Judgment Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 22nd April, 2014 in W.P No. 21474 (W) 2013 at the instance of the University of Kalyani, the appellant herein which was a respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioner/respondent was appointed as an Associate Professor in the International Centre for Ecological Engineering in Kalyani University in a very hush hush manner without following the recruitment rules. While he was on probation, the University authority received some complaints from several strangers including the third empanelled candidate, who complained about various illegalities in the process of appointing the writ petitioner as an Associate Professor in the said University. After receiving such complaints, an enquiry was held by the University authorities and from the report submitted by the enquiry team, it appeared that the writ petitioner was not at all an eligible candidate for the said post and he was recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment in violation of the recruitment rules. Hence his service was terminated during the probationary period by giving a month’s salary in lieu of notice by treating him as a temporary employee in the University under Section 30 of the Kalyani University Act, 1981. The writ petitioner thus, felt aggrieved. He filed a writ petition challenging the legality and/or validity of the order of termination of his service passed by the University authority. The impugned order of termination of his service passed by the Vice Chancellor of the said University was set aside by the Learned Trial Judge by the impugned order. The University authorities were directed to allow the writ petitioner to join his duty immediately. Though no direction was given for payment of back wages to the writ petitioner, but direction was given for maintaining continuity of his service with a rider that at the time of his retirement, all service benefits would be calculated by taking his appointment date as on 7th February, 2013 which was the date when he reported for joining his service in the selected post. The legality and/or propriety of the said judgment is under challenge in this Mandamus Appeal at the instance of the University. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. The legality and/or propriety of the said judgment is under challenge in this Mandamus Appeal at the instance of the University. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. Here is the case where we find that though the post concerned wherein the writ petitioner was appointed, was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate but the employment notification issued for filling up the said post did not specify that the post concerned was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. As a matter of fact, ignoring such reservation policy as per the roster, applications were invited from general candidates for the said post by the University vide its Employment Notification published on 30th March, 2012. Thus, we smell the scent of illegality at the root of the recruitment process. The minimum qualifications which were prescribed for the said post were notified in the Employment Notice which are as follows:- Minimum qualifications: (i) Good academic record with a Ph. D Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines. (ii) A Master’s degree in concerned/allied/relevant disciplines with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) (iii) At least a second class “Three Years” Bachelor’s Degree with Honours/Major in the relevant/allied subject. (iv) A minimum of 8(eight) years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or reputed Research Institute/Industry with a number of good quality publication in reputed journals and/or publication of books. (v) A minimum score of 300 as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based on performance Based Appraisal system (PBAS), set out in the UGC Regulation, 2010, {See 2(d)} Additional Experiences: a. Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses and use of modern technology in teaching-learning process. b. Guidance of Ph. D students/research projects Desirable qualification: A.M. Tech in Ecological Engineering/M. Sc. In Environmental Science/Ecology/Zoology/ Botany/Bio-chemistry with specialization in relevant areas of economic and environment applications. B. Ph. D in relevant specialized subjects Experience: Research experience in recognized national and international institutes/universities evidenced by high quality publication in journals with high impact factors. Altogether six candidates including the writ petitioner applied for the said post. They submitted their respective bio-datas with the concerned authority. B. Ph. D in relevant specialized subjects Experience: Research experience in recognized national and international institutes/universities evidenced by high quality publication in journals with high impact factors. Altogether six candidates including the writ petitioner applied for the said post. They submitted their respective bio-datas with the concerned authority. A Selection Committee of five members was constituted, who assessed the credentials of the applicants and prepared a panel on the basis of the A.P.I score of the respective candidates. The writ petitioner was placed at the top of the said panel, one Dr. Surasri Nandan Sahu (OBC) was placed in the 2nd position in the panel and Dr. Subhendu Datta was placed in the 3rd position in the panel. Despite the writ petitioner was found to be ineligible for the said post and his ineligibility for the said post was mentioned by the Scrutiny Committee on the application form submitted by the writ petitioner itself, the Selection Committee assessed his credentials and placed him at the top in the panel and recommended him for his appointment by giving relaxation to the eligibility criteria. The recommendation so given by the Selection Committee clearly indicates that he was lacking eligibility so far as his teaching experience and/or his experience in research work is concerned. The Vice Chancellor was not satisfied with the panel so prepared by the Selection Committee, as an ineligible candidate was included in the panel. Hence the panel was sent back to the Selection Committee for reconsideration. Even thereafter the Selection Committee found him suitable for such appointment because of his API score and further recommended for condonation of his short fall of one year eight months in his teaching and/or research experience. Thus, the panel which was earlier prepared was maintained by the Selection Committee and the same was submitted before the Vice Chancellor, immediately two days before his retirement. Since the panel was maintained even after reconsideration by the Selection Committee, the recommendation which was given by the Selection Committee was ultimately accepted by the Vice Chancellor on the next following date i.e., one day before the date of retirement of the said Vice Chancellor. On the next following day i.e., on the date of retirement of the Vice Chancellor, appointment letter was issued by the Assistant Registrar of Kalyani University by using the letter-head of the Registrar of the said University. On the next following day i.e., on the date of retirement of the Vice Chancellor, appointment letter was issued by the Assistant Registrar of Kalyani University by using the letter-head of the Registrar of the said University. This is also quite unnatural and unusual and the reasons for issuance of such appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner in such hot haste creates some suspicion in the minds of this Court. On the very same day when such appointment letter was issued, the writ petitioner accepted the same and submitted his joining letter on the same day at 4.30 p.m. in presence of Professor B.B. Jana, Vice-Chairman of International Centre for Ecological Engineering University of Calcutta. The acceptance of the appointment letter by the writ petitioner on the same day of its issuance and submission of his joining letter on the very same day indicate that the appointment letter was not even sent to the writ petitioner by post. The writ petitioner perhaps was present in the University Complex, on the said date and he collected the said appointment letter on the said date personally and reported for joining after accepting the same on the same day. This unusual speed maintained in the entire process for closing up the recruitment process and for giving appointment to the writ petitioner also creates some suspicion in the minds of this Court about some nexus between the writ petitioner and some of the University high officials and/or with the members of the Selection Committee. However, we do not like to give much stress on this aspect as legality of the appointment of the writ petitioner has not been challenged by the University on the ground of malafides on the part of the Selection Committee for selecting him for the said post because of their having unholy nexus with the writ petitioner. The legality of the appointment of the writ petitioner was primarily challenged by the University authority, as the writ petitioner was ineligible for the said post and he was recommended for such appointment in violation of the recruitment rules. Let us now concentrate ourselves on the said issue with reference to the challenge raised by the University authority in its pleadings. Let us now concentrate ourselves on the said issue with reference to the challenge raised by the University authority in its pleadings. We have already indicated above that despite the post concerned was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate as per the roster but the University authority invited applications from suitable candidates from general caste for filling up the said post without mentioning therein that the post concerned was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Thus, illegality perpetrates at the root of the selection process. However, it was argued before us that the selection process cannot be held to be vitiated for selecting a general candidate for the reserved post as the reserved post can be carried forward and adjusted against the subsequent vacancy. The Learned Trial Judge did not find any wrong in such dereservation as such dereservation was made for a specific purpose for setting up a new department of Ecological Engineering in the University. The Learned Trial Judge further held that the dereservation of any seat is permissible under the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and posts) Act, 1976 and Rule 6 of the said Act provides for carrying forward the vacancy so dereserved against subsequent unreserved vacancy. We have some reservation in this regard. In our view such dereservation of a reserved post cannot be or should not be made by the Selection Committee whimsically. In our view, all efforts should be made by the appointing authority to find out a suitable candidate for the post for whom such post was reserved. However, in case of non-availability of suitable candidate for any reserved post, suitable candidates from the general category may be selected for such appointment by carrying forward such reserved vacancy by adding the same against subsequent unreserved vacancy. In the present case, no such effort was made by the University authority for finding out any suitable candidate from the Scheduled Caste community. However, even if we condone this lapse on the part of the University authority, still then we find that the lack of teaching experience and/or experience in research work, which is one of the requisite eligibility for the said post, cannot be condoned. The educational qualification prescribed for the said post has already been mentioned above. However, even if we condone this lapse on the part of the University authority, still then we find that the lack of teaching experience and/or experience in research work, which is one of the requisite eligibility for the said post, cannot be condoned. The educational qualification prescribed for the said post has already been mentioned above. Though the writ petitioner fulfilled the requisite criteria regarding academic qualification but he is certainly lacking in the other eligibility criteria i.e., his teaching experience and/or his research experience. It was mentioned in the employment notice that the candidates must have a minimum of 8 years of experience in teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of an Assistant professor in a University, College or reputed Research Institute/Industry with a number of good quality publication in reputed journals and/or publication of books. On scrutiny of the application form submitted by him, the Scrutiny Committee mentioned on his application form that he was ineligible for the said post as he was lacking in teaching and/or research experience. Even this note of this Scrutiny Committee was ignored by the Selection Committee. As per the declaration given by the writ petitioner himself in the said application it appears to us that he had no teaching experience even for a day. Though some dispute was raised as to whether the writ petitioner’s research experience can be equated with the research experience of an Assistant Professor in a University, College or reputed Research Institute/Industry, but we cannot resolve the said dispute with reference to the note sheet of the Selection Committee as the Selection Committee while counting his teaching and/or research experience did not certify that the research experience which the writ petitioner gathered was equivalent to the research experience in the position to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or reputed Research Institute/industry. However, we find that in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the University before the Learned Trial Judge, the University concerned contended that the writ petitioner did not gather a minimum 8 years experience in research in any research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or reputed Research Institute/Industry and such assertion of the University has not been dealt with by the writ petitioner in his reply thereto specifically and positively. As such we by following the principles of non-travesty can hold that the writ petitioner failed to prove that he acquired minimum 8 years experience in research work in any research position equivalent to that of assistant Professor in a University, College or reputed Research Institute/Industry. Even assuming that he succeeded in establishing that he gathered experience in the research field in a research position equivalent to that of an Assistant Professor in a University, College or reputed Research Institute/Industry but still then from his own declaration given in his application form, it appears that he was lacking in teaching/research experience for a period of 1 year 8 months. As a matter of fact, the Selection Committee was conscious about his lacking eligibility in this regard, which is apparent from its reconsidered note sheet wherein condonation of such short fall in the experience of the writ petitioner was recommended. Mr. Gupta, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant submitted that the short fall in teaching and/or research experience cannot be condoned either by the Selection Committee or by the University authority. He has drawn our attention to the Employment Notification dated 30th March , 2013 which provided that relaxation of 5% in marks may be provided for the person falling in scheduled caste category. The said employment notification does not provide for giving relaxation to any candidate in other field of lacking eligibility. He, thus, supported the order of termination of the service of the writ petitioner passed by the Vice Chancellor as his selection was not only illegal but also in violation of the recruitment rules. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 798 , wherein it was held that if any appointment is made in violation of the recruitment rules, such appointment would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, rendering the same nullity and even if the appointee has continued in service for a long period, he cannot be further allowed to continue in service but if, however, it was found that the appointment was not illegal but irregular, in that eventuality, he could be permitted to continue in service and the same could be regularized in case he had worked for ten years or more in the duly sanctioned post. In support of his submission that grant of relaxation towards the eligibility criteria in violation of the recruitment rules is not permissible in law, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu & Ors. –Vs- District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazaria & Anr. reported in 2014 Lab IC 1237 (SCC), wherein it was held that to maintain transparency in the selection process, advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment, the qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts and the schedule of recruitment process with certainty and clarity, etc. It was further held therein that advertisements should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in the absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. It was further held therein that this is necessary to prevent arbitrariness. It was also held there that change of criteria of selection after the selection process has commenced should be avoided so that someone is not unjustly benefitted at the cost of others. Relying upon the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mr. Gupta submitted that relaxation to the writ petitioner in his short fall in teaching and research experience cannot be granted inasmuch as grant of such relaxation will be violative of the employment notification. Mr. Relying upon the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mr. Gupta submitted that relaxation to the writ petitioner in his short fall in teaching and research experience cannot be granted inasmuch as grant of such relaxation will be violative of the employment notification. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the learned Trial Judge in the facts of the instant case ought not to have interfered with the order of the Vice Chancellor in termination of the service of the writ petitioner. He further submitted that the learned Trial Judge while allowing the writ petition ought not to have granted any relief which was not even prayed for by the writ petitioner in the application. According to him by issuing direction upon the University authorities to give the writ petitioner his retiral benefits by taking his date of initial appointment as the date of commencement of his service, the learned Trial Judge practically issued a mandate upon the University authority to carry him on its shoulder till the date of attainment of the age of his superannuation, and he cannot be removed from service under any circumstances, even though his employer finds that he fails to render his service satisfactorily during the probation period and even after confirmation of his service on completion of satisfactory probation period of service, if he is found to be unsuitable. Mr. Gupta thus, invited us to set aside the impugned order. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner refuted such submission of Mr. Gupta and supported the order impugned by submitting that grant of relaxation in teaching experience and/or experience in the field of research of a candidate who is otherwise suitable for appointment is not unknown in law. By relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal University and Ors. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 453 , he contended that an appointment given to a selected candidate by condoning shortfall of eleven months in teaching experience was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, inasmuch as the selection committee comprising of experts opined that teaching experience of nine years and one month satisfy the eligibility criteria of teaching experience of “about ten years”. Mr. Mr. Bhattacharya, submitted that the said decision is an authority on the subject which recognized grant of relaxation in eligibility criteria in suitable cases. He thus contended that the appointment which was given to his client by relaxing his eligibility criteria relating to his shortfall in teaching and/or research experience was condonable and when the selection committee comprising of five experts recommended for condonation of such shortfall of the writ petitioner, the court being not an expert on such specified subject should not embark upon assessing the correctness of the opinion of the expert body and/or expert body’s recommendation for condonation of the shortfall in teaching or the research experience of the writ petitioner. He has also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Chancellor and Anr. Vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar and Ors. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 169 to support his contention that the decision of the academic authorities as to whether a candidate fulfills the requisite qualification or not should not be ordinarily interfered with by the Court as the eligibility criteria of the candidate and suitability of his appointment was decided by academic bodies consisting of experts on the subject relevant to the selection. Mr. Bhattacharya further submitted that it is not a case where it was alleged that the selection process was vitiated and/or influenced by the writ petitioner as there was nexus between the writ petitioner and the members of the Selection Committee. He argued that in the absence of such allegation of nexus between the writ petitioner and the members of the Selection Committee, resulting in selection of an ineligible candidate for appointment, the Court should not permit the university to terminate the service of the writ petitioner, particularly when the writ petitioner did not commit any fraud for procuring his service. He further contended that in the present case if any wrong is found to have been committed in selecting the writ petitioner for his appointment, such wrong having been committed by the University, the University should not be permitted to terminate the service of the writ petitioner by taking benefit of its own wrong to victimise the writ petitioner. In support of his such submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharatiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Press. & Anr Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambala Patel and Anr. In support of his such submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharatiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Press. & Anr Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambala Patel and Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 3285 . He has also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Kumar -Vs-Union of India and Ors. reported in 2012 (13) SCC 182 wherein dismissal of a probationer from service which was stigmatic and punitive in nature was not sustained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such the discharge of the probationer with stigma without giving him an opportunity to meet the allegation levelled against him by his employer, was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mr. Bhattacharya ultimately contended that the selection process is concluded, once selection is made finally by the concerned authority and appointment letter is issued to him by inviting the selected candidate to join the post. According to him once such appointment letter is issued by the employer and the selected candidate accepts such appointment and reports for joining, his appointment thereafter cannot be terminated due to any irregularity alleged to have been committed in the selection process inasmuch as after the selection process is concluded by giving appointment to a candidate, a new relationship is established between the selected candidate and his employer and termination of service of such an employee cannot be supported unless it is done by following the recruitment rules and/or the procedure established by law. Drawing our attention to the provision contained in Section 29 of the Kalyani University Act, 1981, he submitted that under the said provision, the period of probation of the probationer may not be extended and thus a probationer may not be confirmed in service unless the probationer’s work is considered satisfactory during the period of probation. Drawing our attention to the order of termination of the service of the writ petitioner Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that in the present case his service was not terminated due to non-satisfactory service rendered by him during the period of his probation as per Section 29 of the said Act. Drawing our attention to the order of termination of the service of the writ petitioner Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that in the present case his service was not terminated due to non-satisfactory service rendered by him during the period of his probation as per Section 29 of the said Act. On the contrary such service of the writ petitioner was terminated under Section 30 of the said Act by treating him as temporary appointee and that is why one month’s salary in lieu of notice was given to the writ petitioner while terminating his service. According to him, Section 30 of the said Act cannot be applied to the probationer. The said provision can only be applied for termination of service of a temporary employee. The writ petitioner was not a temporary employee. As such termination of his service by applying Section 30, according to him, is not sustainable in law. He contended that the University authority did not at all apply its mind with regard to the nature of the employment of the writ petitioner and according to him since termination order was passed by the Vice Chancellor of the said University illegally, the Learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in setting aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner’s service. He thus, supported the impugned order and invited this Court not to interfere with the impugned order. Let us now consider the respective contentions of the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties in the facts of the instant case. With regard to the rival contentions of the parties regarding the authority of the Selection Committee in granting relaxation to the teaching/research experience ineligibility criteria, we like to mention here that the decision which was cited by Mr. Bhattacharya in the case of Dr. Kumar Bar Das (Supra), in our considered view is not an authority on the said subject. We have perused the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court carefully. We find that in that particular case, the teaching experience of “about 10 years” was prescribed by the authority as an eligibility criteria of the candidates. In this context it was found by the Selection Committee that the 9 years and 1 month teaching experience fulfils the eligibility criteria regarding teaching experience of “about 10 years”. We cannot miss the expression “about” used before the teaching experience of 10 years in the said case. In this context it was found by the Selection Committee that the 9 years and 1 month teaching experience fulfils the eligibility criteria regarding teaching experience of “about 10 years”. We cannot miss the expression “about” used before the teaching experience of 10 years in the said case. “About” means approximately; it may be slightly less than 10 years’ experience. By taking note of use of the expression “about” before 10 years teaching experience, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the said decision that when the Selection committee comprising of experts opined that teaching experience of 9 years and 1 month fulfils the eligibility criteria regarding teaching experience of about 10 years, the University authority should not have held that the said candidate was lacking eligibility regarding teaching experience. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that it was not a case where relaxation was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, nor grant of any relaxation by the Selection Committee was supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such the principle laid down in the said case, has no application in the facts of the present case. In the present case we find that the Employment Notification clearly mentioned that the candidate must have “minimum 8 years teaching and/or research experience in a position equivalent to Assistant Professor in the University, College or reputed Research Institute/Industry”. When the expression “minimum “ was added before 8 years teaching experience, we should take it as granted that even a day’s deficiency in this regard, disqualifies the candidate from being considered for the concerned post. We have no hesitation to hold that when the writ petitioner himself found that he was unable to satisfy the said eligibility criteria regarding teaching experience and/or research experience, he should not have even applied for the said post and even if he applied for the said post, the concerned authority should have knocked him out from the selection process at the very inception when the Scrutiny Committee found him ineligible due to lack of his teaching experience. In this regard we like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Shekar Vs. Indiramma & Ors. In this regard we like to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Shekar Vs. Indiramma & Ors. reported in AIR 2002 SC 1230 wherein it was held as follows: Paragraph 24: “The clause, far from allowing NIMHANS the power to dispense with the advertisement of any lower post as a precondition to appointment, indicates that only eligible persons could be considered for selection. Once the barrier of eligibility was crossed, the Selection Committee could consider the suitability of the candidate for the post advertised. It follows that the appellant should not have been called for interview at all. His application clearly showed that he did not fulfill the requisite eligibility criteria for the post he had applied for, because the lacked any post-doctorate experience at all. The power in the Selection Committee to relax the eligibility criteria cannot be read as including the power to do away with the criteria altogether”. Following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we can safely conclude that the writ petitioner should have been excluded from the selection process when he was found ineligible by the Scrutiny Committee. He ought not to have been allowed to participate further in the selection process. Thus, we hold that his selection is not merely irregular but is illegal and this illegality perpetrates at the root of the recruitment process. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Chandra & Ors. (Supra) cited by Mr. Gupta leads us to hold that the appointment was given to the writ petitioner in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and thus, such appointment should be regarded as nullity and should be cancelled. We further hold that merely because of the fact that the writ petitioner was in the probationary period and he worked for sometime as probationer against a permanent post, he cannot be allowed to continue in his service as it was found on an enquiry that the appointment was given to him illegally and his appointment is not a mere irregular one. As such we hold that the Vice Chancellor did not commit any illegality in terminating his service inasmuch as his appointment is not only illegal but also void as it was given in violation of recruitment rules amounting to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As such we hold that the Vice Chancellor did not commit any illegality in terminating his service inasmuch as his appointment is not only illegal but also void as it was given in violation of recruitment rules amounting to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Wrong application of the provision of the said Act in termination of his service, cannot be a ground for interference as we hold that his appointment was not only illegal but also a void one. It is not a case where the service of the writ petitioner was terminated with a stigma or the employer terminated his service by taking benefit of its own wrong to victimise the writ petitioner. As such the decision which was cited by Mr. Bhattacharya in the case of Pradip Kumar (Supra) does not have any application in the facts of the present case. Before parting with, we like to mention here that the submission of Mr. Bhattacharya to the effect that the decision of the Academic Bodies comprising of experts cannot be interfered with by the Court, does not appeal to us very much as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was cited by him in the case of the Chancellor and Anr. (Supra) does not enunciate any principle of law regarding total exclusion of the Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with the opinion of the expert body even if it is found that opinion of expert body is apparently erroneous on the face of it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision held that “ordinarily” the Court should not interfere with the decision of the academic authorities. The use of the expression “ordinarily” is very significant as “ordinarily” does not necessarily mean that interference is prohibited for all time to come as a straight jacket formula. That apart we find from the concluded part of the said decision that interference was avoided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case as the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that before taking the ultimate decision in rejecting the writ petition of Dr. Kar the Chancellor must have looked into the question of eligibility of Dr. Mahapatra and got the same examined by the expert before rejecting the writ petition of Dr. Kar. Kar the Chancellor must have looked into the question of eligibility of Dr. Mahapatra and got the same examined by the expert before rejecting the writ petition of Dr. Kar. Such a decision which was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by drawing some presumption regarding verification of eligibility of the candidates by the expert, cannot create any precedent on the subject. In the present case, we find that illegality perpetrated at the root of the recruitment process and that continued till the appointment was given to the writ petitioner and such appointment having been given in violation of the recruitment rules, we have no hesitation to hold that the transparency in the process of recruitment was not maintained. We find that eligible candidates having requisite qualification and teaching /research experience as per the employment notification, were available but the best amongst them was not selected for the said post. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the entire selection process is vitiated. Thus, the appointment which was given to the writ petitioner was illegal and void. As such we do not find any illegality in the order of the Vice chancellor in terminating his appointment. The termination of the service of the writ petitioner is upheld. The impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Judge is set aside. The Mandamus Appeal is allowed. No further order need be passed on the said application. The said application is also deemed to be disposed of.