Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the teaching experience of a Guest Lecturer could be taken as the teaching experience prescribed for appointment to the post of Reader in Life Science, as per the Regulations of the University.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The 2nd respondent University invited applications for appointment to the post of Reader in Life Science by Ext.P7 notification dated 11.01.2005. Later, an addendum notification was published as per Ext.R3(1) on 31.01.2005, clarifying that the applicants should have specialisation in Biochemistry. The last date for receipt of applications was 28.02.2005. The selection committee conducted an interview of the candidates and prepared a select list. The appellant being rank No.1, the selection committee recommended the appointment of the appellant to that post and the Syndicate of the University approved the same as per Ext.P11 resolution. Pursuant to that, she was appointed as Reader in the Department of Life Science, as per Ext.P12 memo dated 31.10.2005. The 1st respondent herein filed the Writ Petition, challenging Exts.P11 and P12.

3. The main ground of attack against the selection of the appellant was that she did not have the requisite qualification of five years' teaching experience. According to the 1st respondent, even the claim of the appellant was that she had only 4 = years' teaching experience as Guest Lecturer. It was also pointed out that most part of the experience gained was before she acquired the Ph.D qualification.

4. The appellant filed a detailed counter affidavit, supporting her selection. She also questioned the locus standi of the 1st respondent to impugn the selection, as he was not having the notified qualification of specialisation in Biochemistry. The appellant claimed that when experience is prescribed as a qualification, the same need not be gained after getting appointment on regular basis. The experience gained in the post of Guest Lecturer is equally good. After obtaining the Ph.D degree, she had some research experience also. It was also reckonable for the purpose of computing the total period of teaching experience, it was contended.

5. The University initially filed a counter affidavit, supporting the selection of the appellant. It submitted that the appellant and the 1st respondent were qualified for the post. But, having regard to the superior merit of the appellant, the selection committee recommended her for appointment. Later, the University filed an additional counter affidavit, pointing out that the selection was full of irregularities and the appellant did not have the prescribed teaching experience and therefore, the selection was bad.

6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the contention of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner that the experience gained in the post of Guest Lecturer and that too, obtained before the acquisition of Ph.D degree, cannot be taken into account. In view of the said finding that the appellant does not have the requisite teaching experience, her selection was set aside. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition.

7. We heard the learned senior counsel Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal for the appellant, learned counsel Sri.K.Jaju Babu for the 1st respondent and learned standing counsel Sri.P.C.Sasidharan for the University. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner does not have the specialisation in Biochemistry and therefore, he is disqualified for the post. So, the challenge at his instance should not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge. Though that point was raised as a ground in the counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge did not deal with that aspect.