JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Registrar in the University of Madras. He has also made an application. But however, on coming to know that the Special committee of University Syndicate is trying to short-list the names and on finding that his name has not been included and the inclusion of T.Leo Alexander's name, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to appoint the Registrar of University of Madras in conformity with the provisions contemplated in Madras University Act, 1923. 2. When the matter came up on 11.9.2012, this Court granted interim order restraining the Vice Chancellor from making appointment to the post of Registrar. But however it was made clear that the said order will not be an impediment for the Syndicate to make appointment by following the procedure contemplated under the University Statutes. The said order came to be extended from time to time. 3. Aggrieved by the grant of interim order, the respondent University has filed a vacate injunction application in M.P.No.2 of 2012 with a supporting counter affidavit, sworn to by the second respondent, dated 28.9.2012. 4. In the counter affidavit it is set out that the qualifications to the post of Registrar was taken out from the provisions of the University Statutes and it is also stated that the University has to adhere to the norms approved by the Syndicate in the matter of selection to the post of Registrar. 5. The Selection Committee for the post of Registrar will comprise of the Vice-Chancellore(Chairman), Nominee of the Chancellore of the University of Madras, Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, One Former Vice-Chancellore, One sitting Vice-Chancellor, One Management expert from professional Management Institute/Public Sector Undertaking or former Registrar of a reputed University. Applications were called for, pursuant to the notice issued by the University and it was directed to be placed before the Scrutiny Committee. 6. It is also stated that the Scrutiny Committee is not a statutory committee and only to assist the Selection Committee, the Scrutiny Committee has been nominated. The petitioner has not satisfied the eligibility norms. 7. The only question to be decided is as to whether such a writ petition is maintainable. 8. 6. It is also stated that the Scrutiny Committee is not a statutory committee and only to assist the Selection Committee, the Scrutiny Committee has been nominated. The petitioner has not satisfied the eligibility norms. 7. The only question to be decided is as to whether such a writ petition is maintainable. 8. In the present case, the petitioner being an applicant for the post of Registrar and has not been recommended by the Selection Committee, as and when any appointment is made, it is always open to him to challenge that the said appointment is not in conformity with the University Statutes. It is no use in stating that the University should adhere to the provisions of the Act and Statutes thereunder and the Court cannot state the obvious provision and direct the authority to act within four corners of the Act and one need not reemphasise the same at each and every stage, as it is always open to him to challenge the selection order, if any, passed by the University. 9. However, Mr. Mohideen Basha, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the intention of the petitioner to file the writ petition was that at the relevant time the first respondent was having his own candidate, who has been accused of serious commissions and omissions and therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed. 10. This Court, without going into the said allegation makes it clear that the term of the first respondent have already come to the end and as per the orders of the Government, a five member committee has been appointed to take charge of the University and it is headed by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department. Therefore, it is unnecessary to direct the committee that they should go by the Act before making appointment. 11. In the light of the above, it is unnecessary to pass any further orders in this writ petition in view of the change of circumstances. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.