Judgment :- The prayer of the writ petitioner is to set aside the appointment made in favour of the second respondent as Assistant Professor of Agricultural Entomology with effect from 25.01.1995 and to pay all backwages and other attendant benefits like G.P.F., leave and other benefits from the date of appointment. .2. The writ petition was admitted on 25.09.1998. Even after the admission of the writ petition, the petitioner had not cared to serve the second respondent, the only contesting respondent. However, when the matter came up earlier, this Court directed the original records of the Selection Committee to be produced before this Court and the records produced on 110. 1999 was directed to be kept in a safe custody by the Assistant Registrar (Judicial). The matter was directed to be posted for final hearing. For the reasons best known, the matter was not listed for the last nine years. 3. In the mean while, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent dated 011. 999. It is stated in the counter affidavit that though the petitioners name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was not selected for the said post and it was only the second respondent who was selected for the said post. The selection list signed by the members of the Selection Committee clearly shows while the second respondent had secured 56 marks, the petitioner had secured only 34 marks. Even after the selection, the appointment order was sent only to the second respondent, who had also subsequently joined the post. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to challenge the selection made in favour of the second respondent, who is admittedly more meritorious and whose candidate has been selected by the first respondent. 4. Mr. Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. After the selection list was published, the first respondent university had addressed the Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, Manadavelli by a letter dated 18.05.1996 showing as if the petitioner was selected. In view of the same, his name was removed from the Live Register and only the petitioner came to know that when he was not called for any other interview and on enquiries that his name has been wrongly removed from the Live Register solely on the basis of the action of the first respondent. In view of the same, his name was removed from the Live Register and only the petitioner came to know that when he was not called for any other interview and on enquiries that his name has been wrongly removed from the Live Register solely on the basis of the action of the first respondent. Therefore, he made representation to the first respondent that his name was wrongly removed only because of the communication sent by the first respondent. The first respondent thereafter by an order dated 27.08.1998 informed the Assistant Director, Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, Chennai that the petitioner was not selected and the selected persons name was one S.Subramaniyan with register NO.PE/5107/87, whereas the petitioners Employment Exchange number was 89MO6400. Thus, the petitioner has been made to suffer for a period of three years by his name being removed from the Live Register. Therefore, he says that irreparable damage has been done by the irresponsible action of the first respondent University. The original records as well as the counter affidavit admits this fact. .5. At the same time, this Court cannot grant any relief of directing the University to make any appointment in favour of the petitioner since the first respondent is a University governed by the provisions of the Act and statutes made thereunder. At the same time, the first respondent university cannot be allowed to escape for the mental agony and the loss caused to the petitioner for unnecessarily having his name removed from the Employment Exchange. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the first respondent University must be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards costs to the petitioner for wrongly informing the Employment Exchange. But the writ petition is dismissed as the prayer of the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Yet for the conduct of the University, the University is directed to pay at least a token costs of Rs.10,000/-and this shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands dismissed in other respects. No costs. 6. The original records produced by the University is hereby returned to the learned counsel for the University, who has also signed in receipt of such records in the Court records.