ABDURRASHEED K M Vs. VIJAYAKUMARAN C P V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent in the appeals was the writ petitioner. The appellants are the Aligarh Muslim University and the 5th respondent in the writ petition, who has been displaced from the post of Director, Malappuram Centre of the University by virtue of the judgment impugned in the appeals. The parties are referred to by their status in the writ petition.

(2.) The learned Single Judge found that the contention of the University that the 5th respondent had alternate qualification apart from all desirable qualifications to hold the post of Director; the nature of duties of which post is more administrative than academic, cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge held that the 5 th respondent does not satisfy the essential qualifications required, nor satisfies the alternate prescription of an outstanding professional, as stipulated in the notification. The 5th respondent having not satisfied either of the essential qualifications, cannot be found eligible to the appointed merely by reason of his having desirable qualifications. The learned Single Judge also found that the post of Director of the Regional Centre cannot be said to be a mere administrative post especially since the incumbent has the responsibility for the conduct and maintenance of standard of teaching and research in the campus. Without having the minimum qualification as stipulated in the notification, none can be appointed on the basis of the desirable qualification was the categoric finding.

(3.) The learned Single Judge noticed the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which declared invocation of powers under Article 226 to be not proper in academic matters, especially with respect to a selection carried out by an expert committee well versed in academics. However, the instant case was found to be quite distinct solely for reason of the University having admitted in its counter affidavit that the 5th respondent was selected on the basis of his desirable qualifications alone. The 5th respondent's contentions in defense that (i) having not challenged the notification itself, the petitioner would be estopped from making a challenge to the appointment of the successful candidate and (ii) the defect insofar as the non-impleadment of the other persons included in the rank list; were negatived. The selection and appointment of the 5 th respondent was set aside and there was a direction to conduct the selection afresh from among the candidates who applied for the post on the basis of the notification and re-cast the select list including persons having the qualifications as prescribed in the notification so as to make appointments from such a list.