JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of an unsuccessful candidate to the post of Dean of the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences, Kolkata-700037 and is filed for writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to rescind, recall & cancel the selection for the aforesaid post of Dean, a panel prepared on the basis of such selection, the resolution of the Executive Council of the University dated April 24, 2012, approving such panel and the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent no.4 dated April 24, 2012 and other consequential reliefs. The short fact necessary for the purpose of this writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed Lecturer in 1982 in the Department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya. Then, he was promoted to the post of Reader, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya in 1991. Then, in 1995, the petitioner was transferred to the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences, on promotion, as Reader. Thereafter, in 1999, he was promoted to the post of Professor. Then, on December 24, 2007, the petitioner joined as Dean, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences, Kolkata-700037. An employment notice was published in The Telegraph dated October 17, 2011 for the post of Dean and the petitioner submitted his application for selection as Dean for a fresh term of four years. The tenure of the petitioner as Dean came to an end on December 23, 2011. The selection process was started and an interview was held for the said post on April 7, 2012 and 5 persons in all including the petitioner participated in the said selection process of interview. Thereafter, on April 24, 2012, a panel of two candidates as prepared by the Selection Committee was approved at the Executive Council Meeting and the letter of appointment was issued to the respondent no.4 on the same day (i.e. on April 24, 2012). Even, he was given the benefit of lien. The name of the petitioner did not appear in the said panel and he filed the application for the reliefs already stated. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 are contesting the said writ petition contending, inter alia, that the writ petition suffers from waiver and acquiescence. Even, he was given the benefit of lien. The name of the petitioner did not appear in the said panel and he filed the application for the reliefs already stated. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 are contesting the said writ petition contending, inter alia, that the writ petition suffers from waiver and acquiescence. The Original Side of this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. An advertisement for the post of Dean of the respondent / university was duly published and five candidates in all including the petitioner were recommended by the Screening Committee for interview before the Selection Committee. After completion of the interview, a panel of two candidates was recommended by the Selection Committee. Subsequently, the Executive Council of the respondent / university approved the panel of the two candidates and accordingly, the letter of appointment was issued in favour of the respondent no.4, i.e., Dr. Tapan Kumar Mondal who thereafter joined the said post and has been continuing. A proposal was made for change of the Statute 105 of the University relating to preparation of panel of at least three candidates and the said proposal was duly approved by the Executive Council. After the approval of the amendment, at present, there is no need of preparing a panel of three candidates minimum. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent no.4 was made after following the Statutes of the respondent / university and the allegations raised by the petitioner are not true. A valid panel was duly prepared and the same was approved. Appointment was given accordingly to the respondent no.4. So, the writ petition should be dismissed. Now, the main question is whether the selection and appointment of the respondent no.4 to the post of Dean of the respondent / university is lawful and whether the benefits given to the respondent no.4 like lien, etc. are proper under the Statute. Upon hearing the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that an advertisement was published in The Telegraph dated October 17, 2011 for appointment to the post of Dean of the respondent / university. The tenure of the said post as per resolution would be for a term of four years or till the attainment of 60 years of age, whichever is earlier. The tenure of the said post as per resolution would be for a term of four years or till the attainment of 60 years of age, whichever is earlier. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Professor of the respondent / university and he was appointed as Dean on December 24, 2007 and his tenure in such capacity expired on December 23, 2011. The petitioner was reverted to his earlier assignment of teaching. Admittedly, the Screening Committee recommended the names of five candidates including the petitioner for interview to the post of Dean and a panel of two candidates prepared by the Selection Committee was approved at the Executive Council Meeting held on April 24, 2012. Admittedly, the appointment letter was issued to the respondent no.4 on the same day granting lien to him, although, one Member of the Executive Council raised objection against the preparation of the panel of two candidates, lien, etc. According to Statute 105 of the respondent / university, a panel of three candidates was to be prepared. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the said Statute 105 clearly indicates that a panel of three candidates minimum must be prepared for selection and one Member, namely, Dr. S.P. Sarkar raised objection to the preparation of the panel consisting of two candidates and dissenting note had been given accordingly. Mr. Chatterjee has also contended that such a panel is totally invalid. So far as amendment of the said Statute is concerned, Mr. Chatterjee has drawn my attention to the Annexure R-1 appearing at page nos. 20 to 25 of the affidavit-in-opposition and thus, he has submitted that the said proposal for deletion of the words and figure ‘at least 3’ was in the form of amendment proposal and it was not final. Therefore, a valid panel had not been prepared by the Selection Committee. On the contrary, Mr. Amitava Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent / university, has drawn my attention to page nos. Therefore, a valid panel had not been prepared by the Selection Committee. On the contrary, Mr. Amitava Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent / university, has drawn my attention to page nos. 24 & 25 of the affidavit-in-opposition and has submitted that the Clause (3) of the Statute 105 of the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences First Statutes 1998 had already been amended and the said amendment had been indicated in bold letters of the Annexure R-1 appearing at page no.25 which is quoted below:- “It was resolved that the Executive Council approved the above-mentioned amendment in clause (3) of the Statute 105 of the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences First Statutes 1998.” Thus, I find that the Executive Council had approved abovementioned amendment of Clause (3) of the Statute 105 of Statutes 1998. Therefore, the amendment as referred to Mr. Chatterjee is not in the form of proposal and his submission in this regard cannot be accepted. The said Statute 105 had been amended deleting the words and figure ‘at least 3’ meaning thereby now the panel need not contain three names. This was done for proper selection and smooth running of the business as recorded in the affidavit-in-opposition. I find this ground is convincing. The result is that though a Member of the Executive Council had raised objection and such objection had been recorded, there is no bar for preparation of a panel consisting of the two candidates as had been done in the instant case. Mr. Chatterjee has drawn my attention to Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and thus, he has submitted that if anything is to be done under the Act or Regulation, then that power may be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act or Regulation; but rules, bye-laws or orders so made or issued shall not take effect till the commencement of the Act or Regulation. He has also referred to the decision of Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. reported in AIR 1963 SC 1019 particularly the paragraph no.30 and thus, he has submitted that unless the modification is published in the Gazette, the modification will not be effective. Mr. Chatterjee has also referred to the decision of Balai Chand Jana v. State of West Bengal & ors. reported in AIR 1963 SC 1019 particularly the paragraph no.30 and thus, he has submitted that unless the modification is published in the Gazette, the modification will not be effective. Mr. Chatterjee has also referred to the decision of Balai Chand Jana v. State of West Bengal & ors. reported in 2001(2) CHN 735 particularly the paragraph no.36 and thus, he has submitted that when undue haste on the part of the concerned authorities was adopted, the allegation of mala fide stands proved and so, the appointment of the respondent no.4 should be treated as invalid, ineffective, etc. He has also contended that the selection was held on April 24, 2012, the letter of appointment was issued on that day and the lien was granted on the same day to the respondent no.4. The selection continued after 7:00 p.m. and so, everything had been done in haste. So, mala fide had been proved. Mr. Chatterjee has also referred to the decision Dr. Rashmi Srivastava v. Vikram University & ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1694 and thus, he has submitted that the direct recruit and promotee, Readers and Professors cannot be treated equally for the purpose of seniority and promotion. He has contended that in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed Professor on regular basis whereas the respondent no.4 was appointed Professor on the basis of Career Advancement Scheme and as such, he cannot be treated as equal to the petitioner and as such, mala fide had been proved. As per contention of the respondent no.1, both the petitioner and respondent no.4 became the Professors through the Career Advancement Scheme after spending 8 years to the post of Reader. Moreover, the petitioner also applied for direct selection to the post of Professor against the advertisement dated February 11, 2010 and the selection process is underway. The petitioner became the Professor on the basis of the Career Advancement Scheme and then he was appointed to the post of Dean. All the selected candidates were promoted to Professors under the Career Advancement Scheme and they spend more than 3 years in the said rank. It is contended on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the petitioner served as Dean for a period of four years ending on December 23, 2011 and thereafter, he was reverted to the post of Professor. All the selected candidates were promoted to Professors under the Career Advancement Scheme and they spend more than 3 years in the said rank. It is contended on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the petitioner served as Dean for a period of four years ending on December 23, 2011 and thereafter, he was reverted to the post of Professor. The petitioner is to retire in the month of May 2013 and so, the petitioner is not in a position to complete the tenure of four years. Moreover, as per merit list, he did not come to the first position according to selection. Under the circumstances, had he been appointed, he would not have been able to serve for a period of four years and the respondent authority is to arrange again everything for a new appointment after retirement of the petitioner. So, in over all consideration, the respondent no.4 was appointed. Mr. Chowdhury has contended that since the petitioner had participated in the process of selection without protest, after the completion of the selection, when he was not selected, he cannot challenge the mode of selection. In support of his contention, Mr. Chowdhury has relied on the decision of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043 and on perusal of such decision, I find that this decision is in consonance with the regard to the present selection. So, the petitioner cannot challenge the selection and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Mr. Sandip Ghose, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent no.4, has contended that this writ petition filed in the Original Side is not maintainable because the seat of the respondent no.1 is situated outside the Original Jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Chowdhury has also raised the issue. In the instant case, I find that the reliefs sought for are against all the respondents including the State of West Bengal represented by the Secretary, Department of Animal Resources Development, Government of West Bengal, Writers’ Buildings, Kolkata-700001. The Government of West Bengal proposed the amendment of Statute 105 of the University vide Memo dated July 25, 2007 for deletion of the expression ‘at least 3 candidates’ from the said Statute and the said proposal was duly approved by the Executive Council. Therefore, there is no illegality in filing the writ petition in the Original Side of the High Court. Therefore, there is no illegality in filing the writ petition in the Original Side of the High Court. The suit is maintainable in a Court under whose jurisdiction even a part of the cause of action has arisen. For the facts recorded earlier, the Hon’ble High Court of Original Jurisdiction can well entertain the application. Having considered the materials on record, I find that in the instant case, the respondent no.1 has given a chart showing the comparative academic qualifications, experience, etc. of the petitioner, respondent no.4 and other candidates in the panel as appearing at page no.7 of the affidavit-in-opposition and it has been contended by the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.4 is a better candidate as per the chart given in the affidavit-in-opposition. This Court is not in a position to judge the decision of the Selection Committee but to see whether the procedure for the purpose of selection has been followed or not. In the instant case, after amendment of the Statute 105, the concerned Committee was not required to place three names in the panel and two names have been mentioned in the panel. So far as the selection of the respondent no.4 is concerned, it is stated that he has been selected on the basis of merit list as appearing at page no.13 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and he topped the list of the candidates. Therefore, I am of the view that since the panel had been prepared following the existing rules, there is no illegality in the impugned appointment order dated April 24, 2012. Moreover, the respondent no.4 has been serving for last one year in the capacity as Dean and so, he should not be evicted at present without any fault irregularity in the selection. Doing anything in haste does not always mean irregularity or illegality in the matter. Having considered the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides and upon analysis of the materials on record as stated earlier, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the preparation of the panel as per Statute standing at present. There is no procedural defect in the process of selection. After the selection the question whether benefits should be given to the prospective Dean or not, is a matter of consideration by the concerned Authorities and not for the petitioner. There is no procedural defect in the process of selection. After the selection the question whether benefits should be given to the prospective Dean or not, is a matter of consideration by the concerned Authorities and not for the petitioner. The questions whether any extra benefit, pay protection, etc. are to be given, are the matters to be decided by the appointing authority and the petitioner cannot have any say over these matters. His contention that everything had been done mala fide and in haste, cannot be accepted. The selection of the respondent no.4 to the post of Dean of the respondent / university cannot be stated to be unlawful. In the result, the application is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.