On the allegation of violation of the Reservation Policy, it is contended that firstly, it has not been pleaded that the Petitioner was a better candidate who ought to have been selected in place of private Respondents and that, being a candidate from a reserved category he was entitled to be appointed in one of the reserved posts. Secondly, it is submitted that before making a claim for being appointed as a reserved category candidate, it is essential for the Petitioner to satisfy that he was a selected candidate who was illegally deprived from getting appointment as such candidate. It is the specific case of the Respondent University that the Petitioner is a failed candidate disentitling him from making such claim. The Learned Counsel would submit that the impugned recruitment process for regular establishment is the first of its kind after the Sikkim University was established. Out of the vacancies of twenty one Departments that were advertised, results of only sixteen were declared. In the meanwhile, further Departments had been added and the cadre strength of each position in all the Departments are yet to be exhausted. It is urged that even assuming but not admitting that the Petitioner was eligible, he still could not have been appointed, as the cadre of Assistant Professor in the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies and Management is three and, as per the Model Roster for reservation, the first three positions are unreserved. Denying violation of Clauses 18 1 and 18 2 of the Statutes of the University, it was submitted that the impugned recruitment process being the first for regular establishment of the Sikkim University after its establishment, the question of there being a Dean or Head of the Department in the Selection Committee would not arise. The Selection Committee consisted of eminent experts and public figures whose bona fides or integrity have not been questioned in the Writ Petition. Exercise of emergency powers by the Vice Chancellor has been categorically denied. It is stated that under Section 12-2 of the Sikkim University Act, 2006, the Vice Chancellor is the Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University exercising general supervision in the affairs of the University. Moreover, as per the Learned Counsel, the First Executive Council and the First Academic Council who are the Authorities of the University under Section 20 of the Sikkim University Act, had in their meetings held on 03-04-2011 and 20-08-2011, authorised the Vice Chancellor to nominate the required Members of the Selection Committee and to initiate the interview process for appointment of Faculty Members. The Vice Chancellor has thus merely given effect to the decision of the Executive Council and the Academic Council. It is pointed out further that under Clause 42 of the Statutes of the Sikkim University Act power has been vested in any officer or authority of the University to delegate his or its powers to any other officer or authority or person under his or its respective control and subject to the condition that overall responsibility for exercise of the powers so delegated shall continue to vest in the officer or authority delegating such powers. It is thus contended that the Petitioner was misconceived in alleging exercise of emergency powers by the Vice Chancellor. On the allegation of delay in conducting the interview, it was submitted that the time taken was due to the requirement in complying with the First Proviso to Clause 18-3 of the Statutes as per which meetings of the Selection Committee are required to be fixed only after prior consultation with and subject to the convenience of Visitor’s nominee and the experts nominated by the Executive Council. That the University received intimation of the Visitor’s nominee only in April, 2011, after the First Executive Council had demitted its Office. Thereafter, dates of the interview had to be decided on the advice of the Visitor’s nominee taking into consideration their availability. Thus, the allegation of intentional delay on the part of the University was unfounded. It is stated that if the Petitioner had been aggrieved by the delay in conducting the interview, he ought to have approached the Court before participating in the interview. Rebutting the allegation of the University not having declared the result, it was submitted that the Selection Committee consisting of eminent experts and public figures whose bona fides or integrity have not been questioned, conducted the interview and the panel of selected candidates placed in sealed envelope laid before and approved by the Second Executive Council in its meeting on 22-02-2012 and thereafter, the selected candidates were issued appointment letters as per the practice followed by all the Central Universities. On the allegation of violation of UGC Regulations, 2010, the Learned Counsel would submit that the Sikkim University is guided by the provisions of Sikkim University Act, 2006, which as per him, has been followed in the present case and the UGC Regulations, 2010, being a Regulation cannot override the provisions of an Act passed by the Parliament. It is submitted that reliance placed by the Petitioner on the case of Raj supra and the rest of the decisions cited at the bar by the Petitioner hold good on the facts and circumstances in those cases which are clearly distinguishable from those in the present case and, therefore, not applicable. As regards the allegation of additional test in computer skill which the candidates were made to undergo, the Learned Counsel asserts that it was held only to assess the language and expression, knowledge and assimilation and basic computer skill of the candidates appearing for the interview. As all the candidates had willingly undertaken the test and passed, no prejudice was caused to any one of them including the Petitioner. I have given thoughtful and anxious consideration to the respective submissions of the parties, the pleadings and the documents on record. Before dealing with the preliminary objections which the Respondent University have raised, we may take up the contentions raised by the Petitioner in seriatim as shall follow hereafter. The first contention as regards the violation of the Reservation Policy by the Respondent University is concerned, it is eminently evident on a perusal of the pleadings contained in the Writ Petition that it is not the Petitioner’s case that he was aggrieved by the recruitment process being a candidate belonging to any of the reserved category but, has questioned it generally on the alleged lapses on the part of the University. Therefore, the issue as regards the purported non-compliance of the Reservation Policy appears to be an afterthought. None of the candidates belonging to the reserved category have come forward to assail the Appointment Notice and the consequent recruitment process. Even otherwise, on a bare perusal of Appointment Notice dated 29-04-2010 Annexure P-1, the following appears to have been clearly indicated, Qualifications As prescribed by UGC. Specification Please refer our website and click section on Opportunities at SU on the left hand side. No. of posts in each of the above mentioned Department Professor-1, Associate Professor-2, Assistant Professor-3, in the case of S. No.9, Assistant Professor-4, others remain same. Pay UGC Scale of Pay (Revised) Reservation Professor-SC-1, Associate Professor SC-2, ST-1, Assistant Professor-SC-4, ST-2, OBC-7. Reservation for DA candidates will be as per Government of India instructions from time to time.