JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is a postgraduate having M.Sc. degree in Mathematics with first class and also she has got a Doctorate degree (Ph.D) in the same subject. She was appointed as a Lecturer in the Mathematics Department in Auxilium College, Katpadi in the year 1974. On 19.08.1988, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics in the “Indian Institute of Technology, Madras” (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent institute’. With effect from 08.02.1991, the post of Lecturer was upgraded as Assistant Professor. Accordingly, from 08.02.1991 onwards, the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in the respondent institute. In the said post, her probation was also declared on 19.12.1991. She further claims that she has guided number of Ph.D. scholars and M.Sc. and M.Tech. Projects. Besides, she has submitted number of research papers. She further states that she has published numbers of books. 2. On 06.01.1995, the respondent institute issued an advertisement inviting applications from exceptionally qualified candidates for the Faculty positions in the respondent institute including the post of ‘Associate Professor’ in the scale of pay of Rs.4,500-150-5700-200-6300 in the Department of Mathematics. As per the advertisement, the essential qualifications for the said post are as follows: “Ph.D. with first class or equivalent (in terms of Grades etc.,) at the preceding Degree in the appropriate branch with very good academic record throughout and a minimum of eight years teaching/research/industrial experience of which at least three years should be at the level of Assistant Professor.” 3. The petitioner claims that she was fully qualified for applying for the said post of Associate Professor. Admittedly, she had essential qualifications including researching experience. Accordingly, she applied for the said post. The respondents 4 and 7 as well as others had also made applications. 4. The Indian Institute of Technology, Madras is governed by the ‘Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur/Bombay/Madras/Kanpur/Delhi Statutes’. Clause 12 of the Statutes deals with ‘Appointments’. Sub-clauses (1), (2), (3) (a) & (b) to Clause 12 read as follows: “12. Appointments :- (1) All posts at the Institute shall normally be filled by advertisement; but, the Board shall have the power to decide, on the recommendations of the Director, that a particular post be filled by invitation or by promotion from amongst the members of the staff of the Institute. Appointments :- (1) All posts at the Institute shall normally be filled by advertisement; but, the Board shall have the power to decide, on the recommendations of the Director, that a particular post be filled by invitation or by promotion from amongst the members of the staff of the Institute. (2) While making appointments, the appointing authority shall take into consideration the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration and the teaching at the institute. (3) Selection Committees for filling up of posts under the Institute (other than the posts on contract basis) by advertisement or by promotion from amongst the members of staff of the Institute shall be constituted in the manner laid down below namely :- (a) In the case of posts of Deputy Director and Professor, the Selection Committee shall consist of : (i) Director - Chairman (ii) One nominee of the Visitor - Member (iii) Two nominees of the Board, one being an expert, but other than a member of the Board - Member (iv) One expert nominated by the Senate other than a member of the Senate - Member (b) In the case of posts of Assistant Professor, Senior Scientific Officer and Lecturer, the Selection Committee shall consist of: (i) Director - Chairman (ii) Two nominees of the Board, one being an expert, but other than a member of the Board - Member (iii) One expert nominated by the Senate - Member (iv) Head of the Department/Centre concerned, if the post for which selection is made is lower in status than that occupied by the Head of the Department/Centre.” 5. According to the above Statutes, selection of candidates is to be made by a duly constituted Selection Committee as provided in Clause 12 of the Statutes. So far as the post of Professor is concerned, the Selection Committee should consist of a Chairman and four members and so far as the Assistant Professor is concerned, it is a different Selection Committee consisting of five members. The Selection Committee for the post of Associate Professor has not been separately dealt with in the rules and so the rule relating to the Selection Committee for the post of Professor was all along adopted for the post of Associate Professor as well. 6. The Selection Committee for the post of Associate Professor has not been separately dealt with in the rules and so the rule relating to the Selection Committee for the post of Professor was all along adopted for the post of Associate Professor as well. 6. Now, turning back to the selection in question, a Committee was constituted for the purpose of selecting the best suitable candidates for the post of “Associate Professor” in the Department of Mathematics. The Selection Committee conducted interview on 07.07.1995. At the end, the petitioner was not selected, instead, the respondents 4, 5 and 6 were selected and accordingly they were appointed. The petitioner raised objections in respect of her non-selection. But, the same was not considered. Challenging the said non-selection of the petitioner as Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics in pursuance of the above advertisement, the petitioner has come up with the writ petition in W.P.No.4256 of 1997. 7. Subsequently, the respondent institute issued another advertisement on 29.06.1996, in Advertisement No.IITM/R/2/96 inviting applications from exceptionally qualified candidates for the Faculty positions such as Professor and Associate Professor. According to the said advertisement, the essential qualifications for the post of Professor are as follows: “Ph.D. with First Class or equivalent (in terms of Grades etc.,) at the preceding Degree in the appropriate branch, with very good academic record throughout and minimum of 10 years of teaching/research/industrial experience of which at least 5 years should be at the level of Assistant Professor.” 8. As the petitioner thought that she was fully qualified for making application to the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics, she made an application. The Selection Committee, on 28.10.1996, held interview for the post of Professor. But the petitioner was not selected as a Professor in the Department of Mathematics, instead, she was selected for the post of “Associate Professor” and appointment order was accordingly issued to the petitioner on 18.12.1996, wherein in paragraph 6, the Registrar of the respondent institute had stated as follows: “6. If you accept the offer of appointment, please communicate your acceptance immediately and send your joining report through the Head, Mathematics Department on or before 8th January, 1997.” 9. If you accept the offer of appointment, please communicate your acceptance immediately and send your joining report through the Head, Mathematics Department on or before 8th January, 1997.” 9. In pursuance of the same, on 06.01.1997, the petitioner appeared before the Registrar and gave a letter accepting her appointment as Associate Professor, but she had further declared that such acceptance was without prejudice to her right to challenge her non-selection for the post of Professor before a Court of Law. She gave a joining report as Associate Professor on the same day under Report dated 06.01.1997. 10. But, the respondent institute insisted her to withdraw her stipulation in her letter dated 06.01.1997. In the said letter, the Registrar of the respondent institute had stated as follows: “You are hereby informed that conditional acceptance of offer and also joining report is not acceptable. You may send an unconditional acceptance and joining report.” 11. According to the respondent institute, as the petitioner did not comply with the request, after having waited for sometime, the Registrar of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras sent a letter on 19/10 March, 1997 to the petitioner that conditional acceptance of the appointment was not acceptable to the respondent institute. But according to the petitioner, from the date on which she gave the joining report viz., 06.01.1997, she has been working as an Associate Professor. But the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner had never joined as an Associate Professor and thus she has been working only as Assistant Professor. 12. While things stood thus, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4257 of 1997, challenging her non-selection for the post of Professor. While admitting the said writ petition, in the miscellaneous petition in W.P.M.P.No.7106 of 1997, this Court by an order dated 27.03.1997, granted interim injunction restraining the respondent institute from terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Associate Professor pending disposal of the said writ petition. The said interim order was subsequently extended until further orders by an order of this Court dated 10.04.1997. Thus, the order of interim injunction granted against the respondent institute is still in force. 13. While so, the petitioner was not paid the pay and allowances and other perks for the post of Associate Professor from 18.12.1996, despite the request made by her and despite the order of injunction granted by this Court on 27.03.1997. Thus, the order of interim injunction granted against the respondent institute is still in force. 13. While so, the petitioner was not paid the pay and allowances and other perks for the post of Associate Professor from 18.12.1996, despite the request made by her and despite the order of injunction granted by this Court on 27.03.1997. So, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.3249 of 2000, seeking Mandamus directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the arrears of salary, allowances and perks with effect from 18.12.1996, being the difference in salary, allowances and other perks between the Associate Professor and Assistant Professor. This writ petition has been filed on the ground that she should have been selected, as Associate Professor in the selection held in 1995 and therefore, she is entitled for the difference in salary from the said date. 14. Since all these writ petitions relate to common issues, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records carefully. 15. For the sake of convenience, at the first, let me take up W.P.No.4256 of 1997 for consideration. 16. In this writ petition, it is contended that, though the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as an Associate Professor, wantonly, she was not selected and instead, the candidates who did not possess the basic qualifications were selected. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent did not possess the under-graduate degree as well as the post-graduate degree in Mathematics. He had done B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees only in Mathematical Physics. Similarly, the Doctorate degree that he had obtained is also in Mathematical Physics subject. Thus, according to the petitioner, the 5th respondent who did not satisfy the basic qualifications was selected and appointed as Associate Professor to the detriment of the petitioner. 17. So far as the 6th respondent Dr.A.Rangan is concerned, of course, he was a post-graduate in Mathematics and he had also secured Ph.D. in Mathematics. According to the petitioner, he did not possess First Class degree in M.Sc. (Mathematics) as required in the advertisement. Thus, the 6th respondent was also not qualified for being appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics. According to the petitioner, he did not possess First Class degree in M.Sc. (Mathematics) as required in the advertisement. Thus, the 6th respondent was also not qualified for being appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics. But, the Selection Committee selected the 6th respondent and appointed him as yet another Associate Professor of Mathematics to the detriment of the petitioner. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondents 5 and 6, who are not qualified at all, have been selected and the petitioner who ought to have been selected, as she was the only other candidate having the fullest qualification for the said post was not selected. 18. It is further contended by the petitioner that the constitution of the Selection Committee itself was not in accordance with the Statutes. According to the Statutes of the respondent institute, the Selection Committee shall consists of five members viz., (i) The Director, (ii) One nominee of the Visitor (President of India) (iii) Two nominees of the Board, one being an expert, but other than a member of the Board. (iv) One expert nominated by the Senate other than a member of the Senate. 19. But, it is stated in the counter that in the said Selection Committee, there were as many as seven members viz., (i) Chairman - Director, (ii) Member – Visitor’s Nominee (iii) Member - Board Nominee (iv) Member - Expert (v) Member - Expert (vi) Member - Expert (vii) Member - Expert Thus, in all, there were seven members, which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the Statutes. It is also contended by the petitioner that the Board can nominate two members as per the Statutes. But in the Selection Committee, there was only one member nominated by the Board viz., Prof. P.Srinivasa Rao. There should have been one expert nominated by the Senate, but there was no such nominee of the Senate in the Selection Committee. The expert members numbering four were appointed by the Director which is outside the purview of the Statutes. Thus according to the petitioner, the very constitution of the Selection Committee was not in accordance with the Statutes and therefore the interview conducted, selection made and the consequential appointment orders issued are all wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. 20. The expert members numbering four were appointed by the Director which is outside the purview of the Statutes. Thus according to the petitioner, the very constitution of the Selection Committee was not in accordance with the Statutes and therefore the interview conducted, selection made and the consequential appointment orders issued are all wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. 20. It is further contended by the petitioner that only with a view to get the petitioner out of the selection for the post of Associate Professor and to favour the respondents 5 and 6, the Selection Committee was illegally constituted and the selection was made. It is also contended that the Visitor’s nominee Dr.R.Chidambaram did not participate in the interview and it is not known whether he was informed of the selection. 21. It is further contended by the petitioner that as per the Government Notification dated 13.08.1990 and 08.09.1993, the reservation for OBC's for the post of Associate Professor and Professor in all public employments including the Indian Institute of Technology had been brought into force. But in the case on hand, during the selection for the post of Associate Professor in the year 1995, no reservation was made for the OBC's. Thus, there had occurred violation of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. 22. But it is the contention of the respondent institution that as per the Notification in O.M.No.9/2/73-Estt.(SCT), dated 23.06.1975, of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, reservation for SCs and STs apply also to appointments made to ‘Scientific and Technical’ posts upto and including the lowest grade of Group A (Class I) in the respective services and such posts are not exempt from the purview of the reservation orders. It is further stated that as per the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Notification dated 13.05.1994, it was decided that the provisions of the Notification dated 23.06.1975 for the grant of exemption from the purview of reservation orders would be applicable to reservation for OBCs. Thus, according to the respondents, there was no reservation for OBCs for the post of Associate Professor. 23. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would however submit that he does not press for any adjudication on the issue of reservation for OBCs. Therefore, I do not venture to go into this question regarding reservation for OBCs as the same is unnecessary. 23. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would however submit that he does not press for any adjudication on the issue of reservation for OBCs. Therefore, I do not venture to go into this question regarding reservation for OBCs as the same is unnecessary. 24. Turning to the respective qualifications of the respondents 5 and 6, in the counter filed by the second respondent, it is admitted that the 5th respondent did not possess under-graduate degree as well as the post-graduate degree in Mathematics and he was having these degrees only in Mathematical Physics. Similarly, his degree of doctorate was also only in Mathematical Physics. But, according to the respondent institute, since Mathematical Physics is an allied subject of Mathematics, he was considered and he was appointed as Associate Professor. It is also stated that even at the time of his selection, he had been already working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics and therefore, he was considered for the post of Associate Professor in Mathematics. 25. In respect of the 6th respondent, it is contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that he had secured 59.6% marks and the University had not awarded any class for the said marks. In normal course, since first class is given for a candidate who had secured 60% of the marks, his marks were rounded off to 60 and treated as first class for the purpose of selection. That is how, according to the respondent institute, the 6th respondent was also considered fully eligible and selected. 26. In respect of the constitution of the Committee, it is stated that the Committee was constituted only in accordance with the Statutes. According to the learned senior counsel, the Statutes does not prohibit inclusion of more number of experts in the Selection Committee. Apart from that, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent institute, the petitioner did not raise any objection in respect of the constitution of the Selection Committee either at the time when she attended the interview or immediately thereafter. Only after her non-selection came to light, she had chosen to raise objection regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee. Only after her non-selection came to light, she had chosen to raise objection regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee. It is also pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent institute that even now the petitioner has not alleged any mala fide in the constitution of the Selection Committee as well as against the Committee members. 27. It is further contended that without any objection whatsoever, the petitioner participated in the interview and the Selection Committee found her not exceptionally good for the said post though she was fully qualified. Based on the evaluation at the time of the interview, the Selection Committee decided not to select the petitioner. Thus, according to the respondent institute, non-selection of the petitioner was strictly in accordance with the advertisement and the Statutes, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court at all. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent institute would submit that having participated in the interview and having submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee, it is not open for the petitioner to raise such objections at this belated stage. 28. Turning to the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is contended that the interview was not held in accordance with law. It is his contention that the Selection Committee members were not guided by any guidelines for allotment of marks under various heads for making the final selection. Thus, the selection of the other candidates and the non-selection of the petitioner without there being any guidelines or norms is absolutely arbitrary and so the same is liable to be interfered with. 29. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though there was no mala fide alleged against the committee members, mala fide was in fact alleged against the Chairman of the Selection Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that of course it is true that at the time of interview the petitioner neither objected nor questioned the constitution of the Selection Committee as the petitioner was not aware of the constitution of the Selection Committee and only after the interview was over, she came to know about the identity of the persons who interviewed her and then she raised objection regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee. 30. 30. I have considered the above submissions and I have also carefully gone through the records. 31. The Institute of Technology Act of 1961 was enacted declaring certain institutes of technology to be institutes of National Importance and to provide for certain other matters connected with such institutions. The said Act, accordingly declared the erstwhile Indian Institute of Technology, Madras as an Institute of National Importance. As per Section 4 of the Act, the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras is a body corporate consisting of a Chairman, a Director and other members of the Board. As per Section 7 of the Act, every institute shall be open to persons of either sex and of whatever race, creed, caste or class, and no test or condition shall be imposed as to religious belief or profession in admitting or appointing members, students, teachers or workers or in any other connection whatsoever. His Excellency the President of India will be Visitor of the Institute. 32. Further, as per Section 25 of the Act, all appointments on the staff of the Institute except that of the Director, shall be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Statutes. In terms of the said Act, the Statutes known as ‘Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur / Bombay / Madras / Kanpur / Delhi Statutes’ was brought into force. 33. Admittedly, as per Clause 12 of the Statutes, all posts at the Institute shall normally be filled by advertisement; but, the Board shall have the power to decide, on the recommendations of the Director, that a particular post be filled by invitation or by promotion from amongst the members of the staff of the Institute. Sub-clause 2 to Clause 12 of the Statutes mandates that the appointing authority shall take into consideration the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration and the teaching at the institute. The Selection Committee for filling up of the post has also been envisaged in Clause 12. 34. From the above scheme of the Act and the Statutes, it is crystal clear that the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras is an institute having National Importance and the same cannot be equated to any other ordinary institute imparting education in the same subjects. 34. From the above scheme of the Act and the Statutes, it is crystal clear that the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras is an institute having National Importance and the same cannot be equated to any other ordinary institute imparting education in the same subjects. Therefore, the teaching faculties of the said institute shall be exceptionally qualified and with very good academic record throughout. The advertisement itself states that for the post of Associate Professor, the qualification is Ph.D. with first class or equivalent in the preceding degree in the appropriate branch with very good academic record throughout. So far as the experience is concerned, it states that the candidate should have a minimum of eight years teaching experience of which at least three years should be at the level of Assistant Professor. 35. Going by the history of this institute and the object that is sought to be achieved by such Institute of National Importance governed by the Act, it is everyone's comprehension that there can be no compromise in the quality of the faculties and the quality of education imparted in the said institute. In order to test the quality of the candidates who aspire for the post of Associate Professor, the Statutes prescribes a Committee of experts of highest order and only the candidates who are found exceptionally qualified are appointed as Associate Professors. 36. Let us now consider in the selection held in the year 1995, for the post of Associate Professor, whether the above object was kept in mind and whether the procedure followed to evaluate the qualification of the candidates was in accordance with the Statutes. 37. In the case on hand, there is no dispute before this Court that the 5th respondent did not possess such essential qualifications. Admittedly, he has under-graduate degree in Mathematical Physics and post-graduate degree in Mathematical Physics. His doctorate degree is also in Mathematical Physics. Thus, undoubtedly he does not even have the basic qualification for even making application for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics. Simply because he was earlier appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics, may be erroneously, it cannot be said that he is qualified for the post of Associate professor in the Department of Mathematics. Simply because he was earlier appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics, may be erroneously, it cannot be said that he is qualified for the post of Associate professor in the Department of Mathematics. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent institute that since the subject Mathematical Physics is an allied subject of Mathematics and since the 5th respondent had proficiency in Mathematics also, he was considered and selected as Associate Professor cannot be accepted at all. Had it been true that the candidates who did possess under-graduate degree as well as post-graduate degree in the allied subjects would also be considered as against the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics, the same would have been indicated in the advertisement itself, in which case, there would have been number of aspirants in the fray who did possess degrees in the allied subjects. It is not known as to how the 5th respondent alone had come to know that he would be considered for the post, considering Mathematical Physics subject as an allied subject of mathematics. This only gives rise to a suspicion that there was a kind of quid pro quo between the people at the helm of affairs in the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras at that time. It is really unfortunate that in an Institution which is of National Importance where, as I have already stated, exceptionally qualified candidates alone can be appointed to the teaching faculties, the 5th respondent who, at that time, did even possess the under graduate degree or post graduate degree in mathematics was appointed as Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics. I do not believe for a moment that post graduation in Mathematical Physics will be an exceptional qualification for teaching mathematics. It is not as though there was dearth of exceptionally qualified candidates in the subject of mathematics for the purpose of appointment as Associate Professor in the Mathematics Department. But, it is not explained to the Court as to why the 5th respondent was preferred for the post of Associate Professor of Mathematics ignoring the petitioner who is fully qualified for the said post. But, it is not explained to the Court as to why the 5th respondent was preferred for the post of Associate Professor of Mathematics ignoring the petitioner who is fully qualified for the said post. It may be true that the 5th respondent had sufficient knowledge to teach mathematics but that cannot be a criteria because being an institute of National Importance, the respondent institute cannot afford to appoint a non-mathematics faculty in the Department of mathematics. 38. Now, turning to the 6th respondent, according to the respondent institute, he had secured 59.6% of marks in M.Sc. (Mathematics) and thus he did not have first class in M.Sc. As per the advertisement, one should have first class degree in M.Sc. But according to the first respondent, he was considered and selected to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics, because he was treated to have secured first class in M.Sc. (Mathematics). It is the further contention of the respondent institute that normally, in any University, a candidate who secures 60% of marks is awarded first class. In the case of the 6th respondent, since he had secured 59.6% of marks, the same was rounded off to 60% and then he was treated as having first class in Mathematics. This contention also does not persuade me. Had it been the case that a candidate who had secured less than 60% of marks would also be treated as first class holder, certainly, the same would have been mentioned in the advertisement. Apart from that, there was not even any opinion obtained from any competent authority to say that 59.6 % of marks would be equivalent to first class in Mathematics. 39. Here, I want to reiterate again that it is not as though there was dearth of candidates who are exceptionally qualified with required percentage of marks and with good academic record throughout. I am sure that a candidate who had not even secured 60% of marks can be considered as exceptionally qualified. There is no indication about the good academic record of the 6th respondent throughout. In the counter filed by the respondent institute, it is not even alleged that the 6th respondent was exceptionally qualified and that he had good academic record throughout. There is no indication about the good academic record of the 6th respondent throughout. In the counter filed by the respondent institute, it is not even alleged that the 6th respondent was exceptionally qualified and that he had good academic record throughout. Thus, in my considered opinion, the appointment of the 6th respondent is also not in tune with the object of the institute to have exceptionally qualified faculties. It runs contrary to the advertisement. 40. As I have already pointed out, the circumstances under which the respondents 5 and 6 were appointed as Associate Professors in the Department of Mathematics give raise to a reasonable suspicion that their appointments were actuated by some motive, otherwise, the appointment of these respondents would not have been made contrary to the terms of the advertisement. In view of the same, I have no semblance of hesitation to hold that the selection and appointment of the respondents 5 and 6 as Associate Professors is illegal. 41. Now, turning to the constitution of the Selection Committee, as per the Statutes, there should be only five members in the Selection Committee. But, in the Selection Committee in question, there were seven members including the Chairman. Out of the seven, the important member namely the Visitor’s nominee, nominated by His Excellency the President of India could not be present at the time of interview. It is not known as to whether the Visitor's nominee could not attend for any reason or he was kept in dark without even informing him about the selection. There is no record to show that he expressed his inability to participate in the selection process. Thus, it is a mystery as to why he did attend the very important task of selection of faculties. As per the Statutes, there should be two members nominated by the Board, but in this selection process, there was only one member nominated by the Board. According to the learned senior counsel for the respondent institute, the Selection Committee was constituted by the Director which includes four expert members viz., Prof. P.L.Sachdev, Prof. G.P.Chattacharjee, Prof. (Mrs.) Vasanthi Bhat Nayak and Prof. G.Rangan. There was no expert nominated by the Senate in the Committee. Absolutely there is no explanation for the same. Thus, undoubtedly, the Committee was not constituted properly in accordance with the Statutes. 42. P.L.Sachdev, Prof. G.P.Chattacharjee, Prof. (Mrs.) Vasanthi Bhat Nayak and Prof. G.Rangan. There was no expert nominated by the Senate in the Committee. Absolutely there is no explanation for the same. Thus, undoubtedly, the Committee was not constituted properly in accordance with the Statutes. 42. In this regard, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent institute, by reiterating the averments in the counter of the second respondent, would submit that the Statutes does not prohibit inclusion of any number of experts in the Selection Committee in the best interest of the Institute. It is his further contention that the Statutes prescribes only a minimum number of the members and by implication it enables inclusion of more experts at the discretion of the Director. Assuming that this argument could be accepted, even then, it is not explained to the Court as to why the necessary members like the Expert to be nominated by the Senate, Expert to be nominated by the Board were not included in the Selection Committee. One can understand that few experts could be added additionally. But in this case, the few members who should constitute the Committee had been kept out and instead some other experts were added. Thus, the inclusion of four members by the Director was not in accordance with the Statutes. In my considered opinion, the then Director had included four members of his choice, which is against the provisions of the Statutes. Thus, the constitution of the Selection Committee was not in accordance with the Statutes. Once it is so held that the interview was not conducted by a validly constituted Selection Committee as per the Statutes, then all the consequential proceedings like selection, appointment, etc., are to be held as illegal. 43. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the respondent institute would submit that the petitioner did not raise any objection at all at the time of the interview and therefore having submitted herself to the jurisdiction to the Committee, it is not open for her to raise objection regarding the same at a belated stage. This argument, in my considered opinion, deserves to be simply rejected for the simple reason that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the constitution of the Selection Committee and the details of the members in the Selection Committee were not made public before the interview. This argument, in my considered opinion, deserves to be simply rejected for the simple reason that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the constitution of the Selection Committee and the details of the members in the Selection Committee were not made public before the interview. Thus, the petitioner would not have been aware of the members in the Selection Committee. After entering into the Seminar Hall or the interview room, it would not have been possible for her to identify the members because they were not familiar to her. It is only after coming out of the interview she had come to know that the Selection Committee was not constituted validly. Immediately thereafter, she filed the writ petition before this Court and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee knowing fully well about the constitution of the Selection Committee. 44. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent institute would submit that even assuming that the Selection Committee was not validly constituted and assuming that the selection process was irregular, even then there is no guarantee that the petitioner would have been selected, had there been a validly constituted Selection Committee. Of course, I find some force in the said argument. But, for that reason, at this length of time, in my considered opinion, accepting this argument, it is not practically possible for this Court to direct the respondent institute to hold fresh interview by constituting a Selection Committee as per the Statutes and to make the selection. In my considered opinion, the best substantial relief, which this Court could grant so as to meet the ends of justice, is not to disturb the selection of the respondents 5 and 6 at this length of time. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the 6th respondent (Dr.A.Rangan) has retired from service and the 5th respondent (Dr.S.G.Kamath) is also on the verge of retirement. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be deprived of her valuable right. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras to treat her as having been selected and appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics in the above selection held. 45. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be deprived of her valuable right. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras to treat her as having been selected and appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics in the above selection held. 45. Now let me take up the writ petition in W.P.No.4257 of 1997, this writ petition pertains to the non-selection of the petitioner for the post of Professor in pursuance to the advertisement in Advertisement No.IITM/R/2/96, dated 29.06.1996. A perusal of the Advertisement dated 29.06.1996, would go to show that for the post of Professor, the essential qualification is “Ph.D. with First Class or equivalent (in terms of Grades etc.) at the preceding Degree in the appropriate branch with very good academic record throughout.” Yet another essential qualification is “Minimum 10 years teaching/research/ industrial experience of which at least 5 years should be at the level of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor.” 46. Here in this case, the petitioner was fully qualified in terms of the advertisement, but she was not selected this time as Professor instead she was selected as an Associate Professor, though she did not make any application for the post of Associate Professor. But according to the advertisement, candidates interviewed for the post of Professor, but not found suitable, may be considered for the post of Associate Professor. Thus, the petitioner has got no grievance on her being considered for the post of Associate Professor. But her grievance is, instead, she should have been selected as Professor. The respondents 5 to 9 also had made application, but they were also not selected for the post of Professor. According to the petitioner, she was the only candidate who was fully eligible for the post of Professor but, she was arbitrarily omitted to be selected. 47. It is also the contention of the petitioner that this time also the Selection Committee was not validly constituted in terms of the Statutes. This time, there were eight members in the Selection Committee. They were, the (i) The Chairman, (ii) Member – Visitor’s Nominee, (iii) Member -Board Nominee, (iv) Member - Board Nominee, (v) Member - Board Nominee/Expert, (vi) Member -Board Nominee/Expert, (vii) Member Board Nominee/Expert and (viii) Member - Board Nominee/Expert. 48. This time, there were eight members in the Selection Committee. They were, the (i) The Chairman, (ii) Member – Visitor’s Nominee, (iii) Member -Board Nominee, (iv) Member - Board Nominee, (v) Member - Board Nominee/Expert, (vi) Member -Board Nominee/Expert, (vii) Member Board Nominee/Expert and (viii) Member - Board Nominee/Expert. 48. Here again, the Board had nominated six members in the Selection Committee though the Board can nominate only two members as per the Statutes i.e., one Expert and one Board member. No member nominated by the Senate was found in the Selection Committee. As I have already discussed in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.4256 of 1997, in this selection process also the Selection Committee was not validly constituted. In this selection process also, the Visitor's nominee did not participate. Here again, it is not known as to whether he could not attend for any valid reason. There is no record to show that he was informed of the selection process and that he expressed his inability to attend the selection process. 49. As I have already pointed out, the non-selection of the petitioner for the post of Professor in this selection process held by a Selection Committee which had not been validly constituted cannot be upheld. Since she was fully qualified, she might have been selected as Professor, had there been selection by a validly constituted Selection Committee. At any rate, it is not practically possible at this length of time to direct the respondent institute to constitute a Selection Committee validly and then to consider her for appointment as Professor. Therefore, the best course would be to issue a direction to the respondent institute to treat her to have been appointed as Professor in the Department of Mathematics from 18.12.1996. 50. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that there was no guidelines issued to the Selection Committee as to how it should conduct itself in selecting the candidates. In this contention, I do not find much force. As per the Selection process, the short-listed candidates would be called for a seminar followed by an interview. The experts who are to be in the Selection Committee are people of erudition and international repute in the subject. Such kind of experts, in my considered opinion, do not require any such fixed guidelines. As per the Selection process, the short-listed candidates would be called for a seminar followed by an interview. The experts who are to be in the Selection Committee are people of erudition and international repute in the subject. Such kind of experts, in my considered opinion, do not require any such fixed guidelines. Out of their vast experience, they could evaluate the calibre and knowledge of the candidate and to test whether such candidate would be eligible for appointment as Associate Professor or Professor. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 51. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent institute would submit that in the selection held in the year 1996, nobody was selected as Professor and as a matter of fact, Dr.S.G.Kamath was appointed as professor on 13.04.2006, Dr.S.A.Choudam was appointed as Professor on 26.09.2000 and Dr.A.Rangan was appointed as Professor only from 26.09.2000. Thus, till 26.09.2000, there was no appointment to the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, at the most, the selection of the petitioner to the post of Professor of Mathematics should be treated only from 26.09.2000. This argument also does not persuade me. Dr.S.G.Kamath, Dr.S.A.Choudam and Dr.A.Rangan are not before this Court challenging their non-selection in the year 1996. Therefore, their selection eventually made in the year 2000 and 2006 can have no bearing in the challenge made by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner should be treated to have been appointed in the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics from 18.12.1996. 52. Now, turning to the writ petition in W.P.No.3249 of 2000, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay arrears of salary, allowance and perks with effect from 18.12.1996, for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics. In this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that though she was discharging her functions as an Associate Professor from 18.12.1996, in pursuance of the order of appointment issued on 18.12.1996 and despite the interim order granted by this Court restraining the respondent institute from terminating her from the post of Associate Professor, she was paid only pay and allowances applicable to that of the Assistant Professor. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction for payment of the differential amount. 53. In this regard, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent institute would submit that from 18.12.1996, the petitioner was not discharging her duties as an Associate Professor as she did not take charge at all. According to him, all along, she was working only as an Assistant Professor. 54. In my considered view this contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that this Court granted interim injunction on 27.03.1997, restraining the respondent institute from terminating her from the post of Associate Professor. That means the petitioner has been working as Associate Professor and therefore she is entitled for the salary, allowance and other perks for the post of Associate Professor from 18.12.1996. 55. At this juncture, I must state that the act of the respondent institute in calling upon the petitioner to withdraw conditional acceptance and instead insisting upon her to accept the offer of appointment as Associate Professor unconditionally, in my considered opinion, is highly arbitrary. Right to approach the High Court, as and when the petitioner felt that her rightful claim for selection to the post of professor had been infringed illegally, Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be whittled down. Thus, the insistence of the respondent institute to give up her right to approach the High Court is violative of her Fundamental Rights. Thus, this action of the first respondent cannot be appreciated. 56. Now, in these writ petitions, this Court is inclined to issue direction to treat the petitioner to have been appointed as Associate Professor from 27.07.1995 and as Professor from 18.12.1996. As a matter of fact, the petitioner would be in normal course entitled for pay, allowance and other perks for the post of Associate Professor from 27.07.1995 and for the post of Professor from 18.12.1996. But, The learned counsel Mr.M.Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4256 and 4257 of 1997 and Mr.N.Manokaran the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.3249 of 2000 would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if the pay, allowance and other perks to the post of Associate Professor are paid to the petitioner from 18.12.1996. But, The learned counsel Mr.M.Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.4256 and 4257 of 1997 and Mr.N.Manokaran the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.3249 of 2000 would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if the pay, allowance and other perks to the post of Associate Professor are paid to the petitioner from 18.12.1996. In respect of pay, allowance and other perks for the post of Associate Professor for the period between 27.07.1995 to 17.12.1996, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner would be satisfied if the same is notionally fixed. Similarly from 18.12.1996 onwards, till today, her pay, allowances and other perks may be notionally fixed for the post of Professor for the purpose of fixing her future pay and allowances from the month of August, 2013 onwards. For the period from 18.12.1996, till July 2013, the petitioner will be satisfied if the arrears are paid which will be equivalent to the post of Associate Professor as prayed for in W.P.No.3249 of 2000, the learned counsel contended. I find justification in the said contention. As I have already pointed out, the petitioner is given appointment retrospectively, as conducting interview and making fresh selection at this stage is practically impossible and so, the monetary benefits are restricted and ordered only notionally as prayed for by the petitioner. 57. Before parting with this case, I have to express my displeasure over the way in which the appointments were made in the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras as has been brought to light in these writ petitions. As I have pointed out, the Selection Committees on both the occasions were not constituted validly; the selection was not properly made; ineligible candidates were selected and exceptional qualification and good academic record have been given a go by. It appears that the Visitor's nominee was kept in dark. Thus, I find prima facie truth in the allegations made which require a thorough enquiry by a central agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation. There are reasons to believe that these appointments had been made actuated by motive and quid pro quo. If only the Central Bureau of Investigation conducts enquiry into all the appointments made, truth will come out and accordingly the persons responsible, if any, could be brought to book before a Court of law. 58. The learned senior counsel for the respondent institute would stoutly oppose the same. If only the Central Bureau of Investigation conducts enquiry into all the appointments made, truth will come out and accordingly the persons responsible, if any, could be brought to book before a Court of law. 58. The learned senior counsel for the respondent institute would stoutly oppose the same. According to him, this is outside the scope of the writ petition. But the learned counsel Mr.N.Manokaran, appearing for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in 2010 (3) SCC 571 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.” Again in paragraph 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “71..... An order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency.” 59. In this regard, I may also refer to yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 521 , wherein, in paragraph 5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the Central Bureau of Investigation to hold enquiry should not be issued in a routine fashion and such course could be adopted only if there are sufficient materials to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such enquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed in paragraph 5 as follows: “5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by the CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by the CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by the CBI. This is a requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause" 60. Having regard to the principles stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgments, I am of the view that here is a case where there are materials making out a prima facie case of illegalities committed in the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras in the matter of appointments, which may make out a serious offence. I hold that, the matter requires through enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 61. It saddens me that I have to resort to order for inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation in respect of the irregularities allegedly committed in a well reputed and Nationally important institute of this Country. But, I find no option except to direct so. 62. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed in the following terms: (i) The petitioner shall be treated to have been appointed as Associate Professor w.e.f 27.07.1995 and as Professor from 18.12.1996 in the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. (ii) The pay and allowances of the petitioner from 27.07.1995 for the post of Associate Professor till 17.12.1996 shall be calculated notionally for the purpose of fixing her future salary and for this period, the petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages. (iii) For the period commencing from 18.12.1996, the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be notionally fixed for the post of Professor till today for the purpose of fixing her future salary. However, on such fixation of salary for the post of Professor from 18.12.1996 till today, the petitioner shall not be entitled for backwages. (iii) For the period commencing from 18.12.1996, the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be notionally fixed for the post of Professor till today for the purpose of fixing her future salary. However, on such fixation of salary for the post of Professor from 18.12.1996 till today, the petitioner shall not be entitled for backwages. (iv) For the period between 18.12.1996 to till today the petitioner shall be paid pay and allowances equivalent to the post of Associate Professor and she will be paid the differential amount. This is done only because of the allowance shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (v) The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi along with a covering letter and on receipt of the same, the Central Bureau of Investigation shall commence enquiry into the correctness and legality of the appointments made from 1995 in the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras till 26.09.2000 and if it is found during such enquiry that any illegality has been committed making out an offence, the Central Bureau of Investigation will then proceed to prosecute the persons responsible for the same. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.