UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR H K PUROHIT K D PUROHIT Vs. H K PUROHIT:UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR:UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. Arguments heard. These three appeals on special leave in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4987, 5164 and 8269 of 1988are against the common judgment passed, in Writ Petition No. 3548 of 1984 whereby the division bench of the High court of Rajasthan by order dated 12/02/1988 allowed the writ petition in part quashing the selection of respondents 6 to 8 and their consequent appointment to the posts of Assistant Registrars made by the University of Jodhpur with the observation that the University might hold fresh selection for the said posts.

(2.) The salient facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) Respondent 1, Shri H. K. Purohit filed a writ petition being C. W. No. 3548 of 1984 in the Rajasthan High court at Jodhpur assailing the selections of respondents 2 to 7 on the grounds inter alia that the selections were made without application of mind and that the record of the Selection Committee was not placed before the Syndicate and, therefore, the approval accorded by the Syndicate to the said selection was mechanical and was without application of mind. It was prayed that appropriate writs be issued for quashing the appointments made by the appellant, Jodhpur University appointing respondents 2 to 7 as Assistant Registrars. The writ petition was heard by the division bench of the said High court and by order dated 12/02/1988, the High court (Mr. M. C. Jain and Mr. Sobhagmal Jain, JJ. ) held inter alia that the selectionand appointment of respondents 2 to 4 is not vitiated for want of application of mind by the Selection Committee or by the Syndicate and the submission made on that score was devoid of any substance and was rejected. It was further held that the selection and appointment of respondent 5 Shri T. P. Singh as Assistant Registrar deserves to be quashed as it was not clear whether the Selection Committee while considering the case of respondent 5 followed the directions given by the High court or not. It had been further held that since no minutes or proceedings of the Selection Committee were drawn up it was not possible for the court to know how the mind of the Selection Committee worked in regard to the selection of respondents 6 and 7 namely, Shri L. C. Jain and Shri K. D. Purohit The High court though upheld the appointments of respondents 2 to 4 (respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition before the High court) to the posts of Assistant Registrar quashed the selections of respondents 5 to 7 (respondents 6 to 8 in the writ petition before the High court) and their appointments to the posts of Assistant Registrar made by the University with the observation that it would be open to the University to hold the fresh selection for the said posts but in that selection the University should adhere to the directions given by this court in its judgment dated 8/08/1983 in Writ Petition No. 1297 of 1974 in case the petitioner respondent 1 and respondent 5 Shri T. P. Singh both are the candidates for the said post.