( 1 ) THIS Appeal is against an Order dated 3rd March 1997, by which the writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein has been dismissed. Briefly stated facts are as follows:

( 2 ) IN December, 1993, the 1st Respondent University had advertised for the post of Reader in Engineering and Technology. The last date for submitting the Applications was 7th February, 1994. Pursuant to the advertisement various applications were received by the 1st Respondent University. The Appellant did not make any Application. as the advertisement was not in respect of the post of Reader in Civil/water Resources which was his speciality. The Applications, which were received were screened some time in second half of 1995. The Screening Committee prepared a list of persons for being called for interview. The appellant then learnt that even though the advertisement did not so mention the post was also for Reader in Civil/water Resources i. e. persons qualified in Civil/water Resources were also to be considered. The Appellant therefore pointed out has experience and qualification and sought permission to appear in the interview. The Appellant was permitted to appear in the interview. The Interview Committee interviewed the candidates on 15th February 1996. Thereafter Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were selected in 2 posts of Readers even though Advertisement was for only one post.

( 3 ) THE Appellant filed this writ Petition challenging the selection of Respondents 5 and 6. Before the learned Single Judge the Appellant gave up the challenge to the election of Respondent No. 6. The grounds in the writ Petition were inter-alia (a) bias against him; (b) that Respondent No. 5 did not have the necessary experience, (c) that he could not have been considered much less selected and (d) Respondent No. 7, who was one of the Members of the Selection Committee, was admittedly the Thesis Supervisor of Respondent No. 5. It was claimed that because of this there was favouritism.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge appears to have been shown the Report of the screening Committee and a Chart prepared buy 1st Respondent University. On the basis of that Report and the Chart the learned Single Judge has held that Respondent No. 5 possessed that requisite qualification and that therefore there was no illegality or irregularity in the selection. On this ground the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ Petition.

( 5 ) THE malafides alleged against the 1st Respondent University are on the basis that earlier there had been an advertisement for the post of Reader in Civil/water Resources which was a specialisation of the Appellant. It is claimed that the Appellant had not been selected at that time. It is claimed that the post subsequently became vacant and was to be advertised. It is claimed that in the advertisement which was issued, in December 1993, this speciality had not been mentioned in order to see that the Appellant could not apply for the post. It is also claimed that the Appellant had submitted various requests to pursue a Ph. D. Programme but he had neither received any reply nor any permission. It is claimed that the Appellant did not receive any reply to his application for study leave. It is also claimed that even though the Appellant was permitted to appear in the interview, his Bio-Data was not put up before the Selection Committee. It is submitted that all these clearly show bias against the Appellant. We are unable to accept this submission. In our view no malafide and bias can be interred from the above.

( 6 ) THE question which however requires consideration is whether the 5th Respondent had the requisite qualification including the experience. It is an admitted position that the requisite qualification-cum-experience is as follows:-

I) First class Master s degree in Civil Engineering. ii) About five years minimum experience (three years in case of Ph. D.) inclusive of teaching and/or production of teaching material and relevant field/maintenance