Judgment : The petitioner is challenging appointment of 4th respondent as Lecturer in the Department of Social Work at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady for the reason that selection committee was not constituted in accordance with the provisions of the University statutes. According to petitioner, petitioner had 7 years experience in teaching with Second Class MSW and therefore, she should have got higher rank if committee was properly constituted with Head of the Department of the University also as a member of the Screening Committee. I heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, Standing Counsel appearing for University and counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. Clause 4 of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Statutes, 1997 providing for appointment of Selection Committee is as follows: "4. Selection Committee:- (1) When posts are to be filled up after inviting applications by advertisement, the applications received shall be first screened by a Committee consisting of the Head of the concerned University Department of Study and Research and two members of the Syndicate. The applications found in order by the said Committee shall be referred to a Selection Committee consisting of-- .......... (iii)(b) for the posts of Reader, Lecturer etc; one Syndicate member to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, two outside experts chosen by the Syndicate and the Head of the Concerned University department or the teacher holding charge of the Head of the Department." Admittedly the Screening Committee did not have the Head of the Department or the teacher holding charge of the Head of the Department and according to the petitioner, this itself will disqualify the person selected by the Committee which was not constituted in accordance with the above provision. Besides this, counsel also pointed out that outside experts were chosen by the Vice-Chancellor and not by the Syndicate. Consequently, the selection made by the Screening Committee is invalid is petitioners case. However, counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that Syndicate was not in session and therefore, outside experts could be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of powers conferred on him under Section 26(7) of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994. Consequently, the selection made by the Screening Committee is invalid is petitioners case. However, counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that Syndicate was not in session and therefore, outside experts could be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of powers conferred on him under Section 26(7) of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994. Even though counsel for the petitioner contended that Syndicate was in existence and there was no justification for bypassing them in the nomination of experts, counsel for the University submitted that for want of quorum, Syndicate could not hold meeting on three occasions. If Syndicate is not able to hold meeting for want of quorum on a steady basis, then I feel the option to the Vice-Chancellor is only to exercise his discretion under Section 26(7) of the Act so that appointments are not delayed. The petitioner has no case that the experts selected by the Vice-Chancellor are not qualified to be members of the Screening Committee. The next ground raised is that the Head of the Department was not included in the Screening Committee. The justification put forward by counsel for the University is that there is no Department of Social Work in the University and therefore, Head of the Department was not available to be included in the Screening Committee in terms of the above provision. However, counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology was holding charge as Head of the Department and so much so, he should have been there in the selection process. I find force in this contention because as an alternate to the Head of the Department, the teacher holding charge should have been there in the Screening Committee. However, it is not known whether the Vice-Chancellor excluded the teacher in charge of the Department because petitioner was working as a Guest Lecturer in the same Department for a long period and there may be a natural bias for such person in favour of the petitioner. In any case I do not think the flaw in the constitution of the Screening Committee will justify interference of appointment of the 4th respondent for more than one reason. In the first place, both the petitioner and 4th respondent belong to members of Scheduled Caste community and both were included in the rank list. In any case I do not think the flaw in the constitution of the Screening Committee will justify interference of appointment of the 4th respondent for more than one reason. In the first place, both the petitioner and 4th respondent belong to members of Scheduled Caste community and both were included in the rank list. While petitioner stands 13 in the list, 4th respondents rank is 8 and she got employment only by virtue of claim under the reservation quota. The petitioner is a Second Class MSW with 7 years experience, while 4th respondent is First Class with 66.7% marks in MSW and three years teaching experience. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Graduate in Law, the same does not appear to be an added qualification recognised for appointment to the Department of Social Works. The petitioner will become eligible over the 4th respondent only if her rank is atleast six above the rank obtained by the 4th respondent who got appointment. Besides all these, no other claimant for the post who participated in the interview has challenged the selection for appointment on the ground that Committee constituted was biased or any ground of foulplay in the constitution of Committee by the Vice-Chancellor. Above all, 4th respondent joined service as a Lecturer four years back and she is continuing as a permanent Lecturer. I do not think it would be just or equitable to interfere with the appointment given to the 4th respondent at this distance of time on mere technicalities. Considering the long period of experience of the petitioner as a Guest Lecturer in the same University and by virtue of the rank obtained by her in the interview, there will be direction to the University to consider her for appointment, if any vacancy arises in the near future. The W.P. is dismissed but with the above observation.