K.A. AbduI Gafoor, J,

The Mahatma Gandhi University notified appointment to the post of Lecturer as per Ext. P1 marked in O.P. 5645 of 2001. Selection shall be based on the first statute which prescribes the constitution of the selection committee. The relevant extract of the first statute is produced as Ext. P5. Statute 4(ii)(b) provides as follows:

For the posts of Reader/Lecturer etc: There shall be a committee in addition to the Vice Chancellor as Chairman, one Syndicate member to be selected by the Vice Chancellor, two outside experts chosen by the Syndicate and Head of the Department or Professor-in-charge.

Petitioner impugns the selection process mainly on the ground that the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. Instead of two outside experts, there was only one outside expert and another expert included in the selection committee was an insider. It is submitted in Ground A of O.P. 5645 of 2001 that unless both the experts are outsiders the selection committee has no sanction of the first statute. It is further alleged that the second expert included in the selection committee one Dr. V.D. Sebastian, is not an outsider. It is submitted that he is a guest lecturer in the University. Therefore, he cannot be regarded as an outsider. The selection committee is not constituted in terms of the statute and consequently the selection process is not in terms of the procedure made mention of in the statute and therefore selection process is vitiated. It is further contended that five persons had been chalk marked before the selection process started and it is to give them place in the top of the list the said expert who is alleged to be an insider was included. Therefore the selection process is vitiated. The University contended that the said Dr. V.D. Sebastian is a Dean in the University of Cochin. He is not in the service of the University. University contended that Dr. V.D. Sebastian is associated with the School of Indian Legal Thoughts of the first respondent University in giving lectures on specialised subjects in law. Thus it is an admitted position that the said expert has got some relationship with the university in the matter of its academic matters and the said expert is drawing remuneration from the funds of the University. The petitioner contends that such a person cannot be termed as an outsider as mentioned in the first statute dealing with the constitution of selection committee as extracted above. Selection committee is not thus constituted in terms of the statute. The selection process itself is vitiated.

2. Additional respondents are impleaded as per CMP No. 12487 of 2001. It is submitted by the petitioner, in addition to the contentions urged by the University that merely because of an irregular act of the University, any right conferred upon the selected candidate shall not be defeated as they do not have any say in the matter of constitution of the selection committee. Their right shall not be affected thereby. It is further contended that on the basis of the decision reported in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lai Srivastava and Manbodhan Lai Srivastava v. State of U.P. (AIR 1957 SC 912) even if a selection process is vitiated for the reason of improper constitution of the committee, the selection shall not be vitiated.

3. When the statute provides for the constitution of the selection committee, any committee which is not constituted in terms of the statute cannot be termed as one legally constituted and the selection conducted by such a committee cannot have legal efficacy. This Court in the decision reported in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. State (1996 (2) KLT 378) held as follows:

"The Supreme Court as well as this Court has consistently held that when an Act prescribes a particular mode or manner in which certain things are to be done by an authority, it could be done only in the manner or mode prescribed by the Act. Thus, in this case, when S.31 enjoins that the Vice