UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD Vs. D PERVEZ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the words ".........must have obtained on an average of 50% marks in two public examinations/degrees immediately preceding the Master's Degree" means the average of the marks obtained in Intermediate and Degree conjointly or the meaning of the phrase is that the candidate should get 50% of marks in Intermediate as well as 50% of marks in Degree is the question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal. The learned Single Judge held that the average marks in Intermediate and the average marks in Degree should be combined and the average of the two should be arrived at and that if the combined average of the two examinations is above 50%, such a person would be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor. Contending that the applicant who secured minimum of 50% in Intermediate as well as minimum of 50% in Degree and not 50% of the combined average, the University preferred the present appeal. The University advertised on 1.1.2010 for various faculty positions including the post of Assistant Professor in Urdu. Five posts were advertised out of which, one post was reserved for the Scheduled Castes and one post was reserved for other Backward Classes Category. The 1st respondent applied for the post. As he was not called for the interview on the ground that he was not qualified, he preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare that the rejection of the application of the 1st respondent was illegal and for a consequential direction to the appellants to appoint the 1st respondent as Assistant Professor in Department of Urdu.

(2.) The appellants, who are the respondents 3 to 5, filed counter opposing the writ petition. The appellants contended that 135 applications were received for the post of Assistant Professor in Urdu and that the University considered it appropriate to call 30 candidates for interview at 1:6 ratio. The University further pointed out that the 1st respondent did not secure minimum requirement of 50% of marks in Intermediate and 50% of marks in Degree, so much so, the 1st respondent was not called for the interview. The appellants thus contend that the 1st respondent was not qualified and the claim of the 1st respondent is not sustainable.

(3.) The whole case revolves round the interpretation of clause 3.3.1 Paras 2 and 3.3.1 Note (4). For the purpose of clarity clause 3.3.1 is quoted: