JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. 1. Petitioner is serving as Associate Professor (Horticulture) in Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a Writ, rule order or direction in the nature of Certiorari-mandamus to declare the impugned public notice dated 16.06.2023 (Contained in Annexure No. 1) issued by the Registrar, HNB Garhwal University whereby he released the result of scrutiny of applications for the post of faculty (Professor) Horticulture, shortlisting 2 candidates (Pvt Respondents) of non-horticulture background for the interview applying pick and choose policy, alone with all consequential orders and actions which are offshoots of the impugned order, the entire process is against statute, arbitrary, is an outcome of bias and favouritism, illegal, void ab-initio, illogical, highly irregular and therefore, deserves to be quashed after calling entire records from the Respondents, along with its effect and operation also or to mould the relief appropriately, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the petition. (ii) Issue a Writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the Respondents to cancel the candidature of the Private respondents who are qualified for the post of Professor and further direct consideration of the petitioner for the same or to mould the relief appropriately to safeguard the interest of the Petitioner, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of petition. (iii) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the UGC to monitor the entire selection process and take appropriate steps to ensure no ineligible candidate is appointed and further to set up an inquiry against the Screening Committee and erring officers for the violation of UGC regulations, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition. 2. In sum and substance, petitioner has challenged the result declared by the Screening-cum Scrutiny Committee, whereby respondent nos. 6 & 7 were shortlisted to be called for interview for appointment on the post of Professor (Horticulture). 3. Petitioner contends that respondent nos. 6 & 7 do not have Ph.D. Degree in Horticulture, which is essential for appointment as Professor (Horticulture). In sum and substance, petitioner has challenged the result declared by the Screening-cum Scrutiny Committee, whereby respondent nos. 6 & 7 were shortlisted to be called for interview for appointment on the post of Professor (Horticulture). 3. Petitioner contends that respondent nos. 6 & 7 do not have Ph.D. Degree in Horticulture, which is essential for appointment as Professor (Horticulture). Petitioner relies upon the resolution passed by Board of in short “BoS” Studies ( ) in its meeting held on 12.07.2022 in which it was decided that candidates with Ph.D. Degree in Horticulture alone would be eligible for appointment as Professor (Horticulture). 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 & 7, however, submits that since petitioner was not meeting the condition of ten years service as Associate Professor for appointment as a Professor (Horticulture) at the relevant point of time, therefore, in order to derail the impending selection, petitioner misused his position as Chairman of BoS and got a resolution passed that candidates having Ph.D. in Horticulture alone would be eligible for appointment as Professor (Horticulture). He submits that BoS is not concerned either with selection or with the academic qualification needed for appointment to a teaching post in the University. 5. Learned counsel for the University has drawn our attention to Minutes of the Coordination Committee, which is enclosed as Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit filed by University. Based on the said document, it is contended that a Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee was constituted, which was empowered to look into the question of eligibility of candidates for appointment. Para 6 of Minutes of the Meeting (Annexure 3 to the CA) is reproduced below:- “ 6. Screening of applications must be ensured as per provisions of UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 dated 18 th July 2018 and its subsequent amendments including University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education), 2021 dated 11 th October, 2021.” 6. Learned counsel for University further submits that the decision taken in the meeting of the Coordination Committee, referred to above, was ratified by the Committee in its meeting held on 17.04.2023, and the Executive Council of the University approved the decision taken by the Coordination Committee in its meeting held on 30.05.2023. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submits that petitioner was replaced as Chairman of BoS by Professor J.S. Chauhan, Dean of School of Agriculture & Allied Science, and the re-constituted BoS also approved the decision taken by BoS under the Chairmanship of petitioner, in its meeting held on 23.01.2023. Learned counsel further submits that the Academic Council as well as the Executive Council approved the decision taken by BoS on 12.07.2022. 8. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 & 7, however, submits that the contention raised on behalf of petitioner that BoS, Headed by Professor J.S. Chauhan, ratified the earlier decision taken by BoS is not correct. He refers to Annexure 4 to the writ petition for contending that School of Agriculture & Allied Science was Headed by Professor J.S. Chauhan, and Professor J.S. Chauhan never replaced petitioner in BoS. He further points out that petitioner was Member of School Board, while Professor J.S. Chauhan held the position of Chairman in the BoS at the time when the decision, relied by him was taken. 9. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the issue involved in this writ petition is regarding competence of Board of Studies to take the decision, as was taken in its meeting held on 12.07.2022. In other words, whether BoS was competent to take decision regarding qualification needed for appointment to a teaching post and whether petitioner misused his position to derail the impending selection, as he had not completed required ten years service as Associate Professor. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Clause 3(f) of the Ordinance, BoS was well within its right to take the decision as was taken in the meeting dated 12.07.2022. 11. Learned counsel for private respondents, however, submits that Board of Studies was not competent to go into the question of eligibility of a candidate and this aspect can only be gone into by the Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee. 11. Learned counsel for private respondents, however, submits that Board of Studies was not competent to go into the question of eligibility of a candidate and this aspect can only be gone into by the Screening-cum-Scrutiny Committee. He submits that since petitioner was Heading BoS at the relevant point of time and he was not having requisite ten years of service as Associate Professor (Horticulture), therefore, with a view to scuttle the impending selection, he prevailed upon the BoS to declare Ph.D. Degree in Horticulture as the essential qualification for appointment as Professor (Horticulture). He submits that the said decision by BoS was beyond the scope of its powers, thus is without jurisdiction. 12. Whether BoS was justified in laying down qualification needed for appointment as Professor (Horticulture) or not, is to be decided with reference to the relevant statutory provisions applicable to HNB Garhwal University. There is another aspect, which can only be examined by the Vice Chancellor, namely, whether the decision, as was taken by BoS, was taken bonafidely or with ulterior motive of derailing the impending selection, as alleged by counsel appearing for the private respondents. 13. We, therefore, relegate the matter to the Vice Chancellor of the University to examine the following issues in the light of relevant statutory provisions and/or decisions taken by the Executive Council:- (i) Whether BoS had taken the decision that candidates with Ph.D. Degree in Horticulture alone would be eligible for appointment as Professor (Horticulture); (ii) Whether BoS was justified in taking the decision regarding the academic qualification needed for appointment as Professor (Horticulture); (iii) Whether the decision regarding eligibility of a person for appointment to the post of Professor (Horticulture) was taken after initiation of selection process in question; (iv) Whether there is no other Committee/Body in place in the University, which can go into the question of academic qualification needed for appointment to a teaching/non-teaching position. 14. If answer to the aforesaid questions is in the affirmative then candidates who do not possess Ph.D. Degree in Horticulture will not be permitted to participate in the selection for appointment to the post of Professor (Horticulture). However, if the answer to the aforesaid questions is in the negative, then respondent nos. 6 & 7 shall be permitted to participate in the further process of selection for the post of Professor (Horticulture), as per law. 15. However, if the answer to the aforesaid questions is in the negative, then respondent nos. 6 & 7 shall be permitted to participate in the further process of selection for the post of Professor (Horticulture), as per law. 15. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.