B RAGHAVENDRA RAO Vs. J D GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two Writ Appeals. Writ Appeal No. 5 of 1993 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10089 of 1989. Writ Appeal No. 79 of 1993 is directed against the order of the very same learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9318 of 1989. We will first settle the nomenclature to be assigned to the parties, while we refer to them in the course of this judgment of ours. There are four petitioners in W.P.No. 9318 of 1989. They are respondents 1 to 4 in Writ Appeal No. 79 of 1993. There is a single petitioner in W.P.No. 10089 of 1989 and he is the first respondent in Writ Appeal No. 5 of 1993. The petitioners in both the writ petitions go together, and for the sake of convenience they can be called as "non-selectees". The first respondent in W.P.No. 9318 of 1989 and the 6th respondent in W.P.No. 10089 of 1989 is the Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad, and we shall refer to him as "Vice-Chancellor". The 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 9318 of 1989 is the Registrar of Osmania University, Hyderabad. The first respondent in Writ Petition No. 10089 of 1989 is the Osmania University, Hyderabad, represented by its Registrar. We shall refer to these parties as "the University". Respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.NO. 9318 of 1989 and respondents 2 to 5 in W.P.No. 10089 of 1989 are one and the same parties, and we shall refer to them as "selectees". The 7th respondent in W.P.No. 10089 of 1989 is the Selection Committee of the University, and we shall refer to it as "the Selection Committee". The selectees have filed these two Writ Appeals against the orders of the learned single Judge, and apart from the non-selectees, the Vice-Chancellor, the University and the Selection Committee have been made respondents in these two Writ Appeals.

(2.) Now we come to the controversy, which we are being called upon to resolve in these two writ appeals. For such a resolution it becomes incumbent upon us to trace the facts of the case which are common to both the writ appeals. Initially we must state that the controversy centres around the selection to the post of Professor in Zoology in the University, and that post shall hereinafter be referred to as "the post", if occasion therefor arises. On 31-8-1987 one vacancy in the post arose. On 11-2-1988 Advertisement No. 2/88 for filling up the post was made. The qualifications for the post are as follows:

(3.) With regard to the power of the University to increase the number of posts, in view of the note to the advertisement which we have extracted as above, we are not able to agree with the learned single Judge when he opined that the advertisement did not contemplate the University increasing the number of posts. Equally so, with regard to the power of the University to increase the posts, on going through the pleadings put forth by the non-selectees by way of affidavits in support of their writ petitions, we are not able to spell out any specific contention advanced by them that such power was not available for the University. Further more, the very advertisement by way of the Note extracted above, declared that the University reserved the right to itself to increase the number of posts. That declaration was not demurred by the non-selectees and, on the other hand, they did participate fully conscious of the power reserved in the Note to the advertisement for the University to increase the number of posts.