( 1 ) IN these two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the appointment of respondent-5 (in both these petitions) as the Vicechancellor of the University of Agricultural Sciences in Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the University), has been challenged.

( 2 ) BY the notification dated 5-6-1970, the Chancellor of the University, in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-sec. (2) of S. 12 of the university of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (Mysore Act 22 of 1983) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), appointed respondent-5 (in both these petitions) as the Vice-Chancellor of the University for a period of three years with eft'ect from 12-6-1970.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in WP. No. 2181 of 1970 is holding the office of the director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services in Mysore. He is a graduate in Agriculture and also holds a Master's degree in Dairy. The petitioner in WP. No. 2537 of 1970 claims to be a journalist. It is common ground that a meeting of the Committee consisting of the Pro-Chancellor as ex-officio Chairman and the members of the Board of Regents of the University other than the Vice-Chancellor, (hereinafter referred to as the Committee), was held on 27-4-1970 to recommend a panel of three persons, to the Chancellor for appointment of the Vicechancellor, and that the Committee sent a panel of three persons consisting of the petitioner in WP. No. 2181 of 1970, respondent-5 and one dr. M. H. Mari Gowda.

( 4 ) IT is also common ground that by the Notification of the Government dated 17-4-1970, the Governor placed Mr. V. Hanumanthappa, IAS. Joint secretary to the Government and ex-officio Director of Agricultural Planning cell, Agriculture and Forest Department, in additional charge of the duties of the Director of Agriculture, vice Dr. H. R. Arakeri on deputation, and that Mr. V. Hanumanthappa participated in that meeting of the committee on 27-4-1970 in his purported capacity as the Director of Agriculture in Mysore. It is also not in dispute that respondent-5 has been the Vice-Chancellor of the University since the inception of the University. Mr. M. K. Nambiar, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP. No. 2181 of 1970, urged the following two grounds in assailing the appointment of respondent-5 as the Vice-Chancellor in June 1970: (i) The Statute providing for qualifications for the office of the vice-Chancellor is invalid on account of impermissible delegation or abdication of powers and hence the appointment of the Vice-chancellor on the basis of the qualifications prescribed by the Chancellor, is invalid; and (ii) Mr. V. Hanumanthappa who was merely placed in additionalcharge of the duties of the Director of Agiiculture, could not participate in the said meeting of the Committee and hence the appointment of respondent-5 as the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel recommended in that meeting, is invalid. Mr. E. S. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP. No. 2537 of 1970, adopted the aforesaid two grounds and supplemented the arguments of Mr. Nambiar on these grounds. Mr. Patil also urged certain additional grounds which shall be set out later. We may now look at the. relevant statutory provisions. The Act came into force on 24-4-1964. Under S. 2 (6) prescribed means prescribed by the Statutes of the university. Sce. 3 of the Act under which the University is incorporated, provides, inter alia, that the University shall consist of a Chancellor, a Pro-Chancellor, a Vice-Chancellor, a Dean, a Board of Regents and an Academic council. Sec. 9 of the Act specifies the Officers of the University. Among these officers are the Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor. Sec. 10 provides, inter alia, that the Governor of the State of Mysore shall, by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor of the University, and that the Chancellor shall be the head of the University. Sec. 11 provides, inter alia, that the Minister for Agriculture for the state of M