Judgment :- These writ petitions were placed before me as the third Judge, for considering the following points upon which the learned Chief Justice and G.S. Godbole, J. were divided in opinion:- "1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Search Committee to include the name of respondent No.8 in the list of eligible candidates for the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bombay suffered from any non-application of mind vis-a-vis Condition No.3, when the Search Committee had recorded in the minutes of its meeting held on 12 June 2010 that the Committee reviewed each and every application and prepared a list of 20 candidates (including respondent No.8) having all qualifications as mentioned in the statutory order dated 27 May 2009 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 12(3A)(d) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994? 2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court should exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to direct the Search Committee to reconsider the question of eligibility of respondent No.8 for the office of Vice-Chancellor vis-a-vis Condition No.3 in Part-A of the schedule to the above statutory order dated 27 May 2009?" 2. I will, for convenience, refer to the parties as they are arrayed in PIL No.92 of 2011. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the State of Maharashtra, University of Mumbai and the Registrar, University of Mumbai, respectively. Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 are the members of the search committee. Respondent No.8 is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mumbai. 3. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 7th July, 2010, of Respondent No.1, the Chancellor, University of Mumbai, appointing Respondent No.8 Dr. Rajan Welukar, as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai for a term of five years. 4. The Division Bench dismissed Writ Petition No.1901 of 2010, which was filed by another applicant for the post. The Division Bench was, however, divided in opinion on the above points as a result of which they were also divided as to the order to be passed in Public Interest Litigation Nos.92 and 96 of 2010. 5. The Division Bench rejected the challenge to the appointment of respondent No.8 on all points, except the one referred to above. The Division Bench was, however, divided in opinion on the above points as a result of which they were also divided as to the order to be passed in Public Interest Litigation Nos.92 and 96 of 2010. 5. The Division Bench rejected the challenge to the appointment of respondent No.8 on all points, except the one referred to above. It is not necessary, therefore, to refer to the facts in detail which have been set out in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice. Nor is it necessary to state the provisions of law on which the Division Bench was not divided. 6A. The Universities Act, 1994, applies to the Mumbai University which is mentioned in Schedule II to the Act. Section 11 of the Act provides that there shall be a Vice Chancellor appointed as provided in section 12. Under section 12, a three-member committee (Search Committee) is constituted to recommend suitable names to the Chancellor. Section 12(3A)(d) reads as under :- "(3A) A person recommended by the Committee for appointment as a Vice-Chancellor shall,-..... (d) possess such educational qualifications and experience as may be specified by the State Government, by an order published in the Official Gazette, in consultation with the Chancellor." 6B. The State Government, in exercise of powers under section 12(3A)(d) issued an order dated 27th May, 2009, specifying inter-alia the qualifications required and the manner in which the applications were to be submitted. The order:- "(1) specifies that the person being recommended by the Committee shall possess the essential qualifications and experience as set out in part `A' of the Schedule appended hereto; and may possess desirable experience, expected skill and competencies as set out in Part B and part C, respectively of the said Schedule; (2) directs that the manner in which the application shall be submitted shall be such as set out in Part D of the said Schedule." .................. "Schedule PART 'A' Essential Qualification and Experience-......... (3) Minimum of five research publications in peerreviewed/referred international research journals after Ph.D and/or published quality books in a recognised discipline, referenced for study in higher education at the National/ International level." .............. "PART `D' Procedure for the Search Committee for considering prospective candidates- ............... (3) The prospective candidates/applicants must provide a detailed chronological Resume that reflects their qualifications experience and achievements. "PART `D' Procedure for the Search Committee for considering prospective candidates- ............... (3) The prospective candidates/applicants must provide a detailed chronological Resume that reflects their qualifications experience and achievements. Additionally, they should provide a summary description of fulfilling the essential requirements and justifying their competency for the position of Vice-Chancellor in the context of the specific skills and competencies listed herein to facilitate the Search Committee to judge competency/suitability of the candidate." 7. Pursuant to clause (3) of Part-A of the schedule, respondent No.8 listed twelve of his publications under the following caption:- "7. Publications Research papers /problems in Peer-reviewed Journals" 8. Clause 1 of the order dated 27th May, 2009, stipulated that the person recommended by the committee "shall possess the essential qualifications and experience as set out in Part-A of the schedule". Clause (3) of Part-A of the schedule required a minimum of five research publications in the prescribed journals "after Ph.D." This, therefore, was an essential qualification for a candidate to be recommended by the search committee to the Chancellor. It is admitted by all the parties that seven out of these twelve publications do not meet the above requirements inasmuch as they did not pertain to the period after the eighth respondent's Ph.D. These seven publications, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration by the search committee. Admittedly only five publications pertained to the relevant period. I will, for convenience, refer to the seven publications as the irrelevant publications and to the five publications as relevant publications. 9. The only question is whether the search committee, while recommending the name of the respondent No.8, considered the five relevant publications only or not. As Godbole, J. put it, the question that arises is whether we should presume that the search committee had consciously considered the said five publications and had consciously arrived at a conclusion that they satisfied the test laid down in clause 3 of Part-A of the Schedule. If they considered only the five relevant publications, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. If not, they are liable to be allowed. I have come to the conclusion that the record does not indicate whether the search committee considered only the five relevant publications or not. 10. If they considered only the five relevant publications, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. If not, they are liable to be allowed. I have come to the conclusion that the record does not indicate whether the search committee considered only the five relevant publications or not. 10. It is essential to note that though respondent No.8, in his biodata, mentioned that he had obtained a Ph.D. in Statistics, he had not mentioned the date on which the Notification was issued. It is agreed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that in paragraph 19 of the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, the date of the Notification of the eighth respondent's Ph.D. is mentioned, not on the basis of his bio-data, but on the basis of a statement to this effect in the sur-rejoinder filed by him. The record does not indicate the date of the eighth respondent's Ph.D. having been available to the search committee. 11. The minutes of a meeting of the search committee held on 12th June, 2010, recorded that :- "(2) The committee reviewed each and every application received and prepared the list of candidates having all essential qualifications..." The search committee recorded that out of 98 applications received, only 20 candidates listed in Annexure-B, including respondent No.8, satisfied the essential qualifications. 74 candidates listed in Annexure-C lacked the essential qualifications and 4 candidates lacked the essential qualifications and had submitted their applications after the due date. It was decided that all the 20 candidates listed in Annexure-B be called for personal discussions with the members of the committee. Annexure-B contains the following entries with respect to respondent No.8. TABLE 12. The petitioners and the respondents relied upon the above entry to support their rival contentions. The petitioners submitted that the fact that all 12 publications of respondent No.8 were referred to in the table indicates that the search committee had considered even the seven irrelevant ones. The petitioners contended that there is nothing to indicate that the search committee took into consideration only the 5 relevant works. They contended that there is any event nothing to indicate that the search committee did not consider all the relevant papers as having complied with the requirements of clause (3) of Part-A of the Schedule. The petitioners contended that there is nothing to indicate that the search committee took into consideration only the 5 relevant works. They contended that there is any event nothing to indicate that the search committee did not consider all the relevant papers as having complied with the requirements of clause (3) of Part-A of the Schedule. The respondents on the other hand contend that there is nothing to indicate that the search committee did not consider the five relevant publications as meeting the requirements of clause (3). 13. The petitioners and the respondents also relied upon the minutes of the meeting of the search committee held on 2nd July, 2011, which record that the search committee interacted with each of the 20 candidates, selected 5 candidates and forwarded their names to the Chancellor in alphabetical order. They also relied upon the write-up by the search committee in respect of respondent No.8, which reads as under :- "Dr. Rajan Welukar is a trained statistics expert with his Ph.D. in that area and several publications, even though he is young (born 1959) he has very good experience as teacher and administrator. Dr. Welukar has worked with Mah. State Govt. as OSD in the Dept. of Higher Education in the office of Governor as Joint Sec. and as the Vice-Chancellor of YCMOU for five years. During his tenure as Vice-Chancellor he tried to take distance mode of education to those who need most and introduced several new academic and skill development programs. He has thus proved his leadership qualities. He has a good knowledge of Mumbai University and will be able to resolve some of the current issues by forming a team. He is very sincere and hard working. His international exposure and experience of working at different level will be immensely useful. The Committee therefore unanimously includes the name of Dr. Rajan Welukar in the panel of candidates for the post of Vice-Chairman of University of Mumbai." (emphasis supplied) The petitioners contend that the write-up indicates that in respect of respondent No.8, the search committee took into consideration the irrelevant facts including the twelve publications though seven of them were irrelevant. The respondents contend that the search committee made an informed decision by taking into consideration all the relevant facts, including the five relevant publications. 14. The respondents contend that the search committee made an informed decision by taking into consideration all the relevant facts, including the five relevant publications. 14. Neither the learned Chief Justice nor Justice Godbole have held the impugned actions to be mala-fide at any stage. Secondly, the Division Bench agreed and indeed there is no doubt that the members of the search committee are highly qualified and extremely erudite in their respective fields. Thirdly, neither the learned Chief Justice nor Justice Godbole held that the search committee was incapable of assessing whether the publications satisfied the requirement of clause (3) of Part-A of the schedule. In other words, neither judgment holds that the search committee was incapable of assessing whether the publications submitted by the applicants, including respondent No.8, constituted research work. Nor does either judgment hold that the search committee was incapable of assessing whether such works were published in peer-reviewed/referred international research journals. 15. The judgment of the learned Chief Justice clearly indicates these three points. Justice Godbole's judgment also indicates the same. Had Justice Godbole's opinion been to the contrary on any of these points, he would have directed the search committee to be reconstituted of different members. 16. I will assume that despite the same, it is open for me to consider the submissions on behalf of the petitioners that the publications submitted by respondent No.8, including the 5 relevant publications did not constitute research works and were published in peer-reviewed/referred international research journals and that the members of the search committee were incapable of making such assessments because they were not statisticians. 17. In any event, the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the publications submitted by the respondent No.8 did not constitute works of research cannot be considered by a Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are technical aspects in respect of which a Writ Court cannot express any opinion. Merely because some of these works comprise of but two or three lines of mathematical formulae, would not entitle this Court to hold that they are not works of research. The length of a work does not determine its quality as a work of research. The length of a work is not determinative of whether it constitutes a work of research or not. Each discipline is bound to differ from the other in this regard. The length of a work does not determine its quality as a work of research. The length of a work is not determinative of whether it constitutes a work of research or not. Each discipline is bound to differ from the other in this regard. The error in the submission is obviously on account of comparing mathematics with pleadings and judgments. 18. The submission that none of the members of the committee have any experience in statistics and, therefore, cannot decide whether the publications submitted by respondent No.8 were either works of research or were published in peer-reviewed/referred international research journals is equally unfounded. I am in this regard in agreement with the decision of the learned Chief Justice. It is important to note that clause 3 of Part-A of the Schedule of the order dated 27th May, 2009, does not require the search committee to assess the quality of such publications, but only to consider whether they are works of research and whether they have been published in peerreviewed/ referred international research journals. It is not possible to hold that merely because the members of the search committee were not statisticians, they would be incapable of making such assessments which do not relate to the quality of the works. 19. Mr. Anturkar submitted that respondent No.8 had not stated in his resume that the publications constituted works of research and had been published in peer-reviewed/referred international research journals. He submitted that in view thereof and in view of the fact that they were from a different discipline, the members of the search committee could not have known whether the works submitted by the respondent No.8 complied with the requirements of clause 3. 20. Whether respondent No.8 or any of the applicants stated that the works submitted by them were research publications and that they were published in peer-reviewed/referred international research journals or not is irrelevant. An applicant stating the same cannot possibly be conclusive of the matter. It is for the search committee to decide the issue. These are applications for a post. They are not pleadings. The search committee was entitled to come to its own decision on the question. 21. Mr. Anturkar further submitted that apart from stating that the publications were works of research and were published in the requisite journals, it was incumbent for respondent No.8 to also produce evidence in proof thereof. 22. They are not pleadings. The search committee was entitled to come to its own decision on the question. 21. Mr. Anturkar further submitted that apart from stating that the publications were works of research and were published in the requisite journals, it was incumbent for respondent No.8 to also produce evidence in proof thereof. 22. Once the contention that the search committee was not qualified to assess this aspect of the matter is rejected, the present submission must also be rejected. If the search committee was in doubt, it was always entitled to call upon the applicants to clear the same. 23. As held by the learned Chief Justice, with 94 candidates each having a doctorate in different subjects/fields, the search committee cannot be expected to be comprised of 94 members. The constitution of the search committee was in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 24. Mr.Anturkar submitted that respondent No.8 had not even stated that the works submitted by him were published in the requisite journals and that the same were research works. He stated that respondent No.8 has himself described the same merely as "papers/problems". 25. The submission is not well founded. The application made by the respondent No.8 referred to the works under the caption : "7. Publications Research papers/problems in Peer-reviewed Journals". It is obvious, therefore, that respondent No.8 stated that the works were published. This is clear from a plain reading of the caption itself. Secondly, the mere fact that the caption does not use the expression "Research Journals" which appears in clause (3) of Part-A of the Schedule makes no difference. Respondent No.8 has described his publications as "research papers/problems". The caption itself makes it clear that respondent No.8 considered the works to be research papers/problems published in peer-reviewed journals. Whether the problems and the papers constitute research work or not was for the search committee to decide. In other words, the search committee would have to decide whether the work is one of research and then whether the same has been published in the requisite journals. 26. The answer to the questions referred to me lies in determining whether the search committee considered the 5 relevant works viz. the publications submitted by the respondent No.8 after he obtained his Ph.D. or not. I find that the record is of no assistance on this point. 27. To reiterate, respondent No.8 submitted 12 works. 26. The answer to the questions referred to me lies in determining whether the search committee considered the 5 relevant works viz. the publications submitted by the respondent No.8 after he obtained his Ph.D. or not. I find that the record is of no assistance on this point. 27. To reiterate, respondent No.8 submitted 12 works. The table/ Annexure-B to the minutes of the meeting held on 12th June, 2010, insofar as respondent No.8 is concerned, indicates 12 research publications in international journals. This table was prepared by the Nodal Officer. The table, however, does not furnish an answer to this question. All that it indicates is that the search committee had before it 12 publications/works tendered by respondent No.8. In other words, it does not indicate which of these 12 publications the search committee considered while considering the eligibility and suitability of respondent No.8. 28. The record is, therefore, indicative of any the following possibilities: I. The search committee considered all 12 publications submitted by respondent No.8 and found them to satisfy the requirements of clause (3) of Part-A of the schedule to the order dated 27th May, 2009. If that was so, the decision cannot be faulted for then though the search committee would have considered the 7 irrelevant publications, it would make no difference as the committee would also have considered the 5 relevant publications to satisfy the requirement of clause (3). II. The search committee considered only the 5 relevant publications while considering the application of respondent No.8. In that event, obviously, the appointment would have to be upheld. III. The search committee considered one or more of or even all the 5 relevant works/publications to be invalid, but held the application to be in order on the basis of the corresponding number of works, from the 7 irrelevant works/publications viz. those published before respondent No.8 obtained his Ph.D. In that event, the decision of the search committee to include the name of respondent No.8 in the list of 5 candidates to be forwarded to the Chancellor would be clearly wrong. 29. As I said earlier, there is nothing to indicate which of the 12 publications submitted by respondent No.8, the search committee took into consideration while evaluating the eighth respondent's eligibility and suitability. I am not inclined to speculate about the matter. 29. As I said earlier, there is nothing to indicate which of the 12 publications submitted by respondent No.8, the search committee took into consideration while evaluating the eighth respondent's eligibility and suitability. I am not inclined to speculate about the matter. I am certainly not inclined to speculate in a matter where the facts can be ascertained with certainty. My reluctance to speculate is greater on account of the importance of the post under consideration. The matter admits of a convenient resolution by calling upon the members of the search committee to inform the Court about the same. 30. I mentioned earlier that the eighth respondent's resume did not mention the date of is Ph.D. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that it is inconceivable that neither the members of the search committee nor the Chancellor made any inquiries about the date of the eighth respondent's Ph.D. They submitted that I must assume that they did make an inquiry in this regard and thereafter considered the relevant publications/works. I do not for a moment rule out this possibility. It is, however, equally possible that the search committee proceeded on the basis that all 12 works were published after the eighth respondent's Ph.D. and considered one or more of the seven irrelevant publications as satisfying the requirement of clause (3). This would, by no stretch of imagination, reflect upon the competence in any manner or to any extent whatsoever of the search committee or the Chancellor. Nor would it even remotely suggest that they were careless, much less callous to any extent. The fact is that the date of the eighth respondent's Ph.D. was not before the search committee or the Chancellor. 31. I see no reason to speculate that the search committee or the Chancellor called for the date on which respondent No.8 obtained his Ph.D., especially when the Court can ascertain the same from them. Nor do I see any reason to speculate that the search committee and the Chancellor must have considered one if not more of the irrelevant publications. There is nothing on record that justifies a speculation to this effect either. 32. Nor do I see any reason to speculate that the search committee and the Chancellor must have considered one if not more of the irrelevant publications. There is nothing on record that justifies a speculation to this effect either. 32. The first sentence in paragraph 2 of the minutes of the meeting held on 12th June, 2010, that the committee reviewed each and every application received and prepared the list of candidates having all essential qualifications, does not rule out any of the possibilities listed by me. 33. The first sentence of the search committee's write up on 2nd July, 2010, in respect of respondent No.8 to the effect that he is a trained statistics expert with his Ph.D. in that area with several publications does not assist either the petitioners or the respondents. The statement is consistent with any of the possibilities I have mentioned above. It does not indicate either that the search committee considered all 12 publications or that it considered only the 5 relevant publications or that it considered one or more or all the 5 relevant publications to be ineligible for consideration on the ground that they did not meet the requirements of clause (3) and, therefore, considered the application of respondent No.8 on the basis of one or more of the irrelevant seven works/publications. 34. The learned Advocate General relied upon paragraphs 69 to 73 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Assn. (2006) 11 SCC 731 , in support of his contention that if there is a doubt, it must be resolved in favour of the search committee. 35. The doubt in this case does not pertain to the correctness or otherwise of the assessment of the search committee. The doubt does not pertain to the correctness of the decision of the search committee as to whether a particular publication constitutes a research work and whether the publication thereof was in a peer-reviewed/referred international research journal. I have already held that these are matters for the search committee to decide. Indeed, even Godbole, J. has so held in paragraph 26 of his judgment. The doubt in this case is as to whether a crucial fact was at all brought to the notice to the search committee. The record does not not indicate that it was. I have already held that these are matters for the search committee to decide. Indeed, even Godbole, J. has so held in paragraph 26 of his judgment. The doubt in this case is as to whether a crucial fact was at all brought to the notice to the search committee. The record does not not indicate that it was. It is not necessary for the record to indicate the same for the decision to be upheld. It is necessary, however, for the Writ Court to satisfy itself that a crucial fact was brought to the notice of the search committee for if it was not, it would vitiate the decision making process, albeit not due to any fault of the search committee or the Chancellor or even respondent No.8. By having its doubts clarified in this regard, the Writ Court does not substitute its opinion for that of the search committee. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. The Writ Court only wishes to satisfy itself that the search committee had before it the relevant material. 36. If the point had escaped their attention, I am sure that the members of the search committee and the Chancellor would themselves wish to review their decision. 37. The learned Advocate General relied upon paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chancellor v. Dr. Vijayananda Kar (1994) 1 SCC 169 , which read as under:- "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 Mohapatra." "9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications 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 subjects relevant to the selection. In the present case Dr Kar in his representation before the Chancellor specifically raised the issue that Dr Mohapatra did not possess the specialisation in the 'Philosophical 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 Mohapatra and got the same examined from the experts before rejecting the representation of Dr Kar." The case is clearly distinguishable. In paragraph 9, the Supreme Court observed that there was a representation by the respondent to the Chancellor regarding the candidate not possessing the required specialization, which was one of the qualifications. This representation was rejected. The Supreme Court held that there was no doubt that the Chancellor must have looked into the question of the candidate's eligibility. Thus, the relevant question was raised before and brought to the notice of the Chancellor. In the present case, the question is whether the relevant facts viz. the date of the eighth respondent's Ph.D. and that only the said 5 publications were relevant, were brought to the notice of the search committee and the Chancellor. If they were brought to their notice and they considered the same, that would be an end to the matter. 38. the date of the eighth respondent's Ph.D. and that only the said 5 publications were relevant, were brought to the notice of the search committee and the Chancellor. If they were brought to their notice and they considered the same, that would be an end to the matter. 38. The Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007 14 SCC 517 referred to the observations of a judgment in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board AIR 1966 Supp. SCR 311 to the effect that the formation of an opinion is subjective, but the existence of circumstances relevant to the inference as the sine qua non for action must be demonstrable. If the action is questioned on the ground that no circumstances leading to an inference of the kind contemplated by the section exists, the action might be exposed to interference unless the existence of the circumstances is made out. 39. In my view, therefore, it is necessary only to inquire of the members of the search committee which of the 12 publications they considered while considering the eligibility of respondent No.8. If even one of the 5 relevant publications was not found to be in conformity with Rule 3 of Part-A of the schedule and they, therefore, considered one of the 7 irrelevant publications, the appointment would have to be reconsidered. In that event, it would be necessary for the search committee and/or the Chancellor to consider whether the condition ought to be relaxed or not. It is not necessary in this petition to express any view in that regard at this stage. If, on the other hand, the search committee and/or the Chancellor state that they recommended respondent No.8 on the basis of the said 5 relevant publications the matter would end there. The petitions would then have to be dismissed. 40. I intend, therefore, passing directions calling upon the members of the search committee to state whether they had considered the said 5 relevant publications submitted by the respondent No.8 as meeting the requirement of clause (3) of Part-A of the Schedule to the order dated 27th May, 2009. 41. I am, with respect, unable to agree with the learned Chief Justice that the appointment ought to be upheld on the ground that the Chancellor and/or the search committee had the power to relax any condition in case of a deserving candidate. 41. I am, with respect, unable to agree with the learned Chief Justice that the appointment ought to be upheld on the ground that the Chancellor and/or the search committee had the power to relax any condition in case of a deserving candidate. In this regard, I am in respectful agreement with the judgment of Godbole, J. Clause 4 of Part-D of the schedule to the order dated 27th May, 2009, provides: "The search committee may relax any condition in case of deserving candidates." The appointment of respondent No.8 was not based on a relaxation of any condition. It was made on the basis that all the conditions, including those under clause (3) of Part-A of the Schedule were satisfied. It is not open then to this Court to uphold the appointment on the basis of the power of the search committee or the Chancellor to relax any condition for that would, in effect, usurp the power of the search committee and/or the Chancellor. Once it is held that a particular condition, especially an essential condition, is not satisfied, it is for the search committee and the Chancellor and not this Court to decide whether or not to relax such a condition. 42. I must, in fairness to the respondents, record that I did not consider their submission that a PIL is not maintainable in a service matter and that only a person aggrieved can challenge an appointment. They relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Assn. (2006) 11 SCC 731 in this regard. I did not consider this submission as I find that the order dated 9th August, 2011, entitles me only to deal with the specific questions raised therein. The question of maintainability of the PILs has not been referred to me. 43. I am, however, with respect, unable to agree with Godbole, J., that the search committee ought to give reasons for their decision even if the appointment is required to be considered afresh. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the respondents support their submissions. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman & Ors., AIR 1992, SC 1806, the Supreme Court held:- "7. We will first consider the second point. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the respondents support their submissions. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman & Ors., AIR 1992, SC 1806, the Supreme Court held:- "7. We will first consider the second point. In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. The High Court seems to be in error in stating that the Selection Committee ought to have given some reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as against the other candidate. The selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the required eligibility. There is no rule or regulation brought to our notice requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons. In the absence of any such legal requirement the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. The High Court in support of its reasoning has, however, referred to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1974) 1 SCR 797 : ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ). That decision proceeded on a statutory requirement. Regulation 5(5) which was considered in that case required the Selection Committee to record its reasons for superseding a senior member in the State Civil service. The decision in Capoor case was rendered on 26 September, 1973. In June, 1977, Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting the requirement of recording reasons for the supersession of senior officers of the State Civil services. The Capoor case cannot, therefore, be construed as an authority for the proposition that there should be reason formulated for administrative decision. Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India, 1986 (Suppl) SCC 617 at p. 633 : ( AIR 1987 SC 593 at pp. 603-604) in which Capoor case ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ) was also distinguished." "8. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India, 1986 (Suppl) SCC 617 at p. 633 : ( AIR 1987 SC 593 at pp. 603-604) in which Capoor case ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ) was also distinguished." "8. As to the first point we may state at the outset that giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from, the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The `fairness' or `fair procedure' in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. But there is nothing on record to suggest that the Selection Committee did anything to the contrary. The High Court however, observed that Dr.Kalyana Raman did not receive a fair and reasonable consideration by the Selection Committee. The inference in this regard has been drawn by the High Court from the statement of objections dated 18 February 1980 filed on behalf of the Selection Committee. It appears that the Selection Committee took the stand that Dr. Kalyana Raman did not satisfy the minimum requirement of experience and was not eligible for selection. The High Court went on to state that it was some what extraordinary for the Selection Committee after calling him for the interview and selecting him for the post by placing him second, should have stated that he did not satisfy the minimum qualifications prescribed for eligibility. According to the High Court the stand taken by the Selection Committee raises serious doubts as to whether the deliberations of the Selection Committee were such as to inspire confidence and reassurance as to the related equality and justness of an effective consideration of this case." "It is true that selection of the petitioner and the stand taken by the Selection Committee before the High Court that he was not eligible at all are, indeed, antithetical and cannot co-exist. But the fact remains that the case of Dr. Kalyana Raman was considered and he was placed second in the panel of names. It is not shows that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical or the Selection Committee did not act fairly towards Dr. Kalyana Raman. But the fact remains that the case of Dr. Kalyana Raman was considered and he was placed second in the panel of names. It is not shows that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical or the Selection Committee did not act fairly towards Dr. Kalyana Raman. The fact that he was placed second in the panel, itself indicates that there was proper consideration of his case and he has been treated fairly. It should not be lost sight of that the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the subject for selection. They were men of high status and also of unquestionable impartiality. The Court should be slow to interfere with their opinion." The learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder, rightly conceded that the search committee is not bound to give reasons for its decision. 44. Nor am I inclined to direct the search committee to take into consideration any particular material, including the affidavit of the said Dr. Hatekar. Whether the same ought to be taken into consideration or not is for the search committee to decide. This eventuality, of course, would arise only in the event of the appointment being required to be reconsidered. It is for the search committee and not for this Court to consider the expertise of Dr. Hatekar in view of his qualifications which the petitioners relied upon or the warning by Dr. Hatekar to the members of the search committee in his e-mail about his predilections to Don Quixote which was so strongly relied upon by the respondents to discredit him. 45. I agree with Justice Godbole that there is no material before us to come to a conclusion that the search committee was conscious of the fact that seven out of the twelve publications submitted by respondent No.8 had to be excluded; that merely because the minutes of the meeting dated 12th June, 2010 mention that the search committee reviewed each and every application and prepared the list of candidates having all essential qualifications, it cannot be assumed that the members of the search committee were conscious of the fact that the seven publications had to be excluded. I however, do not agree that the minutes show the contrary merely because the chart at Annexure-B to the minutes records that respondent No.8 had twelve research publications in international journals to his credit. I however, do not agree that the minutes show the contrary merely because the chart at Annexure-B to the minutes records that respondent No.8 had twelve research publications in international journals to his credit. I do not find the chart as indicating a defect in the decision making process or the process itself or that it establishes non-application of mind to the relevant facts and exercise of power on the basis of facts that do not exist and/or are patently erroneous. I also agree with Godbole J. that there is absence of any material showing conscious application of mind qua the five relevant papers. I however, find that there is absence of any material showing that there was no such conscious application of mind either. In other words, merely because there is no material to show such conscious application of mind, it does not follow that the material shows non-application of mind. 46. Had I come to the conclusion that the decision was not based on the five relevant publications/works of respondent No.8, I would have agreed entirely with the order passed by Godbole J. I noted that Godbole J. has also held in paragraph 28 that it was unsafe at this stage either to quash the appointment of respondent No.8 or to uphold the same. With this, I am entirely in agreement. However, having come to the conclusion that the material on record is of no assistance in answering the question as to whether respondent No.8 was considered eligible on the basis of the said five relevant papers, I see no justification for directing the search committee or the Chancellor to go through the process de-novo. In that event, it would be appropriate only to ascertain whether the search committee and/or the Chancellor considered respondent No.8 to be eligible on the basis of the said five relevant publications. The nature of the final order can be determined only if the answer to this query is in the negative to wit, if the Chancellor and the search committee state that they considered respondent No.8 eligible for consideration on the basis of even one of seven irrelevant publications. 47. The learned Chief Justice has held that the chart prepared by the Nodal Officer, cannot be said to have been all that meticulous and that on that ground alone interference with the appointment is not called for. 47. The learned Chief Justice has held that the chart prepared by the Nodal Officer, cannot be said to have been all that meticulous and that on that ground alone interference with the appointment is not called for. I however, find that the chart itself is of no assistance in determining which of the twelve papers the search committee considered while including the name of the respondent No.8 in the list of twenty eligible candidates. It matters little therefore, whether the chart was prepared meticulously or not. 48. There is nothing to indicate that the Nodal Officer prepared the chart on his own or on the basis of the instructions of the search committee. If he prepared it on his own, the chart is of no assistance in determining this question. Even if it was prepared on the instructions of the members of the search committee it would, for the reasons I have already stated, not be of any assistance in determining this question. 49. I am however, in respectful agreement with the learned Chief Justice that respondent No.8 was entitled to include all his search publications in his bio-data irrespective of whether the same related to the periods specified in clause 3 or not. Clause 3 deals with the eligibility for consideration of the application. Once the criteria for eligibility is satisfied or if the condition is relaxed in exercise of powers under the order, the mere fact that every publication is referred to in the bio-data would not be decisive of the matter. I am however, with respect, unable to agree with the learned Chief Justice that the appointment ought not to be interfered with for even if it is illegal and even if the impugned order is to be interfered with and a fresh selection is to be made, the articles which were not published earlier, might be published by the time the fresh procedure is undertaken. The same can be of any relevance as the question of the date on which the eligibility is to be considered is not decided especially as in the present case, it is not clear as to which of the publications were taken into consideration by the search committee. 50. The same can be of any relevance as the question of the date on which the eligibility is to be considered is not decided especially as in the present case, it is not clear as to which of the publications were taken into consideration by the search committee. 50. In my opinion, the conclusion as to whether the decision makers had exercised power of non-application of mind to relevant fact or on the basis of the facts which do not exist and are erroneous, must await the response of the respondents to the query as to which of the twelve publications were considered by them before including the name of respondent No.8 in the list of eligible candidates. 51. My answer to the questions referred to me are as under : Re: Q.1 I am unable at this stage to state that the decision of the search committee or of the Chancellor of the University of Bombay suffered from any non application of mind vis-a-vis condition No.3. The answer to this question must await their response as to which of the 12 publications submitted by respondent No.8 they took into consideration while considering the eighth respondent's eligibility and appointment. Re: Q.2 If the answer to question No.1 is in the affirmative, the answer to question No.2 must be answered in the affirmative.