P SVENKATASWAMY SETTY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Noification No. A.3-167-59-60 dated 25th June 1959 the first respondent-University of Mysore through its Registrar invited applications from duly qualified candidates of Indian nationality for appointment in respect of six posts of Professors and twelve posts of Readers in various subjects of study The posts included one post of Professor of Physics and three posts of Readers in Physics The Petitioner was one of the applicants for the post of a Reader in Physics. Although several candidates for the posts of Professor and Readers m Physics were interviewed by the Board of Appointments, none was selected. The posts in the Physics Department, viz., one post of Professor and three of Readers were re-advertised by a subsequent Notification No. D6-357-60-61 dated 15th November 1960. The Petitioner once again applied for appointment as one of the Readers m Physics. The second respondent was an applicant for the post of Professor of Physics and Respondents 3 to 5 were applications for the pasts of Readers in Physics. The Board of Appointments selected the second respondent for appointment as Professor of Physics and respondents 3, 4 and 5 for appointment as Readers in Physics. These selections having been approved by the Chancellor of the University they were appointed to the posts in! accordance with the selection made by the Board of Appointments by Order No. D6-l 65-60-61 dated 16th February 1961. In this Writ Petition filed on 23rd June 1961, the petitioner challenges the. validity of the said appointments. Although in the prayers made by him the petitioner describes the order or orders he seeks, as writ of Mandamus or Writ, of quo warranto, the substance of the wavers is that the aforesaid order of appointment deated 16th February 1961 should be quashed and that respondents 2 to 5 should be restrained from functioning as Professor or Readers in Physics, as the case may be, by virtue of the appointments made by or under the said order.

(2.) It appears that the fifth respondent never took up the appointment and that toe fourth responden whey did take up the appointment has since left the same and taken up employment elsewhere. At present, therefore the principal contesting respondents are respondents 2 and 3 represented by a common counsel Mr. R. M. Seshadri. The University which appears by separate Counsel Mr. Mahendra, of course supports the case of these contesting respondents and claims that the said appointments are perfectly proper and valid and not open to question.

(3.) The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit in support of the petition and as subsequently elaborated or elucidated by his learned counsel Mr. G. L. Bangalore is tow-fold. The first challange is that the appointments are invalid or unauthorised because the qualifications therefor as set out in the second of the Notifications are not shown to" have been prescribed by (he Syndicate of the University nor do they conform to the qualifications actually prescribed by the Syndicate. It is pointed out that by virtue of Section 20 read with clause (e) of Section 41 of the Mysore University Act, 1956, qualifications of teachers of the University could be prescribed only by the Syndicate promulgating an ordinance prescribing or enumerating such qualifications. The second challenge is that the appointments are vitiated by bias or mala fides. The facts stated in support of the same ate that the two specialists on the Board of Appointments for Physics were Dr. C. V. Raman and his erstwhile student of Dr. C. N. Ramachandran, that among the persons selected for appointment by them, respondents 2 and 3 were Dr. C. V. Raman's nephews and that both the said respondent's as well as respondents 4 and 5 had been working at Dr. C. V. Raman's Research Institute at Bangalore. It is contended that the selections have been solely motivated by the said relationship which existed between Dr. C.V. Raman and respondents 2 to 5, that the qualifications set out in the second Notification were specially designed or devised at the express request or suggestion of Dr. Raman so as to facilitate the selection of the said respondents for appointment. It is further pointed out that the bias in favour of the respondents operated to such an extent as to lead to the Board of Appointments dispensing with even the formality of an interview in the case of the second respondent and actually ignoring the fact that the fifth respondent did not eyen possess the minimum qualification of a Master's Degree in Physics, his basic degree being only an Honours degree in Mathematics.