Judgment 1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows :- These two writ petitions are being taken up for hearing together as identical questions of law and similar factual issues are involved in these two cases. Both the writ petitioners have obtained M. Phil in Women's Studies from the School of Women's Studies under the Jadavpur University. They have obtained graduate and postgraduate degrees in English from recognised Universities and desire to teach English at the graduate level as lecturers in colleges affiliated to different universities in West Bengal. Selection to such posts is done by way of a centralised selection process by the West Bengal College Service Commission, and the Commission makes recommendation in respect of selected candidates to respective colleges having vacancies duly approved by the State Government. Advertisement in respect of the posts which are subject of dispute in the present proceeding was made on 5 December, 2008, being Advertisement No. 03/2008. Both the petitioners had responded to such advertisement. 2. THE qualification for the said post was specified in the said advertisement itself, and it was inter-alia stipulated :- "Eligibility : (Ref. G.O. No. : 756 Edn(CS) dt. 28.11.2008 read with G.O. No.: 627 Edn(CS) dt. 17.06.1999 of Govt. of W.B.(HED) and UGC notification. (1) For Degree Colleges:- (i) Consistently good academic record with at least 55% marks (without any sort of grace or an equivalent grade in the master's degree preceded by 3 yrs Hons. Degree in the concerned subject with at least 2nd class marks. Relaxation of 5% from 55% of the marks is admissible to candidates (a) belonging to SC/ST/PH category and (b) qualified in the JRF examination conducted by the UGC/CSIR only prior to 1989. (ii) Qualifying of the Eligibility Test for JRF/Lectureship conducted by UGC/CSIR(NET) or UGC accredited State Eligibility Test (SET) earlier (SLET) conducted by WBCSC or possessing of Ph.D. or M. Phil degree in concerned subject. (iii) Good power of expression (speaking, reading and writing) in Bengali/ Nepali." The source or power of the State Government to lay down such qualification criteria has not been disclosed before this Court, but it was submitted that the State Government followed the criteria laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in this regard. The power or authority of the State Government to lay down the qualification criteria is however not in dispute in these proceedings. The power or authority of the State Government to lay down the qualification criteria is however not in dispute in these proceedings. The relevant qualification criteria of the UGC in this regard is contained in the UGC (Minimum Qualifications Required For The Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (2nd Amendment), Regulation, 2006 issued on 14 June, 2006 which stipulated :- "NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for those with Post Graduate Degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only." This Regulation has subsequently undergone further modifications but in relation to the posts in question, this Regulation remains applicable. 3. NEITHER of the two writ petitioners is NET or SLET qualified. They however had responded to the advertisement on the strength of their M.Phil degree. Runa Chakraborty, the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 342 of 2010 participated in the selection process and was initially recommended for Malda College under the zone of Gourbanga University. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 471 of 2010, Ria Mukherjee was issued a call letter and went through the process of interview. In the provisional merit panel for lecturers in respect of English under the Calcutta University zone, her name appeared against serial No. 20. I shall refer to these to the writ petitioners in the later part of the judgment as R and R1 respectively. So far as R is concerned, it appears that the Commission had subsequently withdrawn their recommendation in substance by directing the Malda College authorities not to issue appointment letter to her. R1 was not allowed to participate in the process of counselling. The reason for such steps being taken by the Commission is that none of them had done her M.Phil in English. The view of the Commission is that the candidates seeking to bypass the entry test being NET or SLET on the strength of their M.Phil, will have to do M.Phil in the very same subject for which they apply for lectureship and Women's Studies in which they did their M.Phil is not the same as English. Their cases have been argued by Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya and Mr. Mohinoor Rahaman learned Counsel. 4. Their cases have been argued by Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya and Mr. Mohinoor Rahaman learned Counsel. 4. THE case of R is that the Commission, once having recommended her name, has no power to recall or withdraw such recommendation as there is no allegation of any suppression in relation to her educational qualification. Indeed, both the petitioners had disclosed the fact that they had done their M.Phil in Women's Studies in their applications. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishnan v. THE Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported in (1976)1 SCC 311 . In this judgment it has been held :- "7. It appears from the averments made in the counter-affidavit that according to the procedure prevalent in the college the admission forms are forwarded by the Head of the Department in December preceding the year when the examination is held. In the instant case the admission form of the appellant must have been forwarded in December, 1971 where as the examination was to take place in April/ may, 1972. It is obvious that during this period of four to five months it was the duty of the university authorities to scrutinise the form in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the university to see that the form complied with all the requirements of law. If neither the Head of the Department nor the university authorities took care to scrutinse the admission form, then the question of the appellant committing a fraud did not arise. It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It was neither a case of suggestio falsi, or suppressio veri. THE appellant never wrote to the university authorities that he had attended the prescribed number of lectures. There was ample time and opportunity for the university authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I examination in April, 1972, then by force of the university statute the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant. In these circumstances, therefore, if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I examination in April, 1972, then by force of the university statute the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant. A somewhat similar situation arose in Premji Bhai Ganesh Bhai Kshatriya v. Vice Chancellor, Ravishankar University, Raipur where a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed as follows :- From the provisions of Ordinance Nos. 19 and 48 it is clear that the scrutiny as to the requisite attendance of the candidates is required to be made before the admission cards are issued. Once the admission cards are issued permitting the candidates to take their examination, there is no provision in Ordinance No. 19 or ordnance No. 48 which would enable the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw the permission. This discretion having been clearly exercised in favour of the petitioner by permitting him to appear at the examination, it was not open to the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw that permission subsequently and to withhold his result. We find ourselves In complete agreement with the reasons given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the view of law taken by the learned Judges. In these circumstances, therefore, once the appellant was allowed to appear at the examination in May, 1973, the respondent had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. This was not a case where on the undertaking given by a candidate for fulfillment of a specified condition a provisional admission was given by the university to appear at the examination which could be withdrawn at any moment on the non-fulfillment of the aforesaid condition. If this was the situation then the candidate himself have contracted out of the statute which was for his benefit and the statute therefore would not have stood in the way of the university authorities in cancelling the candidature of the appellant." It is asserted on behalf of the petitioners that in the advertisement, the requirement for the degree of M.Phil in the concerned subject does not mean the same or identical subject, but the said degree in an equivalent subject would fulfil the requirement. In this regard a resolution taken by the executive council of the Jadavpur University on 5 March, 2010 has been relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. In this regard a resolution taken by the executive council of the Jadavpur University on 5 March, 2010 has been relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. This resolution stipulates :- "RESOLVED that the M.Phil degrees in the Arts Faculty viz., M.Phil degrees in Comparative Literature and Sanskrit and the literature subjects are equivalent to each other in depth, coverage and merit. RESOLVED and confirmed that M.Phil degree in Women's Studies be considered equivalent to those in Literature subjects in depth, coverage and merit. RESOL VED also that candidates with M. Phil degrees in "Comparative Literature" and "Women's Studies with literature specialization" are eligible to apply for any teaching posts in respective literature subjects." 5. A notification on similar line has been issued by the University of Calcutta, bearing No. CSR/19/2009. A copy of each of these two documents have been made which Annexures "P10" and "P11" of W.P. No. 342 of 2010. The notification issued by the University of Calcutta specifies :- "It is notified for information of all concerned that the Syndicate in its meeting held on i3.03.09 under Item No. 3 approved that "Literature" shall also be treated as an area of specialization for undertaking M. Phil programme in Women's Studies in this University, in compliance with the U.G.C. Guidelines [vide U.G.C. letter No. F. 1-3/2007(PS) dt. 14.06.07]. it is also notified that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 31.03.09 under Item No. 25 approved that an M.Phil in Women's Studies with specialization in the area of "Literature" as stated hereinabove shall also be considered at par with an M.Phil Degree in the Corresponding area and/or in a subject(s) or in an interdisciplinary field and that an M.Phil in Women's Studies under the above stated areas of specialization in "literature" shall also be considered as an eligibility and qualification for the purpose of appointment to the post of a Lecturer in the relevant subject(s) in the Colleges/Universities." 6. IN support of their submissions that the adjective "concerned" does not mean the same subject but an equivalent subject, an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of APOT No. 300 of 2010 (West Bengal College Service Commission v. Manindra Ghosh) delivered on 22 June, 2010 as well as a judgment of an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of W.P. No. 463 of 2010, (Rajatendu Banik v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) delivered on 13 January, 2011 have been relied upon. The stand of the Commission, however, is that a candidate seeking exemption from having to clear Net or SLET has to have his or her degree in M.Phil in the same subject and not in a subject which is relatable to or equivalent to the one in respect of which appointment is sought for. As regards the Division Bench judgment of this Court, it has been submitted that a review petition has been filed by the Commission which is pending for consideration. Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, learned Advocate for the Commission resisting the plea of the petitioners has referred to the eligibility criteria which was specified in the advertisement No. 03/2008. His submission on this count is that in the same advertisement, in respect of certain disciplines the Commission has specified what would be considered as equivalent subject. But in the absence of such specific stipulation so far as lectureship in English is concerned, to qualify for exemption from NET or SLET, M.Phil degree was required in English only. In the advertisement, certain subjects have been specified in Clause E in which Master's and Honours degree in the same subject were not essential. For example, in respect of "Defence Studies", as per the said advertisement, Honours degree was not necessary in the same subject but an Honours degree in any science subject would have fulfilled the requirement. Master's Degree necessary for lectureship in Defence Studies could be in Defence Studies itself or in Strategic Studies as well. This clause relates to Honours and Master's degrees, which are mandatory qualification for lecturers as per the norms specified by the Commission. There is stipulation in sub-clause (i) of Clause C(l) of the advertisement that an aspiring candidate must possess Master's degree preceded by three years Honours degree in the concerned subject. This clause relates to Honours and Master's degrees, which are mandatory qualification for lecturers as per the norms specified by the Commission. There is stipulation in sub-clause (i) of Clause C(l) of the advertisement that an aspiring candidate must possess Master's degree preceded by three years Honours degree in the concerned subject. In Clause E, thereof however it has been clarified that in respect of certain subjects, like Defence Studies, other specified subject to which I have referred to earlier in this judgment would also satisfy the requirement. It has been specifically stated in Clause E that "Qualification in certain subjects in respect of which Master Degree and Honours Degree in the same subject are not essential", before referring to those subjects. Relying on this part of the advertisement, it has been contended first that since the advertisement itself specifies deviation in respect of certain subjects so far as Master's and Honours degrees are concerned, the expression "concerned" in Clause C(l)(i) of the same advertisement ought to be construed as same or identical. Secondly, it has been argued that since in one part of the advertisement it has been stipulated that Master's and Honours degree in the same subject would not be necessary for certain specific subjects whereas the main qualification clause prescribed that such degrees should be in the concerned subject, it is implicit that throughout the advertisement the adjective "concerned" means "same". 7. IT has also been argued that the mode of the selection process could not be changed midstream and in this regard the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, A. P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors., (2005)4 SCC 154 and Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors., (2009)4 SCC 555 have been cited. Mr. Mondal has also relied on a notification of the UGC relating to the National Eligibility Test for Junior Research Fellowship and Lectureship of December, 2009. In the list of subjects appended to this notification, English and Women's Studies have been separately classified against serial Nos. 30 and 74 respectively. 8. FURTHER submission on behalf of the Commission is that in educational matter, resolution of dispute of this nature ought to be resolved by experts there should be minimal judicial interference on such issue. In the list of subjects appended to this notification, English and Women's Studies have been separately classified against serial Nos. 30 and 74 respectively. 8. FURTHER submission on behalf of the Commission is that in educational matter, resolution of dispute of this nature ought to be resolved by experts there should be minimal judicial interference on such issue. The authority relied upon on this count is a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalai (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Anr. (2008)9 SCC 284 . I shall first deal with submission made on behalf of R that once recommendation is made by the Commission, the same cannot be revoked. If a mistake is committed by a selecting body in recommending someone lacking in essential qualification, I do not think withdrawal of such recommendation before such recommendation is given effect to is altogether impermissible. In the case of Shri Krishnan (supra), the candidate involved was admitted in the course and allowed to take part in the examination process. Thus, an equitable right was created in favour of the candidate. In the case of R, the Commission alerted the concerned college before she was appointed for the post. Thus, no vested right was created in her favour, and on legitimate ground, the recommendation of the Commission could be revoked at that stage. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishnan (supra) does not apply in the facts of the present case. 9. NOW comes the question as to what would the expression "concerned" means on its own, without reference to the other clauses of the said advertisement. As per the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Eleventh Edition of 2004), "concern" means:- "Concern v. 1 relate to; be about > affect or involve. 2 worry (someone). 3 (be concerned) regard it as important to do something, n. 1 worry; anxiety. 2 a matter of interest or importance. 3 a business. -PHRASES as (or so) far as someone/thing is concerned as regards the interests or case of someone or something have no concern with have nothing to do with, to whom it may concern used to address a reader whose identity is unknown. -ORIGIN ME: from Fr. concerner or late L. concernere (in med. L. 'be relevant to') from con- (expressing intensive force) + cemere 'sift, discern'." 10. -ORIGIN ME: from Fr. concerner or late L. concernere (in med. L. 'be relevant to') from con- (expressing intensive force) + cemere 'sift, discern'." 10. THE meaning or implication of the said expression was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Dalmiya v. THE Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1977)2 SCC 467 and it was observed:- "14. THE word "concern' is not a term of art, having a precise, fixed meaning. It has several nuances, and is used to convey diverse shades of meaning over a wide spectrum. It may mean to have a relation to, or bearing on, be of interest or, importance" or "to have an anxiety, worry". "Concerned" as an adjective may mean "interested", "involved". In one context, it may mean one thing, and in a different context another. THE decisions as to the meaning of this word used in a different context in another statute, are scarcely of much value in construing it in the setting of the provision with which we are concerned. THE best way therefore to construe this word is with reference to the context in which it is used." The word "concerned" thus would not, on a plain reading imply "same" or "identical." The dictionary meaning, as well as the observation of the Supreme Court on the other hand is suggestive of conveying the meaning of something similar or equivalent. In the context in which this word has been used in different clauses or sub-clauses of the said advertisement also does not lead to an automatic inference that it means the "same" in each part of the advertisement where it has been used. In clause C(l)(i), the term "concerned" has been used denoting the subjects in which a candidate should have Honours and Master's degree, and in clause E, in respect of certain disciplines, a range of subjects at the Master's or Honours level have been specified, the graduate and post graduate degrees in which would fulfil the eligibility criteria for certain disciplines. This clause (i.e. clause E), in my opinion clarifies the range of subjects which would be compatible with the subject for which lectureship is applied for. But with reference to this part of the advertisement, it cannot be concluded that in clause C(l)(ii), the adjective "concerned" implies the same subject. 11. This clause (i.e. clause E), in my opinion clarifies the range of subjects which would be compatible with the subject for which lectureship is applied for. But with reference to this part of the advertisement, it cannot be concluded that in clause C(l)(ii), the adjective "concerned" implies the same subject. 11. MY attention was also drawn to eligibility the requirement for B.Ed' colleges, and in clause C(ll)(i) of the advertisement, it was stipulated :- "Candidates must possess post graduate degree with 55% marks preceded by Hon. Degree in relevant subject. M. Ed degree/M.A. in Edn. With 55% marks."(quoted verbatim)." This Clause was referred to in support of the argument of the Commission that the word concerned in Clause (l)(ii) in the advertisement should not be construed as relevant, as where the Commission meant "relevant" in the same advertisement, that very expression was used. I am unable to accept such an interpretation of the content of the advertisement. What is being argued on behalf of the Commission is that since in the subject clause, the word "relevant" or "equivalent" has not been used, "concerned" should mean the "same". But the Commission has not employed the term "same" in clause C(l)(ii) of the advertisement. To restrict the meaning of the word "concerned" to "same" or "identical" would imply going against the meaning which has been attributed to it by an authoritative dictionary, and the manner in which the said word has been construed by the Supreme Court. 12. THE UGC also appears to have taken a similar view that "concerned" subject need not mean the same subject. In W.P. No. 471 of 2010 a letter written by an Under Secretary to the UGC dated 14 June, 2007 addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta has been annexed, in which it has been stated :- "With reference to your D.O. letter No. U-7/177/2007 dated 27.04.2007 addressed to Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat, Chairman, U.G.C. on the above subject, I am directed to say that M. Phil/Ph. D. should be in the concerned subject, for the appointment as Lecturer. However, the relevance of the subject is to be decided by the concerned University as per its requirements." It is clear from this communication that the UGC does not consider "concerned" to mean the "same" subject. D. should be in the concerned subject, for the appointment as Lecturer. However, the relevance of the subject is to be decided by the concerned University as per its requirements." It is clear from this communication that the UGC does not consider "concerned" to mean the "same" subject. If that was the case, then the question of leaving the decision to be made by the concerned university would not have had arisen. In this communication, the UGC official has used the expressions "concerned" and "relevant" interchangeably. And while deciding on what would be the proper meaning of the term concerned, I would like to place greater reliance on the meaning attributed to the word by the UGC rather than the Commission, as this clause appears to have originated from the UGC (Minimum Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulation, 2000. So far as the subject advertisement is concerned, the clause has been lifted from 2006 amendment of the said Regulation, to which I have already referred to. It is true that in the notification relating to NET issued by the UGC, these two subjects have been independently listed. But that very fact would not alter the foundation of the petitioners' case. It is obvious that these two subjects are not the same. The question involved in these two proceedings is as to whether M. Phil in Women's Studies would be treated to be a concerned subject for lectureship in english. Representation of these two subjects separately in the UGC notification thus does not negate the petitioners' case. 13. IN the case of Rajbir Singh Dalai (supra) dealing with the question as to whether Ph.D. in Political Science would entitle one to be appointed to the post of Reader in Public Administration, the Supreme Court held :- "29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from U.G.C. whether a candidate who possesses a Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5-3-1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view." 14. MR. Mondal argued for dilution of the impact of the said letter of the UGC on the present proceeding on the ground that the posts in relation to which UGC was commenting therein were lecturers in University itself and not in respect of colleges under the University. But this factor in my opinion does not change the context, or calls for an altogether different interpretation of the same word arising out of the same Regulation, but used in the context of posts in different institutions. The authority, i.e. the UGC vested with the task of laying down qualification has construed the implication of different subjects specified as eligibility criteria for lectureship and found that the academic bodies should be the decision taker in such a dispute. In the case of R, Gourbanga University have expressed their inability in course of hearing to decide whether M. Phil in Women's Studies should be concerned subject for lectureship in English or not. The University which granted M. Phil has opined that it would be equivalent to literature subjects. In the case of Rl, the University conferring the degree of M. Phil as well as the University within whose jurisdiction or zone the petitioner seeks appointment are of the same view. On the question of different parts of the same advertisement carrying different expression, an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajatendu Banik (supra) has already dealt with that issue, holding :-. "I do not find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the phrase "concerned subject" used in Clause-C(l)(ii) purports same subject in view of the observation made hereinabove. I do not also find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the 'concerned subject' used in Clause-C(l)(l) purports the same interpretation because Clause-C(l)(l) prescribed the essential qualification for graduation Stage and master degree. After considering Clause-E of the above advertisement, I find that certain subjects were mentioned there where the master degree and honours degree were not required to be obtained in the same subject. After considering Clause-E of the above advertisement, I find that certain subjects were mentioned there where the master degree and honours degree were not required to be obtained in the same subject. Since Zoology was not included in Clause-E, it was not the 'concerned, subject' with regard to master degree or honours degree. But Clause-E had no bearing on the qualification prescribed in Clause-C(l)(ii) with regard to M. Phil degree." I am in respectful agreement with this view, and I have already given the reasons as to why I do so. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also expressed the same opinion, which is binding precedent for me, as the operation of this judgment has not been directed to be stayed in the Review petition. 15. IN the cases of Rajbir Singh Dalai (supra) and All India Counsel of Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Ors. (2009)11 SCC 726 , caveat has been sounded against judicial intervention on education matters. Both being decisions of the Supreme Court are binding precedents on me. But in respect of the petitioners, the academic, authorities have not been able to come to a definite opinion or solution on the subject controversy. The view of the two Universities in substance supports the stand of the petitioners. One University, i.e. Gourbanga University does not have a specific stand. The UGC, as it appears from the communication referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, leaves the matter to be decided by the concerned University as per their requirements. The main resistance here has come from the College Service Commission, who are only the selecting body and not the authority to lay down the educational standards. Nor are they the appointing authority. Thus the mantle for taking a decision on the subject controversy falls on the Court only. I also do not think in holding that Women's Studies would be "concerned subject" for English, I shall be directing midway shift in the process of selection. What the" petitioners are seeking here is interpretation of certain clause of an advertisement relating to eligibility criteria. This judgment does not change the eligibility criteria, but lays down what the stipulations contained in such a clause would mean. The ratio of the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the Commission does not assist his case. 16. What the" petitioners are seeking here is interpretation of certain clause of an advertisement relating to eligibility criteria. This judgment does not change the eligibility criteria, but lays down what the stipulations contained in such a clause would mean. The ratio of the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the Commission does not assist his case. 16. THERE is already a judgment of a Division Bench as well as a co-ordinate bench holding that "concerned subject" does not mean the "same subject". This being the position, and since both Calcutta University and the Jadavpur University, two premiere universities of this country have opined that the subjects are relevant, I hold that for lectureship in English in respect of the posts involved in the said advertisement, degree of M. Phil in Women's Studies from the Jadavpur University would constitute M. Phil in concerned subject so far as the eligibility criteria laid down in the subject advertisement is concerned. The writ petitions accordingly stand allowed. The Commission is directed to take appropriate steps for complete up the process of recommendation of the petitioners to the respective colleges within a period of four weeks from the date the certified copy of this judgment becomes available. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 17. URGENT Photostat certified copy of this judgment and order if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. Later: Prayer is made for stay of operation of this judgment and order. Such prayer is considered and refused. URGENT Photostat certified copy of this judgment and order if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.