Padmini Jesudurai, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.Nos. 6029 and 6108 of 1987 is the appellant in W.A.Nos. 664 and 665 of 1988 and respondents 1 to 5 therein, are the respondents here.

2. The petitioner (parties ranked as in the writ petitions) filed W.P. No. 6029 of 1987 for a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of the third respondent as Reader in the Department of Criminology of the University of Madras, the first respondent here and W.P. No. 6108 of 1987 for a writ of certiorari to quash the above order of appointment. Pending the above writ petitions, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 8783 of 1987 in W.P. No. 6108 of 1987 for an injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from confirming the third respondent in the above post and also filed W.M.P. No. 8685 of 1987 in W.P. No. 6029 of 1987 for an injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from assigning any research students to the third respondent. Learned Judge dismissed W.M.P.Nos. 8665 and 8783 of 1987 in view of the fact that the third respondent had already been confirmed in the post and since the appointment itself would be subject to the result of the writ petitions held that the injunction need not be issued. W.A.Nos. 665 and 664 of 1988 are filed against the above orders.

3. When interim relief was sought for in these writ appeals, this Court directed that, in view of the nature of the issues involved, the main writ petitions themselves be posted along with the writ appeals for final disposal. The writ petitions therefore, were heard along with the writ appeals.

4. The petitioner has filed the writ petitions on the following averments: He is a Law Graduate, who has also been enrolled as an Advocate. He contemplated joining M.A. in Criminology in the first respondent University and applied for the same. He found that the third respondent, who was appointed as a Reader in the Department of Criminology, does not possess the basic qualifications required by the Rules and Regulations of the first respondent and the basic norms prescribed for the above post by the University Grants Commission. The necessary qualifications were advertised in the local dailies on the basis of the rules and regulations of the first respondent, which required that a Reader in Criminology, should have a Post Graduate degree either in the subject or in related subject, but should have Ph.D in the subjects, with teaching and research experience of not less than five years. The Specialisation required at the Doctoral level was Dilinquency. As against these basic qualifications, the third respondent, who, though he held an M.Sc., degree in Geography and an M.A., Degree in Criminology, and a Ph.D. only in Geography. He was not a Ph.D. in Criminology. Even his teaching experience, which at the time of the appointment was about 15 years, was wholly as a Tutor and later as Assistant Professor in Geography. He had no teaching and research experience in Criminology. The specialisation called for in the advertisement was Delinquency, which the third respondent did not have. Even his thesis for the Ph.D. only related to a pattern of crime in a particular geographical area viz., Madras City. The third respondent thus lacked even the basis qualifications. The Establishment Section of the University, finding that the third respondent did not have the basis qualifications for the post, did not send him the interview card. Later, at the instance of the second respondent, the interview card was sent to the third respondent just a few hours before the interview. The fifth respondent, who also attended the same interview for the same post, had an M.A., Degree in Criminology with Ph.D., in Criminology with five years of teaching and research experience in that subject. Overlooking the legitimate claims of the fifth respondent, for extraneous considerations and in bad faith, the second respondent had appointed the third respondent to the post. The fifth respondent filed (P. Thiagaraj v. University of Madr