LAWS(APH)-1992-9-20

S B DWARAKANATH Vs. R DILIP KUMAR

Decided On September 29, 1992
S.B.DWARAKANATH Appellant
V/S
R.DILIP KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the judgment of our learned brother Upendralal Waghray, J., in Writ Petition No. 1677/1990. Appeal No.854/91 is filed by the 8th respondent: Appeal No.864/91 is filed by petitioners 1 to 3; and Appeal No.977/91 is filed by respondent No.2. We will refer to the parties in the order as they were arrayed in the Writ Petition.

(2.) In Writ Petition No.1677/90 petitioners challenged the appointment of respondents 8 to 13 as Lecturers in Law Colleges of Osmania University. Respondents 1 and 2 were the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University respectively. The 1st respondent was impleaded by his name as the 5th respondent in his capacity as the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Respondents 6 and 7 were the Principals of the University College of Law and Post Graduate College of Law respectively under the University. Secretary to Government, Education (UE) Departmentand Secretary of the University Grants Commission were respondents 3 and 4. By his Judgment dated 25-6-1991, the learned single judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the appointment of respondent No.8, since he had not acquired the qualification necessary for appointment on the date of the advertisement. Even though he found that the appointments of respondents 9 to 13 were also irregular, he refused to grant relief for four reasons viz., that - 1. The petitioners had made reckless allegations against the Vice- Chancellor without verifying the facts: 2. that the petitioners' rankings were lower than those of the respondents: 3. that respondents 9 to 13 had given up posts held by them earlier: 4. that the courts should be slow to interfere with the action of academic bodies like universities. Petitioners submit that the learned single Judge should not have dismissed the Writ Petition on assumptions which were contrary to the record. They submit that having found the entire process of selection totally irregular and improper, the learned single judge should not have upheld the selection and appointment of respondents 9 to 13 for reasons, which according to them, were totally extraneous. Having found that the process of selection was defective, counsel submits that the rankings or the marks awarded by the selection committee ought not to have been taken into account in refusing relief to the petitioners. In his appeal (No.854/91) the 8th respondent submits that the finding against him that he was not qualified is illegal, since he had acquired the necessary qualification before the date of interview. Writ Appeal No.977/91 is directed against the observations contained in the judgment relating to the conduct of the process of selection.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition and the present appeals are the following: Osmania University (2nd respondent) issued Advertisement No.2/88 dated 11-2-1988 inviting applications for appointment of teachers in various departments including one post of Lecturer in law. Later, by Advertisement No.3/89 dated 6-7-89, the 2nd respondent invited applications for appointment of teaching staff in various departments including six posts of Lecturers in law. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion which was as follows: "Post Nq.20 - Lecturer in Law (VII Plan) At least a high Second Class Masters' Degree in Law with not less than 55% marks in the aggfegate from an Indian University or an examination recognised as equivalent thereto from any other recognised University, Specialisations: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_24_ALT3_1993Html1.htm</FRM> The candidates were interviewed on 13-11-1989 by a Committee consisting of the 5th respondent, a nominee of the UGC,3 Expert Members, the Chairman of the Board of Studies - Osmania University, and the Head of the Department of Law of the Osmania University respectively. Petitioners, respondents 8 to 13 and others appeared for the interview. In the award list which was published, respondents 8 to 13 were selected for appointment, whereas the petitioners were not The learned single judge had found that over 50 candidates were interviewed in about four hours on a single day, each candidate having been interviewed hardly for a few minutes. He also found that the award list indicated mat out of 100 marks, 25 were given on the basis of qualifications, 25 on the basis of experience (15 for teaching and 10 for research) and 50 for the performance in the interview. The criteria for awarding marks for qualification and teaching experience were indicated in the award list and there was serious dispute about the adoption of the award list in respect of departments other than law. We may have have to deal with this aspect later. The award list also indicated that the fate of the candidates was decided largely by the awardof marks in the interview, some of the successful candidates having been awarded as much as 47 out of 50. Petitioners submit mat the award of 50 marks for interview without prescribing any guidelines for award of those marks, resulted in arbitrariness in eliminating and selecting candidates. They assert that the choice of the respondents indiscriminately, without reference to qualifications and other guidelines, had resulted in arbitrary exclusion of the petitioners in spiteof better entitlement and equipment for selection. Counsel for the petitioners submit that all norms were violated by the Committee in its deliberations and in the resultant selection of candidates.