K RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. REGISTRAR ANGRAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioners in writ petition Nos. 24672 of 1997 and 32064 of 1997 have filed these writ appeals and they are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 28-8-1998 made in the above two writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the appellants herein questioned the validity and legality of the order of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, in appointing the third respondent in each of these writ appeals viz., Dr. P.V.S. Kishore (third respondent in W.A.NO. 1694 of 1998) and Dr. M. Mutha Rao (third respondent in Writ Appeal No. 1965 of 1997) to the posts of Assistant Professors in the faculties of Veterinary Anatomy and Histology and Animal Reproduction, Gynaecology and Obstetrics. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned in the writ appeals dismissed the writ petitions.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case be summarized as follows: The 1st respondent- University issued notification on 12-3-1996 calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to various posts, including the posts of Assistant Professors in the faculties of Veterinary Anatomy and Histology and Animal Reproduction, Gynaecology and Obstetrics prescribing the last date for receipt of applications as 30-4-1996. Subsequently, a modified notification was issued on 6-1-1997 calling for applications for appointment to the same posts notified in the notification dated 12-3-1996 fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 1-2-1997. In the second notification dated 6-1-1997, the 1st respondent-University directed that the applicants who sent in applications for appointment to the posts in pursuance of the earlier notification dated 12-3-1996 need not apply. In the present proceedings, we are concerned with the posts of Assistant Professors in the faculties of (i) Veterinary Anatomy and Histology, and (ii) Animal Reproduction, Gynaecology and Obstetrics. The petitioners/appellants as well as the 3rd respondent in each of these writ appeals applied for the posts of Assistant Professors in pursuance of the above notifications. The 1st respondent-University, after processing the applications and conducting interviews in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules, appointed the third respondent in each of these writ appeals as Assistant Professors in the aforementioned disciplines, and the appellants/petitioners were not selected. In those circumstances, the appellants filed the above writ petitions assailing the validity of the order of the 1st respondent-University appointing the third respondent in each of these writ appeals mainly on the ground that the selected candidates did not possess the National Eligibility Test Certificate (for short, NET), though the possession of that certificate is a mandatory requirement in terms of the Recruitment Rules.

(3.) The 1st respondent-University, opposing the writ petitions, has filed counter affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it was contended that NET is not an essential qualification and that is only a desirable qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. It was also contended that number of persons were appointed as Assistant Professors in various other disciplines in the University, though they did not possess the NET qualification. In the additional counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent-University, it was contended that the prescribed qualifications for appointment to a teaching post in the University are prescribed by the Academic Council, which is the competent authority and that it has decided to keep the options open for making eligible the candidates who are not qualified in the NET examination during 'transition period'; that the 1st respondent-University is guided by the guidelines and instructions issued by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (for short, ICAR) in all academic and technical matters and not by the Rules or Regulations framed or administrative instructions issued by the University Grants Commission (for short, UGC) and that the UGC guidelines will be binding on the 1st respondent-University only if ICAR approves such guidelines.