E PAJI REDDY Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein prays for a direction to the 1st Respondent to appoint him to the post of Lecturer in Philosophy after setting aside the selection and appointments of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents.

(2.) After securing a Master's Degree in Philosophy (M.Phil) in the year 1975, the Petitioner did his Ph.D. in the same course during 1979-82. He was conferred Doctorate in Philosophy in the year 1982. In Advertisement No.6/83, the 1st Respondent called for applications before 30.8.83 inter alia for one post of Lecturer in Philosophy. The qualifications prescribed were: (i) A Doctor's Degree or research work of an equally high standard; and (ii) Consistently good academic record with first or high second class (B in the seven point scale) Master's Degree in a relevant subject or an equivalent degree of a foreign University. In response to the above advertisement, 11 persons including the Petitioner applied; 9 persons including the Petitioner were called for interview and eventually 8 candidates including the Petitioner appeared for the interview on 11.5.1984 before the Selection Committee constituted for selecting the candidates. The Selection Committee consisted of the following: (1) Prof. T.Navaneetha Rao, Rector, Osmania University, who is the nominee of the Vice Chancellor of the Osmania University. (2) The Director of Higher Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. (3) The Dean of the concerned Faculty. (4) The Chairman, Board of Studies of the concerned subject. (5) The Head of the concerned Department. (6) The Expert members in the subject concerned. Prof. B.V.Krishnan, Andhra University, Waltair and Prof. G.Nayak,, Utkal University, were appointed as the two Experts to sit on the Selection Committee. Pursuant to the interview of the candidates on 11.5.1984, the Selection Committee recommended the appointment of the following three candidates in the order of preference: (1) Dr.D.Himalayanath (3rd Respondent) (2) Miss G.Padmavathi (4th Respondent) (3) Mr.A.Jagannatham (5th Respondent) Although the advertisement No.6/83 specified only one vacancy of Lecturer in Philosophy, it appears that, on account of the promotion of some Lecturers as Readers etc. two more vacancies arose in the posts of Lecturers in Philosophy and consequently, the Selection Committee selected the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents as above-mentioned for appointment as Lecturers in Philosophy. The Petitioner, not having been selected for appointment, questions in this Writ Petition the appointments of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Sri S.Parvatha Rao, questions the appointment of the three candidates on the following grounds:: (a) The 3rd . Respondent did not have a Doctorate Degree at the time when he made the application. Only on the date of interview, namely 11th May, 1984, he was awarded Ph.D. The academic achievements of the 3rd Respondent are qualitatively inferior to those of the Petitioner; (b) The 4th and 5th Respondents did not possess a Doctorate degree at, all and they have only a Master's Degree in Philosophy (M.Phil.). The qualification required for appointment as Lecturer in Philosophy is a Doctor's Degree or research work of an equally high standard. According to the learned Counsel, M.Phil. cannot be considered as fulfilling the qualification of 'research work of an equally high standard', as the research work qualifying a person for the award of Ph.D. is of an exceptionally high standard and cannot be equated with the research work which qualifies a person for a Post-graduate degree in Philosophy (M.Phil.). Consequently, the Selection Committee was in erroi in selecting the 4th Respondents ignoring the just claims of the Petitioner, who is a Ph.D, and who possesses a higher qualification; and (c) While applications were called fos appointment of only one Lectures in Philosophy, the Selection Committee recommended the appointment of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents for three posts.