( 1 ) THE dispute in this petition centres round the selection of a candidate for appointment as Reader in Education in the Sardar Patel University. In order to appreciate the various points urged at the hearing of the petition it is necessary to trace the background.

( 2 ) SEC. 29 of the Sardar Patel University Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inter alia provides that no person shall be appointed as a Professor or Reader of the University except on the recommendation of a Committee of Selection constituted for the purpose. The Syndicate is empowered under the said section to make the final selection out of the persons if any so recommended. The Syndicate is required to record its reasons if it does not make appointment in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the Committee and also if it does not accept the sole name recommended by the Committee. The Selection Committee is required to be presided over by the Vice Chancellor as ex officio Chairman.

( 3 ) ORDINANCE 96 prescribes the qualifications for being eligible for appointment to the post of a Reader. The qualifications are as under: (i) Consistently good academic record with 1st or high 2nd class (B in the seven points scale) at Bachelors and Masters degrees in a relevant subject of a recognised University or equivalent degree of a statutory institute. (ii) Either a research degree of Doctorate standard or published work of high standard in the relevant subject; and (iii) At least seven years experience of teaching at a University or college and should have continuous interest during the five years in case of a person having Ph. D. degree and seven years in case of others in research with published work in standard journals.

( 4 ) BY a notification dated 26/11/1980 applications were invited enter alia for the post of Reader in Education. The candidates were required to furnish complete information regarding the educational qualification for the teaching post and to send copies of mark-sheets of all the examinations beginning from the First Year. The pleadings of the parties show that the candidates were required to file their applications along with the testimonials etc. and a list of research publications. Such applications were to be made in ten sets so that copies of the respective applications together with all their annexures could be circulated amongst the members of the Selection Committee.

( 5 ) FOR the purposes of selection in question a Selection Committee consisting of seven persons including the Vice Chancellor was constituted. Be it noted that out of the seven members of the Selection Committee three members were connected with the University and they were the Vice Chancellor Dean of the Faculty of Education and Principal of the M. B. Patel College of Education. Out of the remaining four members three belonged to Gujarat and only one member belonged to Bombay.

( 6 ) IT appears that ten candidates had applied for the post out of whom nine candidates were called for interview by the Selection Committee. One of the candidates called for interview was not present. The Selection Committee therefore interviewed eight candidates. Amongst the candidates interviewed were the petitioners and the second respondent.

( 7 ) IT might be stated at this stage that in the Vice Chancellors affidavit dated 25/05/1981 it has been stated that the copies of the respective applications of all the candidates together with their enclosures were circulated to the members of the Selection Committee in advance. The Deputy Registrar of the University in his affidavit dated 4/05/1981 has specified that the applications were sent 26 days in advance to the members of the Selection Committee and that the applications along with their enclosures were before the Selection Committee even at the time of the interview. Besides copies of the original applications the members of the Selection Committee were also supplied with a statement showing the details of th