( 1 ) IT is rarely that a public employment attains finality now a days without being challenged and made subject matter of judicial review before the superior Courts of the country. Whether the appointments are at the lowest level that of an Attender, Peon etc. , categorized as class IV employees or appointment at the highest level even at the level of vice Chancellor of the University, such appointments are questioned and challenged before the Court as illegal, violative of the constitutional provisions, as being vitiated by mala fides, bias or favouritism. It is more an exception than a rule that any such appointments attain finality without being made subject matter of judicial review. The questions and challenges relating to public employment, not merely initial appointments but even during the tenure of employment, promotions, entitlement of wages and salary and related questions have engaged the attention of the superior Courts ever since our country adopted and is governed by the Constitution of India from the year 1950 onwards. More than 50% of the litigation in the superior Courts were only of matters relating to service conditions of the employees employed by the State. Whether employment is by the State per se, in the sense, it is by either the State Government or the Central government or such other bodies like local authorities or public sector undertakings, the challenges to such employments continue to remain before the superior courts. The proliferation of writ litigation in the service sector while may be a sign of confidence reposed in the judicial system and the courts also do examine such grievances on the touchstone of judicial review of administrative action, at the same time, it is a poor reflection on the executive part of the State running the administration of the State as large number of citizens dissatisfied in respect of the administrative action carried out and implemented by the Executive part of the State to give effect to the legislation ushered in by the competent legislatures reflecting the will of the people, is not a very healthy trend as it indicates that the administration is not on sound lines; that there is either lapse or shortcoming on the part of the executive part of the State in implementing the statutory provisions and this is a serious matter which the administration has to take note of. Administration on sound management lines results in reducing the follies, inconsistencies, avoiding illegalities and this should be the endeavour of the Executive part of the State. It is in the wake of such prolific litigation, the Parliament thought it proper to establish Administrative Tribunals which can exclusively examine the grievances of the employees employed not only by the governments but also by notified public sector undertakings. ( 2 ) THE definition of 'state' for the purpose of Part-Ill of the Constitution of India has been expanding. The societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the trusts, the limited companies, societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, quasi Governmental bodies and all institutions either having a flavour Governmental activities or funded, controlled or managed by the government have all been brought within the scope of the phrase 'state' as it occurs in Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) PART-IN of the Constitution of India comprises of fundamental rights and Article 16 is a fundamental right, though in a sense, it is not a positive right as Article 16 ensures equal opportunity to all citizens in the matter of public employment not that every citizen is assured of employment but every citizen should be afforded an opportunity to compete public employment. Further mandate of Article 16 of the constitution of India is persons who aspire for employment under the 'state' as the expression occurs in Part III cannot be discriminated on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence etc. , nor can be made ineligible on such grounds. No doubt, sub-articles (3), (4), (4-A)and (4-B) of Article 16 provides for exceptions in favour of identified groups of persons, but Article 16 mandates the State to ad-here to the fulfillment of assurance of equal opportunity to all citizens by not shutting out options to any citizen in the matter of public employment and also to ensure equal treatment while considering the aspiring persons to be appointed. ( 4 ) IT is by now well settled that the Universities-Centres of Knowledge, learning and excellence on all aspects of Science, Arts. Crafts and humanities answer the description of 'state' for the purpose of Part III of the constitution of India. ( 4 ) IT is by now well settled that the Universities-Centres of Knowledge, learning and excellence on all aspects of Science, Arts. Crafts and humanities answer the description of 'state' for the purpose of Part III of the constitution of India. ( 5 ) PETITIONERS in this writ petition are citizens who had aspired for being appointed to the post of 'director of Extension' in the respondent No. 1-University of Agricultural sciences in terms of a public notification dated 5-10-2004 (copy at Annexure H ). By its notification the University had invited applications in the prescribed form and from eligible candidates in respect of five categories of posts indicated therein amongst which figure the post of 'director of Extension', UAS, hebbal at Sl. No. 4 and the post being only one post. Applicants being many and the post being one, quite naturally there was competition and the university was required to make selection of the most suitable and eligible candidate by applying the relevant norms which are the legislative enactments, namely, the university of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'), the Statute and regulations framed under this Act and the supplementing orders, guidelines, circulars issued by the competent authority of the University for the purpose of making selection, in addition to the statutory provisions. ( 6 ) IT is the version of the writ petitioners that the respondent-University while going through the process of selection for the purpose of appointing one amongst the applicants to the post of 'director of Extension' has not made a proper merit based selection; that selecting the respondent no. 5 to the post is not in consonance with the relevant statutory provisions governing such appointment; that the university authorities have discriminated between the writ petitioners and the respondent no. 5 in the matter of evaluating their ability and suitability to the post; that there are procedural lapses also in following the relevant statutory provisions; that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 is violative of not only the statutory provisions but in rum resulting in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore is not sustainable; that the appointment of respondent no. 5 which is made in terms of the order of the University dated 3-3-2006 (copy at annexure-J) should be quashed and for consequential mandamus to direct the respondent-University and its officers to consider and appoint any one amongst the petitioners to the post and for such other relief, the present writ petition. ( 7 ) ALL the respondents were put on notice by this Court and the University and its officers impleaded as respondents 1 to 3, State of karnataka impleaded as respondent No. 4 and the selected candidate impleaded as respondent No. 5 have all entered appearance through their respective counsel. Statement of objections have also been filed on behalf of the University and its Officers as also by the respondent No: 5 - the selected candidate. ( 8 ) WRIT petition was formally admitted on 9-11-2006 by issue of rule. Writ petition was taken up for disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties on 10-9-2007 and has been heard further on 11-9-2007, 12-9-2007 and also today. ( 9 ) I have heard Sri. M. S. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. D. N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri. Sridhar Hiremath, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3-University and its officers, Sri S Z A Khureshi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4-State and sri. Srinivas Murthy, learned counsel led by sri Madhusudhan R Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. ( 10 ) THE sum and substance of the petition averments and submissions on behalf of the writ petitioners is that the selection is bad on the touchstone of the relevant statutory provisions; that the statutory provisions have not been adhered to; that different yardsticks have been employed in assessing the ability and suitability of the applicants to the post and therefore the selection is bad; that the respondent No. 5 if should have been assessed on the proper application of the statute and the supplemental guidelines, could not have been selected as the most merited candidate to the post notified and in support of this version not only attention is drawn to the relevant statutory provisions but also some of the decided cases both of this court and of the Supreme Court. ( 11 ) RESPONSE on behalf of the respondents, particularly, by the University and its Officers is that the University has adhered to the statutory provisions governing the selection of a candidate to the post of 'director of Extension' in the university; that the merit and ability of the applicants who remained in the zone of consideration after eliminating less meritorious candidate by a screening method has been assessed not only on the touchstone of the statutory provisions but also by employing uniform and set known supplemental guidelines; that a selection committee had been put in place in accordance with the statutory provisions; that the selection committee had ranked the persons who had appeared before the selection committee for interview and has assessed and has listed their names according to the order of merit; that the respondent No. 5 topped the merit list by securing 77 marks as against maximum of 100 marks as awarded by the selection committee; that all other candidates who were interviewed by the selection committee including the writ petitioners were ranked lower as total marks which they got on the basis of their merit and ability was less than the marks earned by respondent No. 5; that the selection committee had recommended the names of three candidates who topped the merit list and in that order to the appointing authority of the University, namely, the Board of Regents; that the appointing authority while examined the matter, has nevertheless accepted the recommendation of the selection committee, has offered the appointment to the highest merited candidate; that there has been no illegality, no violation of any statutory provision nor any flaw in the selection procedure;that the writ petitioners are only disgruntled persons as they failed in their attempt to secure the post, but the post of 'director of Extension' having been offered to the most merited candidate, the constitutional requirement of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is fully met and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed. ( 12 ) IT is such respective stands on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the respondents which have been presented before the court by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents in different hues and shades and by reference to the very statutory provisions. ( 12 ) IT is such respective stands on behalf of the petitioners and on behalf of the respondents which have been presented before the court by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents in different hues and shades and by reference to the very statutory provisions. ( 13 ) THE notification inviting the applications in terms of Annexure H had indicated the essential qualifications for each of the posts and had also indicated the method and manner of assessment of the suitability of the applicants in the light of the statutory provisions governing selection for the post and the supplemental procedure of applying what is known as 'score card method' of evaluating the merit of the applicants on a scale of 90 marks distributed under different heads which procedure is a set supplemental procedure applied in general for the purpose of evaluating inter se merit of the applicants in respect of all posts of officers sought to be filled up by the University. A specimen copy of this score card sheet (copy at Annexure-M) which indicates, inter alia, for a maximum of 90 marks, academic qualifications is one in respect of which 10 marks are earmarked with maximum of 3 marks for Bachelor's degree if a person has I Class Bachelor's degree and 3 marks in respect of Masters Degree and if the applicant has Ph. D. , degree in the relevant field maximum of 3 marks is allotted from technical university and if it is in basic sciences and pure science University - 2 marks and if had obtained Ph. D. , degree as external student by research - 1. 50 marks, maximum of 7. 5 marks and other attainments like diploma etc. , being earmarked 1 mark. ( 14 ) LIKEWISE, in respect of past experience, particularly, in teaching as professor, rural areas and depending on the location of the place of teaching a maximum of 20 marks is earmarked. In respect of publication of research articles books, papers presented at workshops, symposium, seminars etc. , maximum of 15 marks is allotted. In respect of academic excellence, maximum of 5 marks is allotted, while for achieving special attainment in technical field and its applications, further 15 marks is earmarked. In respect of publication of research articles books, papers presented at workshops, symposium, seminars etc. , maximum of 15 marks is allotted. In respect of academic excellence, maximum of 5 marks is allotted, while for achieving special attainment in technical field and its applications, further 15 marks is earmarked. Another 10 marks is allotted to the performance of an applicant in their earlier stint, particularly, for obtaining externally funded projects and working in that on behalf of the employer. Participation in symposiums and ability to organize while fetches a maximum of 5 marks, entrepreneur activity in institutional building and for developing the faculty and contributions meant for such purposes elicits maximum of another 5 marks, assessment of former employer of an applicant during the 5 years fetches maximum of 5 marks depending upon the grading that had been awarded by the former employer. While the score card adds upto total of 90 marks, 10 marks are exclusively earmarked to the performance of an interviewed candidate who is interviewed by the selection committee and for which marks is awarded by the selection committee. A foot note is appended to the pro forma of score card sheet which reads as under : "note: i) Marks for performance from S1. No. 1 to 9 will be awarded by a Scrutiny committee consisting of an outside expert appointed by the University based on the production of certificates, documents and records by the candidate issued by the competent authority. ii) Any candidate getting a minimum of 54 marks academic score (performance score from S1. No. 1 to 9) will only be eligible for call for interview. iii) Academic score of the candidate should not be made available to the members of the selection Committee at the time of interview. However, the same will be made available to them after the interviews are over to tabulate the total marks and to finalize the recommendations for the selection. iii) Academic score of the candidate should not be made available to the members of the selection Committee at the time of interview. However, the same will be made available to them after the interviews are over to tabulate the total marks and to finalize the recommendations for the selection. " ( 15 ) SIGNIFICANCE of the footnote is that it brings into picture a scrutiny committee which comprises of an outside expert appointed by the University whom the University finds fit and competent to perform a job assigned to the Committee and the real significance being that a candidate who has applied to the post if does not obtain a maximum of 54 marks in terms of the score card sheet for a maximum of 90 marks, such applicants are eliminated from the zone of consideration and thereafter it is only such of those applicants who obtained marks of 54 and above as against 90 marks in terms of the score card method should remain in the race for being assessed and selected by the selection committee. ( 16 ) FURTHER procedural aspects is indicated in Note-iii which makes it clear that at the time of interviewing candidates who remain in race after score card screening test by selection committee, the members of the selection committee are not made privy to marks obtained by the candidates in terms of score card method and their evaluation as against maximum 90 marks but such marks will be made available to the selection committee after the interview, in the sense, after the selection committee awards marks to the interviewed candidates for a maximum of 10 marks by assessing their ability, performance at interview, for the purpose of tabulating total marks and to finalize recommendations for selection. ( 17 ) THOUGH the score card method of assessing the ability and merit of a candidate has been noticed in detail as above, it is in fact not a statutory procedure indicated either in the Act or in the statutes. ( 17 ) THOUGH the score card method of assessing the ability and merit of a candidate has been noticed in detail as above, it is in fact not a statutory procedure indicated either in the Act or in the statutes. It is also a matter for consideration that while assessing inter se merit and ability and merit of an applicant, in respect of 90 marks out of maximum 100 marks already assessed by score card method and by scrutiny committee as indicated in footnote to score card, actual marks awarded by statutory selection committee is against maximum of 10 marks to be given at time of interview. Though learned counsel appearing for university and selected candidate have made a common endeavour to submit that selection committee yet again assesses comparative merits and suitability of each of candidate interviewed by them even in respect of awarding of 90 marks as provided in score card, this aspect of the matter will be examined a little more in detail in the latter part. The stand is noticed as of now. ( 18 ) THE relevant statutory provisions to which reference has been made and attention of the Court is drawn both by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents which read as under : "6. The stand is noticed as of now. ( 18 ) THE relevant statutory provisions to which reference has been made and attention of the Court is drawn both by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents which read as under : "6. Powers of the University.-The University shall have the following powers, namely :- (1) to provide for instruction in agriculture, horticulture, veterinary and animal science, dairying, fisheries, agricultural engineering, home economics and other allied sciences and in such other branches of learning as the university may deem fit; (2) to make provision for research and the dissemination of the findings of research and technical information through an extension education programme; (3) to institute degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions; (4) to institute courses of study and to hold examinations for and to confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions on persons who have,- (a) pursued a course of study as prescribed; or (b) carried out research in the University or in an institution recognised in this behalf by the University, as may be prescribed; (5) to confer honorary degrees or other distinctions as may be prescribed; (6) to provide lectures and instruction for field workers, village leaders and other persons not enrolled as regular students of the university and to grant certificates to them as may be prescribed; (7) to co-operate with other Universities and authorities in such manner and for such purposes as the University may determine; (8) to establish and maintain colleges relating to agriculture, fisheries dairying, veterinary and allied sciences and hostels therefor, (9) to maintain laboratories, libraries, research stations and institutes, and museums for teaching, research and extension education; (10) to institute teaching, research and extension education posts required by the University and to appoint persons to such posts; (11) to create administrative, ministerial and other posts and to appoint persons to such posts; (12) to institute and award fellowships, scholarships and prizes in accordance with the Statutes; (13) to institute and maintain residential accommodation for students of the University; (14) to fix, demand and receive such fees and other charges as may be prescribed; (15) to supervise and control the residence, conduct and discipline of the students of the university, and to make arrangements for promoting their health and welfare; (16) to do all such acts and things whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not, as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the University. 9. Officers of the University.-The following shall be the officers of the university namely :- (1) The Chancellor, (2) The Pro-Chancellor, (3) The Vice-Chancellor, (4) The Dean, (5) The Comptroller, (6) The Registrar, (7) The Librarian, (8) The Directors of Instruction, (9) The Director of Research, (10) The Director of Extension, (11) The Heads of Divisions, and (12) such other officers in the service of the University as may be declared by the Statutes to be officers of the University. 10. The Chancellor.- (1) The Governor of the State of Karnataka shall by virtue of his office be the Chancellor of the University. (2) The Chancellor shall be the Head of the University and shall when present, preside at any convocation of the University. (3) No honorary degree shall be conferred by the University upon any person without the approval of the Chancellor. (4) The Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed on him by this Act or the Statutes. 12. The Vice-Chancellor.- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time officer of the University. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor out of a panel of names recommended by a selection committee consisting of a person nominated by the Chancellor, the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural research, the Chairman, University grants Commission or his nominee and a person nominated by the State Government. No person nominated as a member of the committee shall be connected with the University or any institution, maintained or administered by the University. The Chancellor shall appoint one of the members to be the Chairman of the Committee : provided that if the Chancellor does not approve any of the names recommended by the committee, he may call for fresh recommendations from the committee. (3) The Committee shall submit the panel to the Chancellor within such period as he may specify. If the Committee fails to submit the panel within the period so specified, the Chancellor may appoint any person whom he deems fit to be the Vice-Chancellor. (3a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (3), the first Vice-Chancellor of the University of Agricultural sciences, Dharwad shall be appointed by the chancellor on the recommendation of the state Government. If the Committee fails to submit the panel within the period so specified, the Chancellor may appoint any person whom he deems fit to be the Vice-Chancellor. (3a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (3), the first Vice-Chancellor of the University of Agricultural sciences, Dharwad shall be appointed by the chancellor on the recommendation of the state Government. (4) The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall be for a period of three years extensible by order of the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Board to a term not exceeding in the aggregate six months,if on any occasion such extension is considered necessary and for reasons to be specified in such order : provided that,-(a) the Vice-Chancellor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Chancellor, and after giving three months' notice, resign his office; or (b) the Vice-Chancellor may be removed from his office in the manner provided in subsection (5 ). (5) The Chancellor may at any time on the recommendation of the Board supported by two-thirds of the members of the Board, by order remove the Vice-Chancellor from his office, if in the opinion of the Chancellor, his continuance in office is detrimental to the interests of the University : provided that no such order shall be made unless the Vice-Chancellor has been given an opportunity to be heard against the action proposed to be taken. (6) No person shall be appointed as Vicechancellor for more than two terms. (6a) No person shall be appointed or hold office as Vice-Chancellor, if he has attained the age of sixty-five years. (7) The emoluments and other service conditions of the Vice-Chancellor shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor, and shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (8) Where a temporary vacancy occurs or is likely to occur in the office of the Vice-Chancellor by reason of leave, illness or other cause other than the expiry of his term, or the vice-Chancellor is due to absence or otherwise unable to exercise his powers or perform his functions temporarily, the Dean shall" until the appointment of a person to act as Vice-Chancellor or until the return of vice-Chancellor to duty, as the case may be, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the vice-Chancellor in addition to his own functions. In the absence of the Dean, the Board shall, as soon as possible and subject to the approval of the Chancellor, make such arrangements for carrying on the duties of the office of the Vice-Chancellor as it may think fit, and until such arrangements are made such officer of the University as may be nominated by the Chancellor for the purpose shall carry on the current duties of the office of the Vice-Chancellor. 13. Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor :- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the university and the ex-officio Chairman of the board and the Academic Council. He shall, in the absence of the Chancellor and the Prochancellor, preside at a Convocation of the university and shall confer degrees on persons entitled to receive them. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise general control over the affairs of the University and shall be responsible for the due maintenance of discipline in the University. (3) The Vice-Chancellor shall convene meetings of the Board and the Academic council. (4) The Vice-Chancellor shall ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this act and the Statutes and Regulations, and he shall possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. (5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the presentation of the annual financial estimates and the annual accounts and the balance sheet to the Board. (6) The Vice-Chancellor may, subject to the control of the Chancellor, take action in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action. He shall in such a case, and as soon as may be thereafter, report his action to the authority which would ordinarily have dealt with the matter. (7) Where any action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (6) affects any person in the service of the University to his disadvantage, such person may prefer an appeal to the Board within thirty days from the date on which such person has notice of the action taken. (8) Any person aggrieved by the appellate order of the Board may within thirty days from the date of communication of such order to him appeal to the Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor on such appeal shall be final. (8) Any person aggrieved by the appellate order of the Board may within thirty days from the date of communication of such order to him appeal to the Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor on such appeal shall be final. (9) Subject to the provisions of the preceding sub-sections, the Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the orders of the Board regarding the appointment, suspension and dismissal of officers, teachers and other employees of the University. (10) The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the proper administration of the university and for a close co-ordination and integration of teaching, research and extension education. (11) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers as may be prescribed. 20. The Director of Extension.- (1) The Director of Extension shall be a whole-time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of the Board. He shall be responsible for planning and execution of programmes of extension work based on the results of research work and shall perform such other functions as may be prescribed. (2) The salary and allowances and other conditions of service of the Director of Extension shall be such as may be prescribed. 24. Authorities of the University.-The following shall be the Authorities of the University, namely :- (1) The Board of Regents, (2) The Academic Council, (3) The Finance Committee, (4) The Board of Studies, and (5) Such other bodies of the University as may be declared by the Statutes to be the authorities of the University. 25. Constitution of the Board.- (1) The Chancellor shall, as soon as may be after the first Vice-Chancellor is appointed under the second proviso to sub-section (2)of Section 12, take action to constitute the board. 25. Constitution of the Board.- (1) The Chancellor shall, as soon as may be after the first Vice-Chancellor is appointed under the second proviso to sub-section (2)of Section 12, take action to constitute the board. (2) The Board shall consist of the following members, namely:- (A) Ex-Officio Members (i) The Vice-Chancellor; (ii) The Secretary to the Government of karnataka, Finance Department or his nominee not below the rank of a Joint Secretary; (iii) The Secretary to the Government of karnataka, Agriculture and Horticulture Department or his nominee not below the rank of a Joint Secretary; (iv) The Secretary to the Government of karnataka, Education Department or his nominee not below the rank of a Joint Secretary; (v) The Secretary to the Government of karnataka, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and forest Department or his nominee not below the rank of a Joint Secretary; and (vi) Dean of the University; (B) Other Members (i) Two persons, not being Government servants, or servants of the University, nominated by the chancellor from among the progressive farmers; (ii) Two persons, not being Government servants, or servants of the University nominated by the State government from among persons interested in Agricultural Education; (iii) One person, not being Government servant, or servant of the University nominated by the State Government from among registered graduates of not less than five years' standing of the University; (iv) A nominee of the Indian Council of agricultural Research; (v) One outstanding woman social worker preferably having background of rural advancement nominated by the Chancellor. The Registrar of the University shall be the ex-officio, Secretary of the Board. (3) The term of office of the members of the Board other than ex-officio members shall be three years : provided that the term of office of any member nominated to fill a casual vacancy shall be the residuary term of his predecessor. (4) Six members of the Board shall form the quorum for a meeting of the Board. (5) The members of the Board shall not be entitled to receive any remuneration from the university except such daily and travelling allowances as may be prescribed. 26. (4) Six members of the Board shall form the quorum for a meeting of the Board. (5) The members of the Board shall not be entitled to receive any remuneration from the university except such daily and travelling allowances as may be prescribed. 26. Powers and duties of the Board :-The Board shall exercise and perform the following powers and duties, namely :- (a) to approve the financial estimates of the university submitted by the Vice-Chancellor; (b) to hold and to control the property and funds of the University and issue any general or special instructions on behalf of the University; (c) to accept the transfer and to dispose of any movable or immovable property on behalf of the University; (d) to administer public and private funds placed at the disposal of and accepted by the university for specific purposes; (e) to appoint the officers, teachers and other employees of the University in the prescribed manner and to approve of appointments made by the Vice-Chancellor; (0 to invest money belonging to the University; (g) to direct the form and use of the common seal of the University; (h) to appoint such committees, whether standing or temporary, as it may deem necessary for its proper functioning; (i) with the approval of the State Government, to borrow, on the security of the property of the University or otherwise, money for purposes of the University; (j) to meet at such time and in such places as it deems necessary, provided that one ordinary meeting shall be held every quarter, and at least one half of its ordinary meetings shall be held at the seat of the University; and (k) to regulate and determine all matters concerning the University in accordance with this Act and the Statutes, and to exercise such powers and to discharge such duties as may be conferred or imposed on it by this Act and the Statutes. 27. 27. The Academic Council :- (1) The Academic Council shall be in charge of the academic affairs of the University and shall, subject to the provisions of this act and the Statutes, superintend, direct and control, and be responsible for, the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examinations and other matters connected with the conferment of degrees or award of diplomas, and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed on it by the Statutes. (2) It shall have the right to advise the Vice-Chancellor on all academic matters. (3) The Academic Council shall consist of the following members, namely :- (a) The Vice-Chancellor. (b) The Dean. (c) The Directors of Instruction. (d) The Director of Research. (e) The Director of Extension. (f) The Heads of Divisions. 28. Powers of the Academic Council.- (1) The Academic Council shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, have the power, by Regulations, of prescribing all courses of study and of determining curricula and have general control on teaching, research, and extension education within the University and be responsible for the maintenance of standards thereof. It shall have power to make Regulations consistent with this Act and the Statutes relating to all matters subject to its control and to amend or repeal such Regulations. It shall have power to make Regulations consistent with this Act and the Statutes relating to all matters subject to its control and to amend or repeal such Regulations. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the academic Council shall have power,- (a) to advise the Board on all academic matters, including the control and management of libraries; (b) to make recommendations for the institution of Professorships, associate Professorships,' Readerships and Teacherships and other teaching posts and in regard to the duties and emoluments thereof (c) to formulate, modify or revise schemes for the constitution or re-constitution of Departments of teaching, research and extension education; (d) to make regulations regarding the admission of students to the University; (e) to make regulations regarding examinations conducted by the University and the conditions on which students shall be admitted to such examinations; (f) to make regulations relating to courses of study leading to degrees, diplomas and certificates; (g) to make recommendations regarding post-graduate teaching, research and extension education; (h) to make recommendations regarding the qualifications to be prescribed for teachers in the University; and (i) to exercise such other powers and perform such'other duties as may be conferred or imposed on it by or under the provisions of this Act. 40. Statutes how made.- (1) The First Statutes with regard to matters set out in section 39 shall be made by the vice-Chancellor with the approval of the chancellor. (2) The Board may from time to time make new or additional Statutes and may amend or repeal the Statutes in the manner hereinafter in this section provided. (3) The Academic Council may propose to the Board the draft of any Statute to be passed by the Board and such draft shall be considered by the Board at its next meeting : provided that the Academic Council shall not propose the draft of any Statute or of any amendment of a Statute affecting the status, powers, or constitution of any authority of the university, until such authority has been given an opportunity to express its opinion upon the proposal, and any opinion so expressed shall be considered by the Board. (4) The Board may approve any such draft as is referred to in sub-section (3) and pass the Statute or reject it or return it to the Academic Council for reconsideration, either in whole or in part, together with any amendments which it may suggest. (5) Any member of the Board may propose to the Board the draft of any Statute and the board may either accept or reject the proposal if it relates to a matter not falling within the purview of the Academic Council. In case such a draft relates to a matter within the purview of the Academic Council the Board shall refer it for consideration to the Academic council, which may either report to the Board that it does not approve the proposal, which shall then be deemed to have been rejected by the Board, or submit the draft to the Board in such form as the Academic Council may approve, and the provisions of this section shall apply in the case of a draft so submitted as they apply in the case of a draft proposed to the Board by the Academic Council. (6) A new Statute or addition to the Statutes or any amendment or repeal of a Statute shall require the previous approval of the chancellor who may sanction, disallow or remit it for further consideration. (7) Every Statute made under this Act shall be published in the Official Gazette. " such as section 6 of the Act amplifying the powers of the University; section 9 of the Act which indicates the various officers of the university; section 10 elaborating the manner in which the Chancellor of the University is identified and the role and powers of the chancellor; section 12 - method and manner of identifying vice-Chancellor, appointing the Vice-Chancellor and also provision for removal, qualifications or disqualifications, tenure and other terms of appointment, service conditions; section 13 providing for powers and duties of the Vice Chancellor; section 20 - provision indicating the role in the nature of work of Director of Extension for which post application has been notified and petitioners had applied. In Chapter-IV of the act figures various authorities of the University and section 24 indicates the Board of regents figuring at the top of these authorities in sub-section (1), secondly Academic council, thirdly the Finance Committee and fourthly the Board of Studies and other bodies under the residuary provision of sub-section (5) of Section 24. ( 19 ) SECTION 25 provides for the constitution of the Board and section 26 indicates the powers and duties of the Board. Sections 27 and 28 are like provisions in respect of academic council in the case of Board of Regents. Section 40 of the Act is also of some significance as this section indicates the method and manner of putting in place the statutes of the university which in the first instance is by the Vice-Chancellor and as approved by the chancellor and thereafter as modified from time to time by the Board of Regents. ( 20 ) IT is to such statutory provisions, particularly Statute-15 of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore which reads as under : "15. Selection Committees, Appointments and Procedures :-The Selection Committees for the posts of officers shall as stipulated by the UGC/icar for the post of Principal from time to time. " that the score card method of assessing the merit and suitability of the candidates in terms of the pro forma score card at Annexure-M is supplemented. ( 21 ) YET another significant aspect of statute-15 which provides for constitution of the selection committee and the procedure for appointments etc. , is that the selection committee by itself is not constituted under the statute by an authority of the University but the selection committee as stipulated by the ugc/icar for the post of Principal from time to time is adopted for the purpose of statute-15 of the University statutes. That means, the selection committee, procedure to be followed etc. , is as per the UGC/icar norms for the purpose of filling up of post of Principal as it prevails under the UGC/icar specifications at any given point of time. That means, the selection committee, procedure to be followed etc. , is as per the UGC/icar norms for the purpose of filling up of post of Principal as it prevails under the UGC/icar specifications at any given point of time. ( 22 ) IT is in this background that any selection and appointment made by the University for the post of any Officer which is required to be considered within the limits of judicial review of administrative action if a writ petition complaining on either statutory violations or denial of the constitutional guarantee of Art. 16 is alleged by an aspiring candidate in a writ petition. Judicial review is when statutory provisions are given a go-by or violated or not exactly adhered to and when the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment and equal opportunity under Art. 16 is not fulfilled by the state. The examination is on such parameters. ( 23 ) SOME of the contentions urged by Sri m. S. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners, amongst others, are that the composition of the selection committee is not fully in consonance with the requirement of the University Grants Commission Regulations which have been adopted by Statute-15 of the university Statutes; that it has not received the approval of the Academic Council; that the approval of the Academic Council was on 11-3-2006, whereas the selection committee had been active for selecting and recommending appointment even before 3-3-2006, the date on which the appointment order was issued (records placed before the Court by the university indicates that the proceedings of the selection committee for interviewing the candidates was on 17-2-2006); that the approval of the members comprising of the selection committee by the Academic Council is a mandatory requirement in terms of the ugc Regulations, a post facto approval of the activities of the selection committee is not an approval in the eye of law by the competent authority and, therefore, the composition of the selection committee was not in consonance with the requirements of Statute-15 of the University Statutes. And also submits that the approval of the panel consisting of the names from whom the selection committee can be constituted by the Board of Regents is no compliance with the requirements of the ugc Regulations governing the appointment of Principal, as even in terms of the Act, the academic Council of the University is as per section 27 and if some other body had approved the names of the members to be on the panel from amongst whom the selection committee can be constituted is approved by the Board of Regents, which is the body which comes into existence in terms of Section 24 (1)of the Act and powers and duties described under Section 27 (6) of the Act, then it is not a compliance with the requirements of the UGC regulations governing the appointment of principals. Submission is that if the members of the selection committee should have received the approval of the Academic Council, which can only be by that body and by no other body, that too by a post facto approval by an incompetent body like the Academic council, which is not envisaged in law. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Marathwada University v. Seshrao balwant Rao Chavan ( (1989) 3 SCC 132 ) : ( AIR 1989 SC 1582 ). Reliance is also placed on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Assistant elec. Engineer ( (1974) 4 SCC 289) : ( AIR 1979 SC 1912 ). The composition of the committee is challenged on this premise and it is, therefore, urged that the entire selection process is vitiated by the selection by an incompetent selection committee. ( 24 ) IN addition it is urged that the prescribed method even in terms of the scorecard, awarding of marks for evaluating the inter se merit and the suitability has also not been properly adhered to uniformly in respect of all applicants. Submission on this aspect is that the selected candidate viz. , fifth respondent has been unnecessarily loaded with marks in respect of marks awarded under item No. 3 publications', and also under item No. 2 experience', as also item No. 6 externally funded project obtained in the last 10 years'. Submission on this aspect is that the selected candidate viz. , fifth respondent has been unnecessarily loaded with marks in respect of marks awarded under item No. 3 publications', and also under item No. 2 experience', as also item No. 6 externally funded project obtained in the last 10 years'. It is urged that if the marks as per the norms indicated in the scorecard should have been awarded, the total marks which the fifth respondent could have obtained would have been far below than the total marks now awarded to him; that the difference would have been not less than 20 marks, which could make all the difference, as the next candidate listed in the merit has only 1. 5 marks less than the appointed candidate and even the difference between the selected candidate and the third petitioner would have been not as per the present marks but more in favour of the third petitioner and less in favour of the selected candidate and that again vitiates the selection of fifth respondent. ( 25 ) SRI D. N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-University and its officers, on the other hand would vehemently urge that the composition of the selection committee cannot be faulted on the premise that the members of the selection committee had not been approved by the academic Council, which is not the competent body in terms of the university Regulations; that while it is no doubt true UGC norms have been adopted under Statute-15 for the purpose of constituting the selection committee and the procedure it has to follow, but there is a slight distinction between the function and role of the Academic Council as understood under the provisions of the University Grants commission Act (for short, UGC Act) and the rules and Regulations framed thereunder and the function and role of Academic Council as if figures under the provisions of the Act. What is submitted is that the functions which are performed by the Academic Council under the provisions of the ugc Act are the very functions which are performed by the body known as the Board of Regents under the Act and for this purpose has drawn attention of the Court not only to the provisions of Sections 24,25 and 26 of the act but also to Sections 27 and 28 of the Act, which are already extracted above. ( 26 ) A perusal of the powers and duties of the Board of Regents indicates that it is a body which is responsible for the administrative management of the affairs of the University and such responsibility being what is spoken even under the provisions of UGC Act in respect of Academic Council and even other wise. A perusal of Section 26 indicates that it is the Board of Regents which is the body who has the administrative control in respect of the appointment to the posts of officers, teachers and other employees of the University and having financial control and supervision in respect of the financial management of the university, and, therefore, the competent body is necessarily the Board of Regents and as it is pointed out and placed before the Court that the Board of Regents in its 291st meeting held on 26-11 -2002 had approved the list of names which includes the experts in the relevant subjects and the composition of the selection committee being from out of the persons as had been approved by the Board of Regents in its 291st meeting, it should be accepted that the composition of the selection committee is in consonance with the requirements of UGC regulations. Hence, the submission of Sri D. N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-University merits acceptance. ( 27 ) THE proceedings being certiorari proceedings and the respondent university is required to place its records before the Court, the record relating to the proceedings of the selection committee has been made available. Such record has also been perused by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is in the context of the contents of the record a controversy has arisen, particularly as to the role played by the scrutiny committee, which comprises of a single outside expert member. Such record has also been perused by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is in the context of the contents of the record a controversy has arisen, particularly as to the role played by the scrutiny committee, which comprises of a single outside expert member. In the wake of the record indicating that the outside expert member not forming part of the selection committee, having awarded marks to all the applicants for a maximum of 90 out of total 100 marks, with reference to which the merit and suitability of the candidate is assessed and such awarding of marks by the outside expert the scrutiny committee having not only served the purpose of eliminating the less merited candidates who had secured less than 54 marks out of maximum 90 marks, as evaluated by the scrutiny committee, but the marks as awarded by the scrutiny committee in respect of the candidates interviewed by the selection committee also having been placed before the selection committee, though time and method of placing it is not relevant in terms of note No. 3 of the footnotes to the scorecard, an argument was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the selection is also vitiated for the reason that the selection is not by the selection committee; that the selection part is abdicated in favour of a lone-member outside agency, who has played a major role in awarding marks to a maximum of 90 marks and the role of the selection committee, which is a statutory body, reduced into a minor role of awarding marks only in the interview for a maximum of 10 marks, which in effect is of no consequence or can only play a very minor role when the merit and suitability of the surviving candidates are assessed on the scale of 100 marks. It is in respect of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Elson Machines pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1989 supp (1) SCC 671) : ( AIR 1989 SC 617 ) and government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. A. Kareem (1991 Supp (2) SCC 183 ). Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1989 supp (1) SCC 671) : ( AIR 1989 SC 617 ) and government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. A. Kareem (1991 Supp (2) SCC 183 ). These decisions are also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners to get over the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the University and the selected candidates that the petitioners had never pleaded this aspect of the matter in the writ petition and it is during the arguments developed during the course of the hearing and therefore should not be taken note of. ( 28 ) WHILE the first contention regarding the composition of the selection committee being defective is not made good nor accepted, it takes us to next contention viz. , that this procedure followed by the selection committee is not in consonance with the statutory requirements. The statutory requirement, as noticed earlier, is provided by the UGC Regulations, which reads as under : minimum qualification for the post of Professors, Principals, Readers and Lecturers in subjects other than Fine Arts, Management, engineering and Technology in Universities or colleges for appointment of persons through open advertisement and for their career advancement. Direct Recruitment : 1. 1. 0 Principal (Professor's Grade)1. A Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F. 2. Ph. D. or equivalent qualification. 3. Total experience of 15 years of teaching/research in Universities/colleges and other institutions of 3. 00 selection Committees recommended by ugc, higher education 3. 5. 0 For the post of Principal : 1. Chairperson of the Governing Board a chairperson. 2. One member of the Governing Board to be nominated by the Chairperson. 3. Two Vice-Chancellor's nominees, out of whom one should be an expert. 4. Three experts consisting of the Principal of the college, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a professor (to be nominated by the governing board) out of a panel of experts approved by the Vice-Chancellor. At least four members including two experts should constitute the quorum. The process of selection should involve the following :-a) Assessment of aptitude for teaching and research. b) Ability to communicate clearly and ef-fectively. At least four members including two experts should constitute the quorum. The process of selection should involve the following :-a) Assessment of aptitude for teaching and research. b) Ability to communicate clearly and ef-fectively. c) Ability to analyze and discuss, d) Optional : Ability to Communicate may be assessed by requiring the candidate to participate in a group discussion or by exposure to a class room situation/lecture, wherever it is possible, notes : 1) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Master's level for the SC/st category. 2) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph. D. degree holders who have passed their Master's degree prior to l9th September, 1991. . 3) In the 7 point scale with letter grade O, a, B, C, D, E and F shall be regarded as equivalent of 55% wherever the grading system is followed. 4) NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for the candidates having Ph. D. degree. However, the candidates who have completed M. Phil, degree or have submitted Ph. D. thesis in the concerned subject up to 31st December, 2002 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination. 5) The minimum requirement of 55% shall not be insisted upon for Principals, Professors, Readers, Librarians, Deputy Librarian, directors of Physical Education and Deputy directors of Physical Education for the existing incumbents who are already in the University system. However, these marks should be insisted upon for those entering the system from outside and those at the entry point of Lecturers, Assistant Registrar, Assistant librarians, Assistant Directors of Physical education. 6) A relaxation of the minimum marks at the PG level from 55% to 50% for appointment as Lecturer may be provided to the candidates who have cleared the jrf examination conducted by UGC/cisr only prior to 1989, when the minimum marks required to appear for JRF Exam, were 50%. What is relevant for our purpose is para-3. 5. 0 of this stipulation of the UGC, which is in respect of the post of Principal. ( 29 ) WHILE a detailed analysis of the composition of the selection committee has revealed that it has fulfilled the requirement at s1. Nos. What is relevant for our purpose is para-3. 5. 0 of this stipulation of the UGC, which is in respect of the post of Principal. ( 29 ) WHILE a detailed analysis of the composition of the selection committee has revealed that it has fulfilled the requirement at s1. Nos. 1,2,3 and 4, as the Vice-Chancellor of the University presides over the selection committee, it comprises the requisite number of other members including the expert members as per stipulations 2, 3 and 4, it is in the matter of the process of selection there are disputes and also argument of non-adherence to the procedure was adduced. It is in the context of the process of selection, which as per the UGC norms or by assessment of aptitude for teaching and research, ability to communicate clearly and effectively and ability to analyse and discuss, the University has developed the supplemental procedure such as the scorecard method of awarding marks under different heads, as noticed earlier. It is in the context of the supplemental procedure having been approved by this Court in the earlier pronouncements against the very University and the scorecard method having not been frowned upon by this Court on earlier occasions, when the action of the University in making selection to notified posts was challenged before this Court, by two earlier decisions of this Court, reliance on which is placed by Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the selected candidate as also Sri D. N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent university, who have submitted in chorus that such procedure having already been examined by this Court and having been held to be valid, there is no occasion to accept an alternative contention urged on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the procedure followed in applying the scorecard method of selection is defective or bad in law and assuming that another view is possible on this aspect of the matter, without conceding, but such possibility cannot be examined by another single bench of this Court and the matter should necessarily to go before a larger Bench, if the earlier views are not to be followed or in the present case the Court is likely to take a different view. The decisions relied upon in this aspect by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents are: dr. The decisions relied upon in this aspect by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents are: dr. G. Venkatesh Prasad v. University of Agricultural Sciences (ILR 2005 Kar 5283) : (2005 AIR - Kant hcr 2485) and Madhukeshwara v. University of Agricultural Sciences (2006 (2) Kar lj 430) : 2006 (3) AIR Kar R 16 ). ( 30 ) SPECIAL emphasis is placed on the contents of para 27 of the decision of this Court in the case of Madhukeshwara. Submission is that this aspect having been examined not only about the inadequacy of the Scoreboard method of evaluation as a supplemental procedure to the procedure contemplated for selection in terms of Statute-15, but also having examined the validity of the same in the light of the provisions of the Act particularly with reference to Sections 26 and 30 (4) (a) of the act, as it arises in that context, there cannot be any challenge to the procedure followed by the selection committee in the instant case on the premise that the procedure is either improper or is one which is not in consonance with the Statute-15, which in turn leads us to provisions of UGC Regulations. It is also urged that the petitioners, who were virtually aware of the scorecard method of evaluation and also the method and manner of role played by the outside scrutiny agency, which had been published even before the selection process began, and who had subjected themselves to go through this procedure including attending the interview before the selection committee, cannot now turn around and question the correctness of the very procedure. Submission is that the petitioners cannot at the same time seek to get the benefit of the interview by subjecting themselves to the process of scrutiny and selection and at the same time just because they have failed in the selection, later on rum around and question the legality of the selection procedure. Submission is based on the principle that a person having subjected himself to jurisdiction cannot later turn around and question the jurisdiction, just because the judgment is not palatable to him. Submission is based on the principle that a person having subjected himself to jurisdiction cannot later turn around and question the jurisdiction, just because the judgment is not palatable to him. It is for this purpose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Madanlal v. State of J. and K. [ (1995) 3 SCC 486 Para 9] : ( AIR 1995 SC 1088 ) and Ramanand Prasad Singh v. Union of India [ (1996) 4 SCC 4]. ( 31 ) LET me first deal with the contention based on two earlier decisions of this Court concluding the matter against the petitioners on the question of a valid or proper procedure adopted by the selection committee. ( 32 ) WHILE it is no doubt true that non-adherence to the procedure contemplated under regulation 15 of the UGC Regulations by the selection committee has not been expressly urged in the petition pleadings and not even raised as a ground and this is pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the university and the selected candidate to submit that in the absence of an express plea there was no occasion for the University to counter the same or to put it in writing in the form of statement of objections to get over this argument, the technicality of the pleadings will not strictly hold in respect of the matters relating to the legal aspects. It is no doubt true that a proper and precise plea will always be useful and some times essential, so that the adversary can effectively and fully meet such pleadings and grounds raised, but a legal ground which otherwise also arises for consideration is a matter within the domain of the Court, as on the ground of want of sufficient plea, a necessary legal question, which arises in the context of a case cannot be brushed aside or by-passed or declined to be noticed, as that will amount to laying down of incorrect law or to put it otherwise will amount to approving the action, which is otherwise not legal in law. It is for this reason, I do not attach much importance to the submission that the pleadings in the petition are to some extent lacking for the purpose of making out a ground of illegality on the aspect of the procedrue followed by the selection committee in the matter of selecting a suitable candidate. In fact records having been placed, it has been examined and whether a plea is put forth, countered or not countered by the other side, revelations from the records and conclusions based on the contents of the record can never be avoided. ( 33 ) AS noticed in the earlier part of this order, judicial review of administrative action in matters of public employment is always on the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In a federal, parliamentary democratic system having social objectives to be achieved as mandate under the Constitution, all legislative actions and administrative actions are examined in judicial review, on the touchstone of the Constitutional provisions and any other relevant statutory provisions as are applicable. ( 34 ) ARTICLE 16, which is a species of Article 14, equality before law, is in respect of public employment. There is a mandate on the part of State to act in a fair, non-discriminatory manner in the matter of providing opportunities in public employment. In a parliamentary democratic system, while it is the Parliament or the State Legislature in the case of individual States, which are bodies representative of the people and enjoy powers of legislation, for the benefit of the citizens within the parameters of the Constitutional limitation, the efficacy of such laws made by the parliament or a State Legislature is that such laws ensure a fair and non-discriminatory administration. The object of law itself is to ensure all persons are treated equally; to ensure proper peace and order prevails in the society and the weak is protected from the tyranny of overzealous, strong. All laws are made to ensure this objective. Laws made in the context of public employment also should necessarily conform to the requirements of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. All laws are made to ensure this objective. Laws made in the context of public employment also should necessarily conform to the requirements of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 35 ) THE efficacy of the statutory provir sions, whether it is a substantial provision or procedural provision, is that the statute ensures fairness and uniform application of the procedure in respect of all persons; that it is not left to the discretion of the administrative wing in each and every situation. While the legislature is primarily a body representing the people and accountable to the people, the ex ecutive part of the State comprising of the government, ministers and the cabinet, again a smaller body from amongst the members of the legislature is the organ which ensures the implementation of the laws for the governance of the society. It may be that laws made by the Parliament or the Legislature may not have provided for all events and contingencies and there may be several situations and possibilities developing as and when it is put into action and therefore normally a provision is made for delegating certain powers in favour of the Executive part of the State. In the exercise of this delegated power, the executive part of the State, frames the supporting Rules and regulations not at variance with the primary legislation. The Rules and Regulations are also treated almost on par with the parliamentary legislation, as the Government which frames the Rules and Regulations, is also made accountable to the Parliament, representative of the people and such Rules and Regulations ensure uniform application in respect of all citizens. It is in areas where even the plenary legislation and the delegated legislation does not or cannot take care of, administrative orders of the Government of the day are made/issued for the day-to-day management supplementing the statutory provisions. This again should not be at variance with the statutory provisions, but should only play a supporting role in filling up such areas, which are not covered by the statutory provisions or which can act as a supplementary provision to really effectuate the statutory provisions. This again should not be at variance with the statutory provisions, but should only play a supporting role in filling up such areas, which are not covered by the statutory provisions or which can act as a supplementary provision to really effectuate the statutory provisions. ( 36 ) IT is in this background, we find that the Act is a law made by the competent legislature, the Statutes of the University, a supporting delegated legislation put in place through secondary legislation and the socalled scorecard method of assessing the merit and suitability of the candidates for the purpose of appointing to posts notified by the university acting as a supplemental administrative order. The Act is a supreme legislation, the statutes subserving the purpose of according further guidelines in the form of clear-cut methods and awardinig marks would supplement the statutory requirements. So long as this purpose is achieved, the requirement of fairness and providing equal opportunity as mandated on the State by Article 16 of the Constitution of India is fulfilled. If there is any discordant note any where that mandate is not fulfilled by the State. ( 37 ) WHILE a guideline like the scorecard method of awarding marks for assessing the suitability and merit of the candidates can definitely play a supplementary role, but it cannot itself substitute the statutory provision nor assume more importance than the statutory provision. The role assigned to the selection committee, which is statutorily put in place, can neither be performed by an outside agency nor can the evaluation of the outside agency accepted as evaluation by the statutory committee. ( 38 ) THE two decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing for the University and the selected candidate, decided by this Court earlier in the context of the validity of the scorecard method of assessing the suitability and merit of the applicants was upheld in the context of the University adopting such a method as a short-listing method for the purpose of eliminating less merited candidates and for confining the selection from amongst the higher merited candidates. The examination by this court in adopting such short-listing procedure Was only with regard to the process of eliminating some of the applications to keep the number of eligible persons who are required to be comparatively assessed for selecting a candidate by the selection committee to a practical number of persons. The examination by this court in adopting such short-listing procedure Was only with regard to the process of eliminating some of the applications to keep the number of eligible persons who are required to be comparatively assessed for selecting a candidate by the selection committee to a practical number of persons. It may be totally impracticable and sometime impossible to interview all the applicants who may apply to a particular post and in the instant case, the post being a single post. In such a situation, the appointing authority can evolve methods and devises not at variance with the stipulated selection procedure to downsize the number of candidates, but can never sacrifice the primary requirement, which in all public employment is a merit-linked evaluation. ( 39 ) EXAMINATION of the cases of Dr. G. Venkatesh Prasad (2005 AIR - Kant HCR 2485) and Madhukeshwara (2006 (3) AIR Kar r 16) (supra) was also in the context of the fairness and legality of the University adopting the short-listing procedrue by the engagement of outside agency for the purpose of short-listing candidates. If the scorecard method is employed for such purpose also, which, according to the University, is a supplemental provision to the UGC requirement of assessing the ability and performance of the candidates, it is still better. That cannot be worked in the other direction viz. , as an evaluation which is good enough to be adopted by the selection committee also. The mere fact that the outside agency for the purpose pf short-listing the number of applicants and by employing the method of scorecard evaluation may be good and approved by this Court and as not at variance to the procedure stipulated for selection, it does not mean that the outside agency cannot play a bigger role than that and get into the selection process performed by the selection committee, which is a statutory functionary put in place in terms of Statute-15 and is required to function in consonance with the Statute-15, which in turn relates to the UGC Regulations. The scorecard method of assessing the suitability of candidates while can definitely play a supplemental role in the process of selection and can definitely act as a guideline even to the selection process, that by itself cannot be performed by an outside agency for the benefit of the selection committee. The scorecard method of assessing the suitability of candidates while can definitely play a supplemental role in the process of selection and can definitely act as a guideline even to the selection process, that by itself cannot be performed by an outside agency for the benefit of the selection committee. If that is the situation, then the proceedings of the selection committee gets vitiated, as an outside agency can, not only influence the selection process, which is statutorily required to be performed only by the selection committee, but also for the reason that the selection committee cannot abdicate its responsibility in favour of a third party outside agency. ( 40 ) SUCH a procedure is flawed for yet another reason viz. , that while the selection committee acts as a body comprising of several persons and the Vice-Chancellor himself presiding over the committee and it also comprises expert members etc. , an evaluation by a single-member outside agency assuming that he is an expert in the related field, is not a proper answer to substitute its evaluation in place of a body like the selection committee comprising experts and the head of the institution. ( 41 ) ANY role played by the outside agency in the matter of selection by the selection committee vitiates the selection process, as the selection process is not being done strictly in consonance with the requirement of Statute-15 of the University Statutes. It has also been discussed that the compliance with the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is fulfilled by the State by adhering to the set procedure or stipulated statutory procedure. The moment there is a deviation, a violation, a non-adherence to the statutory provisions is made good, it amounts that such action is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is for this reason any statutory functionary is strictly pinned down to the procedure contemplated by the statutory provisions and not given any leeway. Fairness of the procedure is ensured by the duty itself and non-adherence while may not necessarily in all cases lead to draw an inference of arbitrariness. It is for this reason any statutory functionary is strictly pinned down to the procedure contemplated by the statutory provisions and not given any leeway. Fairness of the procedure is ensured by the duty itself and non-adherence while may not necessarily in all cases lead to draw an inference of arbitrariness. In the matter of public appointment and if selection is to a higher post in an academic body with considerable responsibility, there should not be any scope for arbitrariness, there should not be even a lingering doubt that the proceedings could have been arbitrary or not strictly in conformity with the requirement of the statute. ( 42 ) IT is only because the respondents are aware of this possibility, an argument is addressed both by Sri D. N. Nanjunda Reddy and Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and respondent No. 5 respectively, that the selection committee in fact has independently applied its mind to the ability and aptitude of the applicants both in the aspects of teaching and research. Here again, though in terms of stipulation- (a) of the process of selection as per the UGC norms shows that the assessment is of the aptitude for teaching and research having regard to the object of selecting a person to the post of Director of Extension and depending on the job requirement, if the scorecard method of evaluation is suitably adopted without doing violence to the primary requirement, an assessment of the merit is with reference to the job requirement and if that cannot be said to be at variance but it should be adhered to. ( 43 ) WHILE the argument of Sri D. N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel, that the very fact that the records disclose an application of mind on the part of the selection committee also for the reason that the members of the selection committee have initiated certain corrections carried out to the awarding of marks under some of the heads to the various candidates interviewed by them could have been an argument which could pass muster in the context of maintenance of records in the normal working of the executive government, in the normal functioning of a Governmental machinery, but it cannot be so accepted in this case for the reason that the scrutiny in this writ petition is about the compliance of the statutory provisions on the part of the selection committee put in place under the statutory provisions, a selection committee which is specially constituted for a special and precise purpose of selecting the most merited and suitable candidate to the post notified and such selection committee being constituted in the wake of the special knowledge, skill and expertise they possess in the post concerned. The initialing of a mere correction to the marks awarded by the outside scrutiny committee under one or two heads in respect of candidates interviewed by the committee cannot be accepted as answering the requirement of the statutory provision, namely, the selection committee itself selecting the most merited and suitable candidate on a comparative assessment of the merits and demerits of each applicant interviewed by them. The re-assessment of the assessment alrdady made by the external scrutinizing committee assuming that it involves an element of application of mind even for such purpose cannot be accepted as a substitute for an independent evaluation by the selection committee itself. Any method of evaluation or procedure which falls short of a total independent evaluation of the merits and demerits of the interviewed candidates for the entire 100 marks in terms of the scorecard method of awarding marks, falls short of the statutory requirement of the selection committee selecting the most merited and suitable candidate for appointment. Any method of evaluation or procedure which falls short of a total independent evaluation of the merits and demerits of the interviewed candidates for the entire 100 marks in terms of the scorecard method of awarding marks, falls short of the statutory requirement of the selection committee selecting the most merited and suitable candidate for appointment. It is for this reason, the argument that the factum of corrections made in the awarding of marks to some of the applicants and initialed by some of the members of the selection committee cannot be accepted as an answer to compliance or requirement of fulfilling or adhering to the statutory provision i. e. , UGC Regulation in terms of Statute-15 of the University Statutes. ( 44 ) IF the scorecard method of evaluation occupies the entire process of selection even in terms of the UGC norms, then that is the role which is required to be played by the selection committee in the matter of selection. While the elimination of less merited candidates at an initial stage in one sense is no doubt part of the selection process in the larger term of selection, but that being supplemental procedure from a practical angle to keep the number of candidates to be interviewed at a reasonable number and to assess their merit and suitability for the post by the selection committee, it is only for playing a supplemental role in elimination and not for selection. The process of elimination though is also part of the selection in itself, in the large sense, the matter does not end with that but goes through a further procedural requirement of assessing the suitability and comparative merit of the surviving applicants. It is because, the actual selection from amongst such persons starts from this point and, therefore, the entire role of actual selection should inevitably be performed by the statutorily constituted selection committee and not by any other committee or agency. It is for this reason I hold that any role played by an outside agency in the matter of finalizing the selection vitiates the selection process. It is for this reason I hold that any role played by an outside agency in the matter of finalizing the selection vitiates the selection process. While the argument of application of mind on the part of the selection committee to this aspect is sought to be demonstrated by pointing out certain corrections that have been carried out to the award of marks in respect of both fifth respondent-selected candidate and some other candidates, that by itself is not a guarantee that the selection is by the selection committee. In fact even if this is to be accepted, it is only a corrective role of the assessment of the evaluation as made by the scrutiny committee. Whether it was intended or incidental, Note No. 3 of the footnote to the scorecard indicates that the marks as awarded by the scrutiny committee will not be placed before the selection committee till they award marks in the interview. While Sri D. N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the University has submitted that this ensures a fair awarding of marks by the selection committee in respect of the performance of the candidates at the interview for the maximum 10 marks, without being influenced by the marks already awarded by the scrutiny committee, the very argument is not acceptable on a consideration of it. The Note indicates that the selection committee, after interviewing the candidates will tabulate the total marks to finalize the recommendation. On a plain reading of this note, there is absolutely no scope for the selection committee to evaluate the inter se merit or merit by themselves in respect of different heads as it occurs in the score card and, therefore, it has to be inferred that the selection committee has never evaluated the suitability and merit of each of the candidate for 90 marks out of a total 100 marks and the argument that the word 'tabulation' should be read as the word 'assessment' and this understanding is borne out on record as the selection committee has carried out the corrections to the marks already awarded by the scrutiny committee cannot be accepted. Perhaps this argument could have merited consideration if the selection committee should have made an independent evaluation of the merits of the candidates and awarded marks under different heads by itself and not by way of an attempt to correct the evaluation made by the scrutiny committee. If there should have been such an independent evaluation made by the selection committee and demonstrated with reference to record, perhaps the Note No. 3 could have been ignored and the arguments could have been accepted. But that is not the situation on a perusal of the record. The record while does not indicate any independent evaluation of the merits of the candidates by the selection committee by itself in respect of awarding of marks for a maximum of 90 marks out of 100, the corrections carried out, which are corrections which could have been even otherwise carried out by examination of the scorecard, as it is only a question of awarding marks based on the number of years of experience or other heads, whereunder no assessment is involved. The evaluation by an outside scrutiny committee which is an expert body, involving an element of subjective satisfaction of the scrutiny committee member, has expertise in the field and is required to evaluate the merit of such candidate's works, performance of a professional nature, and while awarding marks in respect of such academic purposes and excellence, there is no other criterion other than expertise, and therefore, it has to be necessarily construed as a subjective analysis by the expert member and even such subjective evaluation by an outside expert member constituting the scrutiny committee may be accepted for the purpose of short-listing candidates, as a scrutiny committee, same argument does not hold good for the purpose of selection. If the selection is required to be made good, the selection should only be by the selection committee and independent of any evaluation made by the outside scrutiny committee. ( 45 ) MANY heads with reference which marks are awarded under the scorecard method, involving an element of subjective satisfaction on the part of the members of the selection committee, that part of the function cannot be exercised by an outside person. If the selection committee should have been performing only on the application of objective criterion, perhaps that could have been decided on the touchstone of the parameters as indicated in the marks itself. If the selection committee should have been performing only on the application of objective criterion, perhaps that could have been decided on the touchstone of the parameters as indicated in the marks itself. But so long as an element of subjective satisfaction enters the picture, and is involved in awarding marks, the role is to be performed only by the statutory selection committee and by no one else there is nothing indicative of such a role having been performed by the members of the selection committee on a perusal of the records placed before the Court. ( 46 ) WHILE it is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the University and the selected candidate that the University has been adopting the present procedure in all its appointments and selections hitherto and at any rate from the year 2002 onwards, whereafter the Board of Regents has approved the list of expert members and other members to be on the selection committee that by itself is no assurance or guarantee that the selection was strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions. It is always a question to be examined in each case as to whether the procedure adopted is strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions or otherwise. While reliance is placed on the two earlier decisions of this Court, as noticed earlier, examination therein was limited to the aspect of short-listing of the candidates and not the role of the selection committee. In the present case, the petitioners have crossed the threshold of short-listing procedure. It is at the secondary stage of actual selection, the petitioners are complaining that the selection is not fair, proper and not in accordance with the set procedure and guidelines and therefore is vitiated. It is in this context the conduct of the respondent-University, its selection committee and the procedure followed by it in evaluating the merit and suitability of the candidates is to be examined by applying the test of judicial review of administrative action. The action on the part of the respondent-University fails to pass this test. While this Court is conscious that this Court will not act as an appellate authority, which is the argument vehemently urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, that does not mean that an illegal action can escape scrutiny even within the parameters of judicial review of administrative action. While this Court is conscious that this Court will not act as an appellate authority, which is the argument vehemently urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, that does not mean that an illegal action can escape scrutiny even within the parameters of judicial review of administrative action. Judicial review is for the purpose of ensuring due compliance with the requirement of law, statutory provisions and the constitutional mandate. The impugned action fails all these tests. The action on the part of the University and its officers in selecting the fifth respondent as most suitable candidate to the post of Director of extension fails all these tests. The University has been following an improper, incorrect and statutorily variant procedure all these days. While the scorecard method of evaluation can itself be approved, it does not mean that statutory selection committee can to any extent abdicate its responsibilities or functions in favour of any outside agency. That is the test which is applied in the present case. If the statutory selection committee itself should have adopted the supplemental score card method of assessing the merit and suitability of the candidates, then perhaps the selection could have passed the test, but that being not the situation in the present case, the selection made by the University fails the test and therefore it cannot be sustained. ( 47 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3-3-2006 vide Annexure-J to the writ petition is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. ( 48 ) THE next question will be as to what should be the course of action that should be followed by the University as a consequence of quashing of the appointment of fifth respondent to the post? on examination of the record and the pleadings and submissions and the orders passed by this Court in the earlier decisions, it is found that the procedure till the matter went before the selection committee was in order. There is no impediment for the procedure being continued from this stage. on examination of the record and the pleadings and submissions and the orders passed by this Court in the earlier decisions, it is found that the procedure till the matter went before the selection committee was in order. There is no impediment for the procedure being continued from this stage. ( 49 ) WHILE Sri M. S. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the marks awarded to the selected candidate is not in terms of the stipulation as per the scorecard and as the selection itself is quashed and it is also pointed out that the method that has been followed by the selection committee is totally flawed; that it is the duty of the selection committee to evaluate the merit and ability of each candidate in respect of an entire 100 marks as per the scorecard, the process from the stage of short-listing of the candidates can again go before the selection committee for proper evaluation of the competitive merit of the candidates in terms of the statutory provisions and supplemental guidelines in the form of score-card method and a proper selection made and recommended, Sri D. N. Nanjunda Reddy and sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-University and the selected candidate have urged that the recommendation of the selection committee itself is not final; that the matter receives further consideration at the hands of the Board of Regents and, therefore, it should be accepted that there is an independent evaluation of overall consideration and the appointment having been made and the selected candidate having been worked for more than 11/2 years by now, the appointment should not be disturbed at this point of time and a writ as prayed for should not be issued at the instance of the petitioners, who were virtually persons sitting on the fence taking their chance, such arguments do not come in the way of judicial review of administrative action on the parameters of the constitutional requirement. To that extent Sri m. S. Bhagwat is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court indicating, inter alia, that there cannot be any flawed action against a set procedure. It is a fortiori so against constitutional provisions. To that extent Sri m. S. Bhagwat is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court indicating, inter alia, that there cannot be any flawed action against a set procedure. It is a fortiori so against constitutional provisions. ( 50 ) THE Board of Regents may be the appointing authority, but they have no power to alter the procedure required to be followed by the selection committee, which is a statutory selection committee set up for the verypurpose of selecting a most suitable and merited candidate to the post. If the Board of Regents finds out unsuitability of any selected candidate, it may be within discretion of the board of Regents to reject the recommendation, but it is not by way of acting as an appellate authority on the recommendation made by the selection committee. ( 51 ) IF the university has been applying an incorrect law and following an incorrect procedure all these years and it had not been frowned upon by Court, it does not mean that the procedure followed is good and the same procedure should be permitted to be followed henceforth. It is high time for the university to wake up and see the reality of the situation and to ensure due adherence to the statutory requirements in terms of statute-15 of the university Statutes. It is the university which has adopted the UGC regulations for the purpose of statute-15. Though it is the Board of regents which has the power to alter or amend the statutes, but a mere resolution by the Board of Regents cannot be a substitute for an amendment to the statute nor as a fulfilment of the requirement of the statutes. It is for this reason the argument of Sri D. N. Nanjunda reddy and Sri Madhusudan R. Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the university and the selected candidate that the action of the selection committee including the appointment of the outside expert member of the scrutiny committee having received the approval of the Board of Regents in its 292nd meeting it is to be taken as fulfilment of the requirement of statute-15 cannot be accepted. ( 52 ) WRIT petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. ( 53 ) IN the circumstance, the parties shall bear their own costs.