate in the subject of fishery microbiology, which was not an attainable thing on the last date for filing of applications. ( 22 ) IN the result, these writ petitions are allowed and the selection order dated 18-12-2006 in so far as it relates to the selection of Sri M. T. Laxmipathy figuring at S1. No. 39 of the selection list, stands quashed, by issue of a writ of certiorari. The respondent-University is directed to offer the appointment to the post of assistant professor fishery microbiology to the next most meritorious candidate in the selection list, as prepared by the selection committee. Parties to bear their respective costs. Rule made absolute.