AEJAZ AHMAD Vs. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. In this petition, a challenge has been made to the appointment of respondent No. 4 on the post of lecturer in Islamic Studies, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh on the ground that he does not possess the requisite minimum qualifications in the "relevant subject".

(2.) IN pursuance of the advertisement No. 6-A/95-96 dated 15-3-1996 applications were invited for appointment on several posts in the University including the post of lecturer in Islamic Studies, Department of Islamic Studies. The advertisement prescribed the following as the essential qualifications for the said post : (i) Good academic record with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade at Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an INdian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. (ii) Candidates, besides fulfilling the above qualifications, should have cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by U. G. C. Or Should have submitted their Ph. D. thesis, or completed their M. Phil, degree by 31-12-1993. Note - Relaxation of the minimum marks at PG level from 55% to 60% for appointment as Lecturer to the candidates who have cleared the JRF examination conducted by UGC/csir only, prior to 1989. when the minimum marks required to appear for JRF exam were 50%. Desirable.- Should have specialization in Iranian Studies (for the post of Lecturer in Islamic Studies only ).

(3.) THE above challenge is being resisted by the University and the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the petitioners having participated in the selection process and on being unsuccessful are not entitled to challenge the selection process. In a similar matter concerning the same University, this Court in Writ Petition No. 9990 of 1998, Dr. Syed Ahsan and Ors. v. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and Ors. , decided today itself has ruled that the above principle would not have any application where an unqualified candidate has been appointed to a public post or a post concerned with the performance of the public duties such as the post of teacher in an University. THErefore, for the same reasons as given in the above referred judgment we hold that the writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 is maintainable by the petitioner.