JUDGMENT : (D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.) 1. With the consent of both the learned counsel, these Writ Appeals are taken up for hearing together. 2. W.A.No.324 of 2020 is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.8607 of 2020, dated 12.05.2020, whereas W.A.No.101 of 2020 is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.30908 of 2017, dated 21.10.2019. Both these appeals relate to the appointment of an incumbent to the post of Assistant Registrar in the 3rd respondent-Vikramasimhapuri University. 3. This Courthas heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant University in W.A.No.324 of 2020; Sri J. UgraNarasimha, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.101 of 2020, Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri M.Chinnappa Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the University. 4. Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is about for the appointment of the writ petitioner-1st respondent (W.A.No.324 of 2020) in Vikramasimhapuri University to the post of Assistant Registrar. He points out that she had applied for selection and her case was negatived as she was not found suitable. Thereafter, she made a representation to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (hereinafter called as “S.C.Commission”) which went into the matter and directed that the petitioner’s case should be considered for appointment. He argues that this was beyond the power of the S.C.Commission. It is also pointed out that after the direction of the S.C.Commission was given, a three Member Committee was appointed to look into the case. According to Sri K.Jaganmohan Reddy the said Three Member Commission was also exceeded their jurisdiction and directed them that the writ petitioner should be taken into service. He points out that neither the S.C. Commission nor the three member committee has the jurisdiction nor authority to direct the appointment. It is also pointed out that appointments can only be made by a duly constituted selection committee and not by the third parties. Despite this legal position, learned counsel submits that the learned single Judge passed a series of orders without even given an opportunity to the proper and correct respondents. According to him the 1st Writ Petition No.30908 of 2017 is not even filed against the University, yet a direction was given for appointment. Despite this legal position, learned counsel submits that the learned single Judge passed a series of orders without even given an opportunity to the proper and correct respondents. According to him the 1st Writ Petition No.30908 of 2017 is not even filed against the University, yet a direction was given for appointment. He further points out that in a Contempt Application permission was given to correct this error and to file a fresh writ petition. This is also contrary to law according to him. Lastly, he submits that even in the impugned order that is passed in W.P.No.8607 of 2020, the Registrar of the University, who is the present appellant, is not even heard nor was an opportunity given for filing their counter. Learned counsel highlights among other submissions, (which are referred to earlier), the grounds urged in paragraphs 3, 4, 6 to 11 and vehemently argues that the entire process adopted by the learned single Judge is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. 5. Similar arguments were advanced by Sri J. Ugranarasimha, who also raises issues about the competency of the SC Commission and or the three Member Committee to pass the orders directing the appointment of the writ petitioner. Both the counsel submit that in matters of academic appointments etc., the Courts have time and again said that the matter should be left to the Academic Experts and the Court should lightly interfere. By relying upon the provisions of Article 338 and 338 (a) of the Constitution of India, learned counsel argued that the purpose for which the National Scheduled Castes Commission is constituted is different and their power does not extend to grant orders directing the respondents to appoint a particular person. Learned counsel Sri J. Ugranarasimha also relies upon the judgment of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., v National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors., W.P.(C) No.11031 of 2021 & CM Appl.No.34013 of 2021 (Dt.27.07.2022.Therefore, it is urged that the Writ Appeal should be allowed. 6. Sri.J. Sudheer, learned counsel arguing for the main contesting respondent (Writ Petitioner) argues the matter at length. He points out that when a Member of the Scheduled Caste has been deprived of her legitimate right, the S.C.Commission has jurisdiction and interfere. 6. Sri.J. Sudheer, learned counsel arguing for the main contesting respondent (Writ Petitioner) argues the matter at length. He points out that when a Member of the Scheduled Caste has been deprived of her legitimate right, the S.C.Commission has jurisdiction and interfere. He points out that the orders were passed by the S.C. Commission only after the authorities of University appeared before the Commissioner. Therefore, he submits that they cannot now turn around and raise the jurisdiction issue. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that thereafter a Three Member Committee was appointed to go into the recommendations they have examined the issue threadbare and come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner has the necessary experience and academic qualification, who held the post. Therefore, a direction was issued to the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner since she was found to be eligible to the post. It is also argued that at every stage the University was put on notice and they were aware of the deliberations. The officials of the University participated in the said deliberations. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no ground for this Court to interfere. It is also submitted that the post is lying vacant and by filing it with a duly qualified candidate, no loss or harm is caused to the University. 7. This Court after hearing all the learned counsel notices, at the outset, a series of orders that were passed. In the first instance on 21.10.2019 an order was passed directing the respondents therein to consider the Three Member Committee report and to appoint the writ petitioner as an Assistant Registrar. The cause title of this case reveals that the respondents are Union of India and the Vikramsimhapuri University Committee. The University per se is not arrayed as a party or as a respondent. 8. Since this order was not being implemented a Contempt Case No.1015 of 2019 was filed. In this Contempt Case an order was passed on 13.03.2020. It was noticed that the Registrar of the University is not a party to the Writ and, therefore, the implementation of the order was not possible. The Contempt Case was closed giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file a fresh writ petition making the Registrar as a party. In this Contempt Case an order was passed on 13.03.2020. It was noticed that the Registrar of the University is not a party to the Writ and, therefore, the implementation of the order was not possible. The Contempt Case was closed giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file a fresh writ petition making the Registrar as a party. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that such a direction should not have been issued in a contempt application as the scope of enquiry was to limited to the issue whether there was disobedience of an order or not. Thereafter, third Writ Petition No.8607 of 2020 was filed. In this case the Registrar of the University is the 3rd respondent. It is apparent from a reading of the order that the 3rd respondent viz., Registrar of the Vikramsimhapuri University (present appellant) was not heard. A direction was given in view of the earlier order passed in W.P.No.30908 of 2017 to appoint the writ petitioner as an Assistant Registrar immediately. On this ground itself the Writ Appeal should be allowed as rightly submitted by Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, but since all the learned counsel also argued on the merits of the matter instead of remanding the same, as a detailed counter affidavit is also filed with the documents, the matter is examined at length. The submissions of the learned counsels are noted. 9. An advertisement for filling up certain posts was released on 0912.2013. As far as this case is concerned it pertains to the recruitment of Assistant Registrars. Three posts were advertised i.e., 1 post for OC (W), 1 post for SC(W) and 1 post for OC. The qualifications have also been spelt out in the advertisement. The writ petitioner has applied for the post. She was called for an interview for two posts i.e., SC (W) and Open Category. The selection committee met on 22.02.2014. In the minutes it is disclosed that two women appeared for the interview of Assistant Registrar SC (W), and they are the writ petitioner or the appellant in W.A.No.101 of 2020. The Committee clearly held neither of them were found to be suitable for the post of Assistant Registrar (SC-Woman). 10. As far as the Assistant Registrar O.C. is concerned 22 candidates were interviewed and considered. One Dr.G.Sujay Kumar was found to be eligible. The Committee clearly held neither of them were found to be suitable for the post of Assistant Registrar (SC-Woman). 10. As far as the Assistant Registrar O.C. is concerned 22 candidates were interviewed and considered. One Dr.G.Sujay Kumar was found to be eligible. The marks sheet, the evaluation shows that Sri G. Sujay Kumar was given total 38 marks vis-à-vis the writ petitioner, who was only given 19 marks in all. In addition, it was found that she has no administrative experience. 11. The grievance of the writ petitioner is with regard to her non-selection as Assistant Registrar (SC-W). She thereafter made a complaint to Vice Chairman of the SC Commission, New Delhi on 12.02.2015. The SC Commission gave its findings after enquiring into the matter on 07.03.2016. It was held that the petitioner has necessary teaching experience because she worked as an academic consultant. It is also noted that she was the only candidate shortlisted for SC-W category. This order was slightly modified and further proceedings were issued on 01.08.2016 directing the University to recruit the petitioner as she is eligible in all respects. 12. It appears that thereafter the Executive Council of the University on 01.12.2016 decided to appoint a Three Member Committee to verify the recommendations of the Selection Committee and to make their recommendation. Thereafter a Three Member Committee was constituted consisting of a Retired District Judge and Ex-Spl. Judicial Second Class Magistrate and Registrar of another university. This Committee gave its report on 07.07.2017 again directing the appointment of Writ Petitioner into service. It is this report of the Three Member Committee that lead the learned single Judge to pass the impugned order directing the appointment of the Writ Petition. 13. The legal position with regard to the Court’s jurisdiction in matters of the academic selections is no longer res integra. Time and again the highest courts of the land had laid down the law. 14. For the sake of record the following passages from Basavaiah (Dr.) v Dr.H.L. Ramesh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 (para-31) and the case of Dalapat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors., v Dr.B.S.Mahajan and Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 305 (para 21-22) are considered here: “31. Time and again the highest courts of the land had laid down the law. 14. For the sake of record the following passages from Basavaiah (Dr.) v Dr.H.L. Ramesh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 (para-31) and the case of Dalapat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors., v Dr.B.S.Mahajan and Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 305 (para 21-22) are considered here: “31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [ AIR 1965 SC 491 ] , Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University [ (2001) 8 SCC 546 ] and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University [ (2008) 9 SCC 284 ] , has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any “qualifying criteria”, which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” Dalapat Abasaheb Solunke (supra): “21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, the experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made. The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture. 22. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader in English in Central College, Bangalore in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [ AIR 1965 SC 491 ] in which the Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board. The Court further observed that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.” 15. It is visible from a reading of the pleading of the writ petitioner that she has not raised the issue of mala fides, against the constitution of the Committee or against its individual members. Her grievance is that she was not selected for the post of Assistant Registrar (SC-W). She is not actually agitated by the selection of the OC candidate for the 2nd post. In the absence of statutory violation or in the absence of any allegation of mala fides against the Committee, this Court opines, in view of the settled law the Writ Petitioner cannot seek any direction from the Court. 16. The Expert Committee which has interviewed both the candidates for the post of Assistant Registrar (SC-W) has found neither of them are suitable. The total marks given to the writ petitioner were 19 and she was found to be lacking any administrative experience. As far as the appellant in W.A.No.101 of 2020 is concerned she also secured only 10 marks and she was also found lacking administrative experience. This is the opinion expressed by the Four Member Selection Committee. The total marks given to the writ petitioner were 19 and she was found to be lacking any administrative experience. As far as the appellant in W.A.No.101 of 2020 is concerned she also secured only 10 marks and she was also found lacking administrative experience. This is the opinion expressed by the Four Member Selection Committee. As mentioned earlier none were found to be suitable. Similarly, in the case of Assistant Registrar (OC-W) also none were found to be suitable. 17. In view of the fact that a detailed counter affidavit with documents etc., were filed, this Court is also looking into the issue. The lack of administrative experience is a factor which was held against the writ petitioner. It is also noticed that the S.C. Commission came to the conclusion that the petitioner has necessary academic qualification and also held that the “academic consultant” is nothing but teaching experience only. It is also wrongly held that she was the only woman candidate. As far as the Three Member Committee is concerned they also held that the writ petitioner had 5 years 11 months of service as Coordinator apart from 3 years 7 months teaching experience. It was held that the 5 years 11 months experience as a Coordinator is an “analogous” to the position of Head of the Department. This Court could not find any discernible reason as to how the Three Member Committee came to this conclusion that the 5 years 11 months service rendered as Coordinator in a Post Graduate Institution can be treated “as administrative experience”. Both the S.C. Commission and Three Member Committee went into the merits and demerits of the selected candidates in the O.C. category, which is not essentially the dispute raised. The SC Commission held that the OC candidate has M.S.Office qualification while the writ petitioner has P.G. Diploma i.e., PGDCA in computers, this was held to be discriminated. The Three Member Committee held both the writ petitioner and the selected candidate had a PGDCA diploma, which is an additional qualification. These factors are being set out in detail, as they were highlighted by the learned counsel for the writ appellant. In matters of this nature the constitutional courts themselves are imposing a restriction on assessing the relative merits and demerits of the candidates. These factors are being set out in detail, as they were highlighted by the learned counsel for the writ appellant. In matters of this nature the constitutional courts themselves are imposing a restriction on assessing the relative merits and demerits of the candidates. When the constitutional courts which have the power to issue prerogative writs are restraining themselves and are deferring to the views of experts in the subject, this is court is of the opinion that a greater duty of restraint was caste on the SC Commission or the Three Member Committee in these areas. Neither the member of the Commission nor the Three Member Committee had the necessary expertise in the opinion of this Court to decide whether the petitioner’s experience as a Coordinator / consultant for 5 years 11 months is adequate teaching experience or adequate administrative experience. These are the matters which are best left to the wisdom of the duly constituted committee. As pointed out earlier even as on date there are no allegations of mala fides against the Members of the Committee or the procedure. The main ground urged is that the petitioner has necessary qualifications and is eligible candidate. 18. This Court has to agree with the submissions made by Sri J. Ugranarasimha also by relying upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court mentioned earlier wherein it was held that the SC Commission does not have the power to issue directions of promotion etc. In that case the Commission directed the respondents 2 and 3 to be promoted to the post of General Manager with retrospective effect. The learned single Judge clearly held that the Commission can only make recommendations and cannot make any such directions. This Court also has to agree with the submissions on this aspect. Even the Three Member Committee also in the opinion of this Court exceeded its powers by making recommendations as sought for. The mere fact that the officials of the respondent University appeared either before the SC Commission or otherwise will not confer or clothe them with a jurisdiction which they do not possess. 19. This Court also holds that the impugned orders were passed by the learned single Judge without giving due opportunity to the University to present its case and without examining the legal and factual aspect involved. 19. This Court also holds that the impugned orders were passed by the learned single Judge without giving due opportunity to the University to present its case and without examining the legal and factual aspect involved. This aspect by itself is enough to set aside the order. On an examination of the factual / legal aspects also this Court is of the opinion that neither the SC Commission nor the Three Member Committee had the necessary power or authority to issue such directions to “appoint” the writ petitioner. It is only a duly constituted selection committee, as per the relevant rules and regulations, which can decide these issues. On the question of expertise/qualifications also this Court has to agree that in the absence of allegations of mala fides, procedural impropriety, statutory violations etc., the findings of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered by the Court or by the Commission or by the Three Member Committee. Therefore, on both the grounds mentioned above, the Writ Appeals have to succeed. 20. Accordingly, with the above observation both the Writ Appeals are allowed setting aside the impugned orders. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.