( 1 ) "the best is being rejected" is the oft-repeated complaint in all walks of life in our society. The omission to select the alleged best is the substance of the complaint in these petitions.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in these petitions challenge the appointment of the second respondent in the first two petitions, who is also the third respondent in the last petition, as a reader in jainology and prakrit in manasa gangothri, university of mysore, more or less on the same grounds. That, in view of the settled legal position the question for consideration of this court, in these petitions is, not to identify as to who is the best among the petitioners and the second respondent, but to decide, whether the authority vested with the power to make selection of a teacher in the university, has followed the procedure prescribed, in the matter of appointment of the second respondent as a reader in the department of jainology and prakrit, manasa gangothri, university of mysore, mysore.

( 3 ) IT is well-settled that, it is not the function of the court, tohear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates but to examine, whether the selection committee has acted fairly and justly, in the process of selection. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala fides affecting the selection.

( 4 ) DEALING with scope of judicial review, in the matter of appointment of teachers in the universities, the Supreme Court in University of Mysore and another v C. D. Govinda Rao and another , has held that,in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B. S. Mahajan, the Supreme Court has held that,in E. N. Srinivasa v Bangalore University, Gnana Bharathi, bangalore and others, this court has held that,

( 5 ) THE question in controversy in these petitions will have to be decided in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this court. In this view of the matter, it is material to state the case of the parties, as pleaded in their respective petitions and their statement of objections, which are as follows: the petitioner in writ petition No. 22692 of 1994 is a holder of doctoral degree in kannada on the subject titled "kannadadalli adithirthankarara charithregalu". She also holds m. a. in kannada and m. a. in jainology and prakrit. She has stated that, she also possess a degree in b. ed, and diploma in tamil. She is stated to have worked as a lecturer in kannada from july 1970 to june 1972 in the government college for women, mandya, and further worked as a guest lecturer in jainology and prakrit in the university of mysore during the year 1992-93 and has been working as a part-time guest lecturer in the said subject from january 1994. The petitioner in writ petition No. 22700 of 1994 has been a lecturer in the department of jainology and prakrit, manasa gangothri, university of mysore, mysore, for over 16 years. He is an m. a. in kannada and holder of diplomas in jainology, prakrit, ancient history and archaeology and Indian literature. The petitioner in writ petition No. 26529 of 1994 is a retired professor in the department of jainology and prakrit, university of mysore, mysore. He has filed this petition as a public interest litigation, inter alia contending that, he is interested in selecting the qualified persons to hold the post of a professor or a reader in the department of jainology and prakrit, manasa gangothri, university of mysore, mysore.

( 6 ) THE university of mysore by notification dated december 8, 1993, invited applications in 8 sets, in the prescribed form, for teaching and non-teaching posts, in the post-graduate departments and the under-graduate colleges of the university from the eligible Indian citizens. In the said notification, applications were invited