( 1 ) ON a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of a Division Bench, this case has been referred to the Full Bench.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus : Chandra shekhar Azad Agriculture and Technology University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the university) by the advertisement dated 15-6-1991 invited applications for appointment to two permanent posts of Assistant Professors (Agriculture Engineering) along with some other posts. The last date for submitting application was 10-7-1991. Fifty six candidates, including the petitioner Pranveer Singh Satwat, submitted their applications for the said post; of them thirty candidates, including the petitioner, were called for interview. The interview was held on 10-10-1991. On being selected by the Selection Committee the appointment letter dated 10-11-1991 was issued in favour of the Petitioner in pursuance of which he joined as Assistant professor on 11-11-1991.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3, Sri R. K. Singh, challenged the appointment of the petitioner before the chancellor of the University, i. e. the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, under Section 23 of the Uttar pradesh (Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 (U. P. Act XLV of 1958)hereinafrer referred to as the Act) mainly on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner did not possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed in the advertisement for receipt of applications, therefore, his appointment is invalid and should be set aside. He also made an allegation that the petitioner has been appointed in the University, even though he did not possess the requisit qualifications, due to certain extraneous considerations like being a caste-man of the vice-Chancellor The Chancellor issued notice to the petitioner and the university and after considering their representations/explanations/replies cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was not eligible to be appointed to the post of assistant Professor since he did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, vide order dated 27-9-1994 (Annexure XII to the writ petition ). The Chancellor further directed that the post be readvertised and appointment be made in accordance with law.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed the writ petition registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34147 of 1994 citing the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor and Sri R. K. Singh as respondents. He prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Chancellor dated 27-9-1994 (Annexure XII to the writ petition) and for issue of a writ of mandamus res-training the respondents from interfering in his working as Assistant Professor (Agriculture engineering) in the University.

( 5 ) THE case was listed before the Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice R. A. Sharma and Mr. Justice M. Katju, Mr. Justice R. A. Sharma by judgment dated 18th November, 1994 held that the case lacks merit and dismissed the writ petition. Mr. Justice M. Katju by a separate order passed on the same day, was of the prima facie view that the impugned order dated 27-9-1994 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. He ordered stay of operation of the impugned order and directed that until further order the petitioner will be permitted to continue to work as Assistant professor (Agriculture Engineering) in the University. The then Chief Justice by order dated 2-1-1995 directed the case to be listed before a Bench of three Judges. That is how the case has been listed before us.

( 6 ) THE facts which were not disputed before us are that in the advertisement no date was specified by which the applicant was to possess the prescribed qualifications and that the petitioner had not completed his M. Tech. course by 10-7-1991, which was the last date for submission of applications for the post. Indeed, he was awarded the degree