Judgment :- When the matter came up on 27.1.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to give notice to the Standing Counsel for the respondents University. Accordingly, Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel took notice for the respondents and also filed counter affidavit. 2. Heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the respondents University. 3. The writ petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition challenging an order of the University dated 18.1.2010 by which the petitioners appointment was cancelled. In that order, the reason for cancellation was set out in paragraph No.2 itself, which is as follows: "Since, Dr.R.Issac Manuel has not done course work in Ph.D., the marks awarded by the Screening Committee for Ph.D., are withdrawn and thus he has not come under the zone of selection on merit." 4. Before issuing this order, the petitioner was given an order of appointment dated 26.12.2009, wherein the Registrar of the University had granted the appointment with the approval of the Vice Chancellor for the post of Assistant Professor (Agronomy) and he was also prescribed two years probation. He was also directed to report before the Professor and Head of the Department, Rice Research Station, Tirur. Pursuant to the said order, he joined the duty in the respondent University. 5. While the stand of the petitioner was that he is fully qualified, question of his being disqualified on a ground that he does not possess valid Ph.D., after doing the course work cannot be accepted. The petitioner also took pains to explain that he has completed research and methodology paper and produced University prospectus for the Ph.D.programme for non-M.Phil candidates. He has done all the work that are necessary. 6. The eligibility of the petitioner to hold the post is highly disputed by the respondent University. The petitioner also raised his objections in para 12.B of the affidavit that before effecting the order of termination, the petitioner was not given any notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Inasmuch as the petitioner was not heard before the order came to be passed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On this submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the University had stated that no notice was given. Inasmuch as the petitioner was not heard before the order came to be passed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On this submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the University had stated that no notice was given. But, at the same time a person, who is ineligible to hold the post cannot be allowed to continue. 8. Since the case of the petitioner revolves upon the narrow campus whether the petitioner was entitled to get notice before cancellation of order of termination, this Court is not inclined to go into the larger issue as to whether the petitioner was eligible to hold the post and also to look into the materials, which are now brought before this Court. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the respondent states that the University is open mind and it is for the petitioner to convince that he is having necessary qualification in terms of the qualifications prescribed by the University and the Government for holding the said post. If necessary, the petitioner can also be examined by constituting another expert body for going into the issue. 9. Therefore, in order to decide whether any notice is required before cancellation, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in the Chancellor and another vs. Dr.Bijaynanda Kar and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 579 , in paragraphs 8 and 9, observed as follows: "8. Even on the merits of the controversy, we are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in setting aside the selection on the basis of the "two letters". The function of the Selection Committee comes to an end when the process of selection is completed and the proceedings are drawn. Every member of the Selection Committee has a right to give his independent, unbiased and considered opinion in respect of each candidate appearing before the Committee. Normally, it would not be considered a bona fide act on the part of a member of the Selection Committee to say, after the selection is over and he has signed the proceedings, that he "overlooked" certain qualifications in respect of a candidate. The sanctity of the process of selection has to be maintained. Normally, it would not be considered a bona fide act on the part of a member of the Selection Committee to say, after the selection is over and he has signed the proceedings, that he "overlooked" certain qualifications in respect of a candidate. The sanctity of the process of selection has to be maintained. It would be travesty of the selection process if the candidates are encouraged to meet members of the Selection Committee after the selection is over and to obtain letters from them attempting to renege the selection made. The High Court in the facts of the present case, grossly erred in setting aside the selection and appointment of Dr.Mahopatra. 9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic qualifications should not ordinarily, be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfills the requisite qualification or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the concerned selection committees which invariably consist of experts on the subject relevant to the selection. In the present case Dr.Kar in his representation before Chancellor specifically raised the issue that Dr.Mahopatra did not possess the specialisation in the "Phillosphical Analysis of Values" as one of the qualifications. The representation was rejected by the Chancellor. We have no doubt that the Chancellor must have looked into the question of eligibility of Dr.Mahopatra and got the same examined from the experts before rejecting the representation of Dr.Kar." 10. Subsequently, the question also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Munna Roy vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 283 . The Supreme Court in paragraph 2 observed as follows: "However, if the administrative authority takes a decision and the reasons for such decision are erroneous then such a decision can be interfered with by a court of law. In the case in hand the appellant pursuant to an advertisement had applied for and she had the requisite qualification. She became successful in the written test as well as in the viva voce. The list of successful candidates included her name but the ground for cancellation of the entire list without even informing the applicant was that though the minimum qualification required was a matriculate she was a graduate and thus dubious method has been adopted for being selected. She became successful in the written test as well as in the viva voce. The list of successful candidates included her name but the ground for cancellation of the entire list without even informing the applicant was that though the minimum qualification required was a matriculate she was a graduate and thus dubious method has been adopted for being selected. We really fail to understand that if a candidate possesses a qualification higher than the required qualifications and the advertisement itself had prescribed the same then how can the authority come to a conclusion that selection has been made by adopting a dubious method. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the reasons which weighed with the authorities to quash the selection are not germane and must be held to be arbitrary and irrational." 11. In the light of the above, the impugned order stands set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. It is open to the respondent University to examine afresh the petitioners eligibility to hold the post with open mind and in accordance with law. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.