Abdul Gafoor, J.

These writ appeals arise from a common judgment of a learned single Judge in O.P.No.8571/00 and connected cases, wherein selection to the post of Section Officer in the service of Sree Sankaracharya university of Sanskrit was challenged. The learned single Judge as per the impugned judgment accepted the challenge and set aside the selection and directed fresh selection after making necessary modifications and amendment to the Statute which covers the qualification and the selection. Therefore appeals have been filed by the person who had been appointed and also by the University. There were altogether 7 writ petitions. Out of them two were filed in the year 2000. O.P.No.8571/00 was filed challenging the notification and O.P.No.18462/00 was filed challenging the notification as well as the selection. Remaining writ petitions were filed in the year 2002 and 2003. Original Petition filed in the year 2002 was in relation to inter-se seniority of the person appointed in the selection. Writ petitions filed in the year 2003 were against the selection and appointment. In the light of the quashing of selection, the writ petitions filed in the year 2002 concerning seniority became unnecessary. Therefore, what is material in these appeals is the legality or otherwise of the selection and consequent appointments.

2. The learned single judge found that the Selection Committee had adopted a norm for awarding marks during the interview, which was not provided for in the Statute of the University. Therefore the selection was vitiated. The learned single judge also found that in the absence of a specific prescription of qualification in the schedule to the statute, insistence of 10 years service in any of the Universities in Kerala to apply for the post of Section Officer as per the stipulation contained in the notification, Ext.P1 in O.P.No.8571/00 was not justified. The learned single judge also found that even during he process of interview, the Selection Committee did not follow the norms it formulated correctly, while considering the additional qualification of several candidates and even in not considering few candidates on the ground that they had only less service left while at least one candidate of that sort had been selected. The learned single Judge also fund that though vacancies notified were approximately 15, really there were only 10 posts of Selection Officer. But appointments were effected against 20 posts. On these reasons the learned single Judge, in the impugned judgment, set aside the selection process and directed fresh selection. The learned single Judge during that process found that the provisions in the schedule to the Statute are not specific as to the qualifications and service required for direct recruitment to the post of Section Officer. Therefore suitable amendment to the Statute was also directed to enable fresh selection.

3. The contention of the appellants namely, the appointed candidates as well as the University is that really the Selection Committee did not adopt any norms for selection contrary to the Statute and that the Selection Committee had never violated any of the provision in the Statute. The decision of the Supreme court in Dr. Krushan Chandra Sahu & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors. (JT 1995 (7) SC 137) relied on by the learned single Judge could not have been therefore applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. There the Selection Committee had adopted norms which could not have been condusive for selection of the candidates for teaching posts from among those in service occupying non-teaching posts. For such selection consideration of the confidential records of the applicants alone was not sufficient. This was the fact frame of that case. In such circumstances the dictum in that case could not have been followed by the learned single Judge in this case. It is pointed out that, going by Statute 7 in Chapter IV of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit