C MURALIKRISHNA Vs. TELUGU UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful writ petitioners in WP No.11252 of 1996 have filed this writ appeal assailing the validity of the order of the learned single Judge dated 13-4-1997 made in the said writ petition. The petitioners filed the above writ petition questioning the action of the 1st respondent-Telugu University, in issuing the proceedings No.TU/Admn./II/96, dated 22-3-1996 appointing the 3rd respondent as Deputy Librarian. The dispute relates to the appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Deputy Librarian in the 1st respondent-University. The background facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal be noted briefly as under.

(2.) The 1st respondent-University issued notifications on 11-9-1993 and 2-4-1994 calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Deputy Librarian and Assistant Librarian. The petitioners and Mr. M. Ramchander, the 3rd respondent herein applied for the post of Deputy Librarian. The 3rd respondent was appointed as Deputy Librarian on 22-3-1996. Assailing his appointment, the petitioners filed WP No.11252 of 1996 in the month of May, 1996. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have contended that the 3rd respondent is not eligible for appointment even to the post of Assistant Librarian as he does not possess National Eligibility Test (NET) Certificate, which is a pre-requisite for appointment to the post of Assistant University Librarian/ College Librarian, and that the 3rd respondent also lacks 8 years experience as Assistant University Librarian/College Librarian. The writ petition was opposed by the 1st respondent-University by filing counter-affidavit. In the counter filed by it, the respondent-University has contended that the 3rd respondent is eligible to be appointed for the post of Deputy Librarian and he was selected by a Selection Committee, which consisted of experts and that the 25 years of service of the 3rd respondent as Librarian in NISIET is higher than the experience of Assistant University Librarian/College Librarian. It is also contended that the 1st petitioner was neither qualified for the post of Deputy Librarian nor was a candidate for that post. It was claimed that the 1st petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer in Library Science only and therefore, he did not have any locus standi to question the appointment of 3rd respondent. As regards petitioners 2 and 3, it is contended that they did not come upto the mark in the selection for the post of Deputy Librarian and, therefore, their candidature were rejected. It is also contended that the Selection Committee consisted of experts and pioneers in the field of Library Science and, therefore, the selection made by them cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly since no mala fide is attributed to the members of the Selection Committee by the petitioners. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the writ petition by the order under appeal. What weighed with the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition as reflected in the judgment itself is the following:

(3.) Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners, assailing the validity of the order of the learned single Judge impugned in this writ appeal, would, at the threshold, contend that the learned single Judge has failed to see that in appointing the 3rd respondent as the Deputy Librarian, the 1st respondent-University has committed infraction of the statute inasmuch as it appointed him as Deputy Librarian despite the fact that he lacked essential prescribed qualifications. The learned Counsel would point out that the 3rd respondent is not even eligible for the post of Assistant Librarian which is the feeder cadre to the cadre of Deputy Librarian, because, he does not possess NET Certificate, which is a pre-requisite for appointment to the post of Assistant University Librarian/College Librarian. The learned Counsel would also contend that the 3rd respondent docs not possess one year specialized diploma in the area of Information Technology/Archives and manuscript keeping or Master's Degree in area of thrust in the institution and eight years experience as Assistant University Librarian/College Librarian which are also essential qualifications one should possess for appointment to the post of Deputy Librarian. Since, admittedly, the 3rd respondent does not possess the prescribed qualifications, whatever be the subjective satisfaction or opinion of the Selection Committee about the assumed expertise and competency of the 3rd respondent, the learned Counsel would contend, that could not be a valid ground for appointing the 3rd respondent as Deputy Librarian in breach of the statutory rules. The learned Counsel would further contend that it is not necessary that the selection of a candidate for public appointment could be assailed successfully only on the ground of mala fide and not on other grounds. The learned Counsel would further contend that it is not the case of the petitioners that the selection of the 3rd respondent was vitiated on account of mala fides attributable to any of the members of the Selection Committee and the basis of the writ petition is that the 3rd respondent does not possess the prescribed qualifications and therefore, he is not eligible to be considered and appointed to the post of Deputy Librarian and this precise case put forth by the petitioners in the affidavit and highlighted at the time of argument is completely lost sight of by the learned single Judge. The learned Counsel would also contend that the learned single Judge has not considered at all several other contentions raised in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that the expert opinion of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with by the Court in the absence of any mala fide attributed to the members of the Selection Committee.