SADHU RAMKUMARDAS SHASTRI Vs. M.S. UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-

(2.) THE case of petitioner is that the petitioner has passed Post Graduation from the M.S. University- respondent No.1 in the subject of Vyakaran Shastra and secured first class distinction in the examination held in the month of April 2003. In the year 2005- 2006, respondent No.1 University issued advertisement for the post of Upadhyaka. The petitioner applied and was called for interview for the said post. The petitioner represented in the personal meeting with the Vice Chancellor and pointed out the fault in the advertisement. Interviews were, therefore, cancelled and the respondent University issued fresh notification inviting applications for the very post with amendment in the qualification. The petitioner again represented that this notification was also a tailor made and issued just to keep him out from selection. It was represented by the petitioner that Vedanta/ Functional Sanskrit (Sahitya) was not the subject which was taught at undergraduate level, yet the said subjects were included and Vyakaran Shastra, which was common subject being taught at all undergraduate level was deliberately kept out so as to deprive the petitioner from getting selected on the ground that the said subject was not the requirement for the posts as advertised in the notification. It is further case of the petitioner that despite the above-referred defect in the notification, the petitioner registered his candidature and applied. However, the petitioner was not called for interview. It is further stated by the petitioner that through reliable sources, he learnt that his name was included in the list of persons to be called for interview, therefore, under impression that call letter must have been lost somewhere in the postal communication, the petitioner appeared in the interview. However, he was not allowed to participate in the selection process and appear before the selection Board on the ground that he was not possessing call letter issued by the authorities. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner pointed out to the authorities that since his name was included in the list of persons called for interview, he was present and he must be allowed to participate in the selection process. However, despite the repeated urging before the authorities, the petitioner was not allowed to appear and ultimately, selection process went ahead, wherein respondent Nos.3 to 5 were selected. It is case of the petitioner that the above- referred respondents were selected pursuant to illegal and irregular selection procedure and therefore, the petitioner has joined them in the petition. The petitioner is thus challenging the entire selection process as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE respondent University has opposed the petition by filing reply affidavit dated 6.3.3011. The petitioner has also filed affidavit dated 10.10.2012. One more additional affidavit on behalf of the respondent University is filed on 4.2.2013.