Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellants were the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 12723/2004. The respondents herein were the respondents in that case. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Reader in the Department of Commerce and Management Studies under the 1st respondent University.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The University invited applications for appointment to various posts as per Ext. P1 notification published on 9.2003. Reader in Commerce and Management Studies was one of the posts notified under Ext. P1. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader were:

"(i) A good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work in the concerned subject of this University or an equivalent degree from an Indian/Foreign University recognized as equivalent thereto with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. In addition to these, candidates who join from outside the University system shall also possess at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in 7 point Scale with latter grades O, A, B,C, D, E and F at Masters degree level.

(ii) Five years of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula."

The appellants were candidates who applied for the post. They, along with other candidates, were called for an interview on 22.2004. In the selection, the 3rd respondent was rank No. 1 and he was appointed by order dated 111.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent, the Writ Petition was filed. The appellants/writ petitioners submitted that the constitution of the selection committee, which interviewed them and other candidates, was not in accordance with the relevant Statute. The 3rd respondent was aged only 32 and the minimum age limit prescribed for the post was 35. In the notification, it was stipulated that age relaxation both upper and lower will be granted to deserving internal candidates. There was no such stipulation concerning age relaxation for open market candidates. Though, the 3rd respondent was a candidate from the open market, he was also granted age relaxation. He did not have the five years teaching experience, notified as per Ext. P1. The appellants also submitted that marks at the interview were not awarded, as provided in Ext. P4 order of the University dated 11.1997, governing the same.

3. The University and the 3rd respondent filed separate counter affidavits, supporting the selection. The learned Single Judge, who heard the Writ Petition, dismissed the same. Hence this Writ Appeal.

4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the selection committee should have been constituted as per Statute 4 of Chapter III of the Calicut University First Statutes. For the post of Reader, the committee should consist of the Vice Chancellor, Head of the Department, one member of the Syndicate nominated by the Vice Chancellor and two experts in the subject in which appointment is to be made. In this case, apart from the Vice Chancellor, Dr.A.K. Sarada was a member of the committee as Head of the Department. Sri. Balakrishna Kidavu was a member of the committee as the Syndicate member nominated by the Vice Chancellor. Two experts in the subject, namely, Dr. Surya Rao and Professor Manikkom were also nominated to the committee. But, on the date fixed for the interview to the post of Reader, Dr. Surya Rao left, owing to person inconvenience. So, the interview was held without the participation of the said subject expert. As the constitution of the interview Board was defective, the selection of the 3rd respondent by the said committee is illegal, it is submitted. Secondly, it is submitted that when Ext. P1 sp