KASIREDDY VENKATREDDY Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a lecturer in Telugu working in the College of Arts and Science, Kamareddy. The petitioner applied for the post of a lecturer in the Faculty of Arts in pursuance of an advertisement No. 9/83, dated 20/10/1983 issued by the 1st respondent, the Osmania University. He paid the necessary prescribed fee and also appeared for the interview on 9/03/1984. The authorities selected the 3rd respondent also in the interview who is said to be one of the applicants for the post and petitioner was put in the rank No. 2 and respondent No. 3 was put in the first rank in the selection list. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of appointment of the 3rd respondent mainly on the ground that he did not apply in pursuance of the advertisement mentioned above before 14/11/1983 which is admittedly the last date for submitting the applications for the appointment of the above post. It is also urged that 3rd respondent did not qualify himself to the post by 14/11/1983.

(2.) The fact that the 3rd respondent did not apply for the said post before 1 4/11/1983 is not disputed by the respondent-authorities. But what was urged was that the 3rd respondent applied to the post of lecturer in pursuance of earlier advertisement No. 6/83 and hence the authorities have got power to consider his candidature even though he did not apply in pursuance of this advertisement. It is also admitted that the 3rd respondent did not qualify himself as Phd. candidate as he admittedly obtained his degree on 6/03/1984 i.e. just three days before the interview. It is also not in dispute that the advertisement No. 9/83 did state that the persons who have already applied need not apply afresh. It is no doubt true that one of the qualifications mentioned in Phd. or Research work of equally high standard. The 3rd respondent was served with notice but he did not file any counter affidavit stating that he possessed superior qualifications which is equivalent to Phd. It is difficult to accept that the authorities would have selected them if he does not possess the Phd. degree. However without going into that question it is enough if I hold that once admittedly he has not applied in the prescribed form within the time stipulated in the advertised viz., 14/11/1983 the authorities cannot consider his candidature and select him by taking private communications or applications un-connected with this advertisement.

(3.) Now it is well settled that the University is a State within the meaning of the Constitution of India and they are bound to discharge the statutory functions reasonably, bona fide and without negligence. The process of selection involves discharging not only statutory function but also a public function in respect of which citizens should have full confidence in the activities of the authorities. The Selecting Authority should not adopt ad hoc methods and justify their condition on different reasons not present at the time of selection. The process of selection is a solemn function enjoined on the authorities and it must be discharged strictly as a public relation exercise by the statutory authority.