JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioner has preferred this petition to challenge the impugned orders dated 04.10.2016 and 08.10.2016, issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology; and the Chief Personnel Officer, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, respectively. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to interfere with his working as Assistant Professor (Marketing) in the College of Agri-business Management, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, and to permit him to continue to work in that capacity. 2. Vide employment notice No. A-20/2015, the Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology invited applications from desiring candidates for several posts in different branches for the College of Agri-business Management. One post of Assistant Professor, Agri-business Management (Marketing) was advertised in the unreserved category. The said post was at Sl. No. 46 of the tabulation contained in the advertisement. For the said post, the qualification prescribed was as follows : “Essential: 1. MBA in the subject concerned with at least 60% marks or equivalent. OR Two years full time Post Graduate Diploma in Management from IIMs. A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Master’s level for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Differently-abled (Physically and visually differently-abled) candidates. Desirable : 1. Ph.D. degree or Fellow from IIMs in the subject concerned or related field. 2. Bachelor’s degree in Engineering, Agriculture or allied science.” 3. In later part, general essential qualifications were prescribed for all the posts advertised, which are as follows : “For the candidates having Master’s degree. NET (National Eligibility Test) shall remain compulsory along with one publication in NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi) rated referred journal. Essentiality of NET is waived off for the candidates holding Ph.D. degree with course work along with at lease two full length publications having a NAAS rating not less than 4, on the last date of submission of application. The candidates with Ph.D. degree without course work will not qualify for NET exemption. The NET/SLET will not be an essential qualification in the disciplines in which NET/SLET is not conducted.” 4. The petitioner made his application for the post of Assistant Professor, Agri-business Management (Marketing). The candidates with Ph.D. degree without course work will not qualify for NET exemption. The NET/SLET will not be an essential qualification in the disciplines in which NET/SLET is not conducted.” 4. The petitioner made his application for the post of Assistant Professor, Agri-business Management (Marketing). So far as the petitioner’s educational qualification is concerned, he had studies B.B.A. from Kumaun University, Nainital, at Saraswati Institute of Management and Technology, Rudrapur under Kumaun University, Nainital. Thereafter, the petitioner has done his Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) from School of Management Sciences, Lucknow, which was a two year full time course. Between 2009-2011, with specialization in Finance, he cleared the said course in First Class. The said School of Management Sciences, Lucknow, is approved by the AICTE. The petitioner has also obtained his Ph.D. in October 2014, from the Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology with Major in Management, and Minor in Financial Management. The petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Professor (Marketing), and given an Appointment Letter dated 20.11.2015. Respondent No. 4, who was also one of the candidates, for the same post of Assistant Professor, Agri-business Management (Marketing) was aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the petitioner, and raised a challenge to the petitioner’s appointment by preferring a writ petition before this Court. The same was numbered as Writ Petition (S/B) No. 512 of 2015, titled “Dr. Satish Chandra Pant Vs. Govind Ballabh Pant University and others”. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30.11.2015, permitting the petitioner to approach the Chancellor of the respondent University by invoking the remedy under Section 23 of the Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyum) 1958. It was directed that, in case the petitioner approaches the Chancellor, he will consider the matter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and take a decision at the earliest. 5. Respondent No. 4, accordingly, made his representation. The petitioner was called upon vide letter dated 21.12.2015 to respond to the representation dated 08.12.2015, moved by respondent No. 4. The petitioner responded to that representation vide his reply dated 10.02.2016. The said representation of respondent No. 4 was decided by the Chancellor by impugned order dated 04.10.2016, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner was called upon vide letter dated 21.12.2015 to respond to the representation dated 08.12.2015, moved by respondent No. 4. The petitioner responded to that representation vide his reply dated 10.02.2016. The said representation of respondent No. 4 was decided by the Chancellor by impugned order dated 04.10.2016, which is impugned in the present writ petition. In his representation, respondent No. 4 had challenged the selection of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Marketing) on the following grounds :- “(i) Dr. Jayant Gautam did not possess prescribed qualification (MBA in concerned subject OR two year full time PG Diploma in Management from IIMs) for the post in question mentioned in the advertisement of the University. (ii) As per the requirement of the post, Dr. Gautam’s publication of NAAS rating 4 are not complete as required for the post. (iii) Dr. Gautam has been given benefit of Ph.D., done from G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University, which is not as per UGC regulations 2009. So to grant him relaxation in NET is wrong.” 6. The Chancellor, after perusing the comments of the University and the response of the petitioner, concluded that, at the time of interview the petitioner did not possess the required qualification for the post. He did not possess the eligibility condition of two NAAS publications as per the prescribed standards. He did not have the basic qualification as advertised for the said post, i.e., MBA in the concerned subject, or two year full time PG Diploma in Management from IIM. He also did not possess NET qualification. The acceptability of his Ph.D. qualification was also stated to be under a cloud. 7. The Chancellor in his impugned order, inter alia, observed as follows :- “In view of the above apparent facts, it is concluded that despite not possessing prescribed basic qualification and not completing prescribed publications of NAAS rating by the selected candidate for the post in question, it was not correct for the screening committee to grant approval, and for this reason, the proceeding of selection committee has been adversely affected. In view of that, the allegations put by Dr. Satish Chandra Pant, appears to be proved. This sort of irregular and illegal action of the screening committee put a question mark on entire selection process. Considering entire matter it appears that Dr. In view of that, the allegations put by Dr. Satish Chandra Pant, appears to be proved. This sort of irregular and illegal action of the screening committee put a question mark on entire selection process. Considering entire matter it appears that Dr. Jayant Gautam does not possess requisite eligibility as per the qualification advertised for the post of Assistant Professor (Marketing), even then the screening committee granted approval for appearing him in the interview; and his selection on the referred post also proves to be erroneous. Therefore, while cancelling selection process, the appointment of Dr. Jayant Gautam is cancelled and it is ordered that fresh selection process may be initiated on the post in question.” 8. The advertisement against which the petitioner offered his candidature, provided in respect of the posts at Sl. Nos. 1 to 56, the “general essential qualifications for all posts”. The post of Assistant Professor, Agri-business Management (Marketing) was at Sl. No. 46, and, therefore, the general essential qualification stipulated in the advertisement was attracted for the said post. 9. The said general essential qualification reads as follows :- “For the candidates having Master’s degree, NET (National eligibility Test) shall remain compulsory along with one publication in NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi) rated refereed journal. Essentiality of NET is waived off for the candidates holding Ph.D. degree with course work along with at least two full length publications having a NAAS rating not less than 4, on the last date of submission of application. The candidates with Ph.D. degree without course work will not qualify for NET exemption. The NET/SLET will not be an essential qualification in the disciplines in which NET/SLET is not conducted.” (emphasis supplied) 10. Since the petitioner sought consideration of his candidature on the basis of his Ph.D. degree, he was obliged to meet the qualification as highlighted hereinabove. Moreover, in relation to the said post at Sl. No. 46, the essential and desirable qualification prescribed, reads as follows :- “Essential: 1. MBA in the subject concerned with at least 60% marks or equivalent. Or Two year full time Post Graduate Diploma in Management from IIMs. A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Master’s level for the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Differently-abled (Physically and visually differently-abled) candidates. Desirable: 1. Ph.D. degree or Fellow from IIMs in the subject concerned or related field. 2. Or Two year full time Post Graduate Diploma in Management from IIMs. A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the graduate and Master’s level for the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe / Differently-abled (Physically and visually differently-abled) candidates. Desirable: 1. Ph.D. degree or Fellow from IIMs in the subject concerned or related field. 2. Bachelor’s degree in Engineering, Agriculture or allied science.” 11. The qualification possessed by the petitioner is a Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) from the School of Management Sciences, Lucknow, in a two year full time course with specialization in Finance. He has obtained his Doctorate of Philosophy Ph.D. degree from the Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology with the major subject as “Management”. The first publication of the petitioner having ISS No. 0973-1903, has his NAAS score of 5. The petitioner did not submit with his application, the second full length publication having a NAAS rating of not less than 4. The petitioner claims that the condition stipulated under the head “General Essential Qualifications for all Posts” was relaxed, by not insisting upon two full length publications having a NAAS rating of 4, on the last date of submission of the application. 12. This submission of the petitioner, however, does not appear to be borne out from the record. Respondent No. 4 has filed his counter-affidavit. Along with the counter-affidavit, he has placed on record the information derived by him under the Right to Information Act, from the respondent University. The said respondent has placed on record the proforma for securing the academic achievements for the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent qua the petitioner, filled in by the screening committee members. 13. The screening committee in its recommendations, recommended as follows :- “Recommended for interview subject to the condition that he has to submit NAAS rating of 4.0 for one more of the existing paper.” 14. Thus, the recommendation of the petitioner for selection against the post of Assistant Professor, Agri-business Management (Marketing) was conditional upon his submitting one more full length publication having a NAAS rating not less than 4, on the last date of submission of his application. Since the petitioner did not submit the said rated publication, the recommendation could not have taken effect. Since the petitioner did not submit the said rated publication, the recommendation could not have taken effect. It is also pointed out by respondent No. 4, that even the AICTE has not granted approval to the PGDM obtained by the petitioner from the School of Management Sciences, Lucknow, in finance. In this regard, respondent No. 4 has placed on record the response of the AICTE to the query raised under the Right to Information Act. The query raised to the AICTE was – whether, the AICTE ever issued any MBA equivalence certificate to the PGDM programme, that is run by the School of Management Sciences, Hasratganj, Lucknow. The AICTE responded to the said query by stating that no such information is available in its office. 15. Another query was raised to the same effect to the Association of Indian Universities. The Association of Indian Universities responded on 14.12.2015, by enclosing the list of institutes having approval of AICTE, which are outside the ambit of University sector, whose PGDM has been accorded equivalence with MBA degree of Indian Universities. The said list does not contain the name of School of Management Sciences, Lucknow. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narender Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others, (2022) 3 SCC 286 . In our view this judgment is of no avail to the petitioner for several reasons. Firstly, the appellant before the Supreme Court was fully qualified for the post against which he was appointed, i.e., Assistant Professor (History). He was not issued the ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the District Elementary Education Officer, Jhajjar, to enable him to apply for the said post of Assistant Professor (History). Under the orders of the Court, he was permitted to participate, despite not having been issued the ‘No Objection Certificate’. He was selected, and he continued to serve for three years. In this background, the Supreme Court, while exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India - which is not possessed by any other Court, permitted him to continue in service. The same cannot be said about the petitioner. Since he does not have the requisite qualification for the post, it would be completely wrong to permit him to continue to occupy the post of Assistant Professor (Marketing). The same cannot be said about the petitioner. Since he does not have the requisite qualification for the post, it would be completely wrong to permit him to continue to occupy the post of Assistant Professor (Marketing). Moreover, we do not have the authority to issue directions to permit the petitioner to continue to serve in the said post, despite his not having the requisite qualification. 17. Reliance placed on Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal University and others, (1999) 1 SCC 453 , by the petitioner is also misplaced. In this case, the Supreme Court had held that the Chancellor cannot normally interfere with the subjective assessment of merit of candidates made by an expert body unless male fides, or other collateral reasons, are shown. He must take a decision in accordance with the provision of the Act and the statute, and he must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations. He must not act illegally, irrationally or arbitrarily. In the present case, the Chancellor has not interfered with the subjective assessment of merit of the candidates made by the Selection Committee. He has only examined the aspect – whether, the petitioner met the essential qualifications prescribed for the aforesaid post in the advertisement. He was entitled to do so, since he was exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyum) 1958. It cannot be said that he has acted illegally, irrationally or arbitrarily, while passing the impugned order. This submission of the petitioner is, accordingly, rejected. 18. Aforesaid being the position, we are of the view, that there is no merit in the challenge raised by the petitioner to the impugned order dated 04.10.2016, passed by the Chancellor. The order dated 08.10.2016, which is also challenged by the petitioner, is only a consequential order passed in consequence of the order passed by the Chancellor on 04.10.2016. Consequently, the challenge to the said order also fails. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.