ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, made on September 11, 1996 in O.J.C. No. 8420 of 1993.

3. The admitted position is that the respondent had applied for selection to the post of Professor, Environmental Science. The Selection Committee on January, 31, 1992 interviewed 13 candidates and found none to be qualified for appointment to the post of Professor, Environmental Science. The matter was referred to the Sub- Committee of the Syndicate which by its proceedings dated June 22, 1992 opined that since the respondent had secured 44 out of 90 marks, she was be eligible or appointment and accordingly the matter was referred to the Chancellor under first proviso to Section 21(2) of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 (for short, the Act ) the Chancellor (the Governor of Orissa) directed re-advertisement as per opinion of the Expert Committee by its proceedings dated January 15, 1993. Pursuant thereto, another advertisement was issued on October 16, 1993 for recruitment to the post of Professor in Environmental Science. The qualification desired was Master s degree in Botany or Zoology or Environmental Biology. The respondent questioned the re-advertisement of the post in question. The High Court in the impugned judgment has directed appointment of the respondent within four weeks from the date of the judgment. We are informed that pursuant to the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent, appointment of the respondent came to be made.

4. It is contended by Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Expert body is the competent Committee to opine as to who is qualified and fit to be selected as Professor in Environmental Science which requires Environmental Biology and the respondent is not possessed of Master s degree in Environmental Biology. The High Court cannot evaluate the relative requisite qualifications and come to its own conclusion as to who would be fit for appointment. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that the advertisement made does not relate to Environmental Biology; it requires only Master s degree in Botany or Zoology or Environmental Biology. Since the respondent possessed Master s degree in Botany with requisite experience in the field, she, having secured 44 marks out of 90, is entitled to be considered for the post and the competent authority has no power to direct re-advertisement of the post. The High Court was, therefore, right in giving direction to appoint the respondent as Professor in Environmental Biology.

5. Having regard to the respective contentions the question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court is justified in evaluating whether the respondent is qualified to be appointed as Professor. Section 21 reads as under :

"Appointment of officers, teachers and other employees of the University.

(1) All officers of the University excepting the Registrar, and the Comptroller of Finance shall be appointed by the concerned Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the Director, the Registrar, one member to be selected by the Syndicate of Such University from amongst the remaining members thereof and two experts appointed by the said Vice Chancellor wherever necessary.

(2) The teachers of a University shall be appointed by the Syndicate of that University on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the concerned Vice Chancellor, the Director, an expert nominated by the Chancellor in the case of appointment of Professor, and three experts selected by the said Vice Chancellor from out of the list of six experts furnished by the said Syndicate, which shall not include -

(i) any teacher of such University or of any of its constituent or affiliated colleges; of

(ii) any person who has been an examiner of such