MOHAMMED AHMED ALI Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Osmania University, the 1st Respondent herein, issued an advertisement, dated 25.03.1996, inviting applications for various posts, on academic side, including two posts of Lecturer in Urdu. One of it was reserved in favour of woman candidates. A clause was incorporated to the effect that, in case a suitable woman candidate is not available, the post can be filled by a male candidate, duly carrying forward the vacancy to the next recruitment. The Petitioner, Respondents 3 and 4, and certain others applied. Through orders, dated 18.09.2003, the University appointed Respondents 3 and 4 as Lecturers, now designated as Assistant Professors. The Petitioner challenges the said orders.

(2.) The Petitioner contends that Respondents 3 and 4 do not possess the prescribed qualifications, and though the selection committee selected them, the Executive Council, i.e., the appointing authority, did not accept the recommendations. He contends that, in spite of the fact that he possessed the requisite qualifications, he was not selected. The Petitioner points out that the panel for the post of Lecturers in Urdu lapsed, on expiry of one year, and despite the same, the University appointed Respondents 3 and 4, six years, after it was Prepared.

(3.) On behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit are filed. According to them, the Selection Committee found Respondents 3 and 4 suitable, and selected them, but the Executive Council did not approve the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It is stated that the matter was dealt with at various levels, including the Minorities Commission, and the University has also appointed sub-committees, to examine the matter. It is urged that the matter was ultimately referred to the Government by the Executive Council, as required under Section 19 of the A.P. Universities Act (for short 'the Act'), and the Government, in turn, issued directions to the University, to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It is urged that the Petitioner was not found suitable by the Selection Committee, and he has no right to challenge the appointment of Respondents 3 and 4.