Judgment (Per the Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The unsuccessful petitioners in W.P.No.3315 of 2004 filed this writ appeal feeling aggrieved by the dismissal thereof, through common order, dated 08.02.2011. The 1st appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Physics in the year 1999 in the 1st respondent Institution, and the 2nd appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics in that institution in the year 2000. Those appointments were against unaided vacancies. The competent authority accorded permission to the 1st respondent to fill the vacancies of Lecturers in Mathematics and Physics in aided vacancies in the year 2001 and 2002, respectively. According to the prescribed procedure, the Employment Exchange was addressed letters and notifications inviting applications were also issued. The appellants have also submitted their applications. After the processing of the applications was complete, the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the competent authority with a request to take necessary steps for constituting a Selection Committee. The interviews for the eligible candidates were held on 24.02.2003 and both the applicants were selected as Lecturers in the respective subjects. The 1st respondent issued orders of appointment and as required under law, it submitted proposals to respondents 2 and 3 for according approval. The appellants herein filed W.P.No.3315 of 2004 feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3, in the context of according approval. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 21.07.2004, rejecting the proposal for granting approval. The prayer in the writ petition was amended to bring the challenge to the said order in its fold. The appellants pleaded that none of the reasons stated in the order, dated 21.07.2004, are referable to their selection and that the 3rd respondent was not at all justified in rejecting their case. It was also urged that once the appellants have been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee, the correctness or otherwise thereof cannot be verified by the 3rd respondent, much less on the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, a counter-affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition. It was stated that on receipt of the proposals for approval, the matter was verified by appointing an Enquiry Officer, and in his report, dated 09.02.2004, the Enquiry Officer pointed out several defects, and in that view of the matter, the proposals were rejected. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, a counter-affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition. It was stated that on receipt of the proposals for approval, the matter was verified by appointing an Enquiry Officer, and in his report, dated 09.02.2004, the Enquiry Officer pointed out several defects, and in that view of the matter, the proposals were rejected. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, taking the view that the reasons pointed out in the impugned order, cannot be said to be irrelevant. Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, and learned Government Pleader for School Education. The 1st respondent is an institution admitted to grant-in-aid and while some of the posts therein are within the purview of the grant, others are not. The appellants were already appointed against the unaided vacancies. But for the fact that the appointments so made were not approved by the competent authority, they would have been entitled to get appointment against the aided vacancies. Hardly within a span of two years, after the respondents joined the 1st respondent Institution, steps were initiated for filling the aided vacancies. Not only they submitted applications, but also their candidature was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. On being satisfied that the applications were properly processed, the competent authority appointed the representatives for the Selection Committee and ultimately, the appellants were selected. It is, no doubt, true that respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to verify the correctness or otherwise of the procedure adopted by the institution, while examining the proposal for according approval for the appointments. At the same time, the verification must be with reference to the factors that are germane to the selection process. A roaming enquiry cannot be conducted with the sole objective of denying approval. Quite large number of posts were filled by the 1st respondent Institution by seeking permission from the competent authority. It appears that the proposals for grant of approval for all those posts were submitted at a time, and the matter was verified not only by the 3rd respondent himself, but also by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Most of the defects pointed out were in relation to the posts of Lecturers in the subjects of Education and Social Sciences. Not a word was said about the selection of Lecturer in Physics and Mathematics. Most of the defects pointed out were in relation to the posts of Lecturers in the subjects of Education and Social Sciences. Not a word was said about the selection of Lecturer in Physics and Mathematics. A vague and general observation made in relation to the selection in the subjects of Education and Social Sciences was treated as the basis for rejecting the claims of the appellants. The principal ground, that is pressed into service against the appellants, is that some of the candidates, who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange were not interviewed. Even if that is true, it is just un-understandable as to how the selection of the appellants gets affected. Things would have been different, had the candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange were not interviewed. When they did not have any grievance, the 3rd respondent was not justified in pressing that ground into service. We hardly come across any selection, where all the applicants appear for the interview. For variety of reasons, a candidate who was otherwise entitled to participate in the selection, may not appear. Non-appearance of a candidature cannot constitute the basis to set at naught, the order, which is otherwise in order. At any rate, the selection made by a properly constituted Selection Committee comprising of representatives of the Government, and the University, Subject Expert and various others, cannot be ignored, just by citing an excuse, which is totally unrelated with the selection process. We, therefore, allow the writ appeal, and set aside the order dated 21.07.2004, passed by the 3rd respondent. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that respondents 2 and 3 shall accord approval to the appointment of the appellants as Lecturers in Physics and Mathematics, respectively, within six weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.