The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Vice Chancellor cannot delegate the power to chair the selection committee as prescribed by the statutes, and the selection committee must be constituted as per the statutory requirements.

Sankarasubban, J.

The petitioner in O.P. No. 11156 of 1996 is the appellant. The Registrar, University of Kerala, issued Ext. P1 notification dt. 26.5.1994 inviting applications for various teaching posts in the University. One of the posts advised is the post of Lecturer in Islamic Studies in the teaching department of University of Kerala. The qualifications were prescribed in the notification. The petitioner had the required qualification and he applied for the post. He was called for interview on 9.7.1996. In the interview he found that the selection committee was headed by the 3rd respondent - Pro-Vice Chancellor instead of the second respondent - Vice Chancellor. The selection committee submitted its recommendation to Syndicate. Before the Syndicate took a decision, the petitioner filed the original petition challenging the constitution of the selection committee.

2. According to the petitioner, the selection committee' has to be constituted as per Statute 4 of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977. Under this statute, the Vice Chancellor is the ex-officio Chairman of the selection committee. The committee is to consist of one Syndicate member to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, two outside experts chosen by the Syndicate and also the Head of the concerned Department or the teacher holding charge of the same. Instead of the Vice Chancellor chairing the selection committee, the 3rd respondent, who is the Pro-vice Chancellor had chaired the committee. The petitioner contended that the Vice Chancellor cannot delegate his authority to the Pro-Vice Chancellor. Further, he challenged the selection on the ground that the third respondent was biased in favour of one of the candidates, who got subsequently impleaded himself as the additional 4th respondent. The prayer in the original petition was to issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the select list prepared for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Islamic History by a Selection Committee with the 3rd respondent as the Chairman is illegal and invalid and for other reliefs.

3. On behalf of the University, the Registrar filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that 13 candidates submitted applications. Out of this, the screening committee decided to accept only six applications. The Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University was also acting as the Vice Chancellor of the Sree Sankara Sanskrit University at Kalady. There was a syndicate Meeting of the Sree Sankara Sanskrit University on 9.7.1996 and hence, the Vice Chancellor directed the Pro-Vice Chancellor to chair the selection committee. The University has also produced Ext. R1 (a) letter addressed to the Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Trivandrum. Ext. R1 (a) is undated. In Ext. R1 (a) what is stated is this:

"As I have to be away from Headquarters in connection with the urgent meeting of the Syndicate of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, I request you to make necessary arrangements to put Prof.. M. Salihu (3rd respondent), the Pro-Vice Chancellor as Chairman of the Selection Committees constituted for selection of Reader in the Department of Physics (Reservation - Muslim quata) on 8th July and for the post of Lecturer in Islamic Studies on 9th July, 1996. I request that the matter may please be placed before His Excellency, the Chancellor or orders communicated in this regard at the earliest."

According to the counter affidavit, this is justified as the Vice-Chancellor can delegate his powers. The allegation of bias is denied. It is stated that the 3rd and 4th respondents worked in two different colleges though under the same management. The 3rd respondent left the TKM College of Engineering in August 1983 whereas the 4th . respondent joined the TKM Arts and Science College in October 1983. It was further stated that the minutes of the selection committee were placed before the Syndicate on 19.7.1996, but because of the stay granted by this Cour