P CHANDRESEKHAR REDDY Vs. VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed as public interest litigation and raised similar questions of law. Therefore, they are disposed of by common judgment

(2.) The two writ petitions are filed assailing the appointments of the teaching staff in the 1 st respondent-University during the months of August-November, 1992 by an Advocate and Research Associate in the 1st respondent-University respectively and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Articles 14,15 and 16 of the constitution of India and the involvement of the 2nd respondent in the selection of teaching staff is biased, illegal and motivated and the appointments are vitiated, without folio wing the merits of the candidates and selected only candidates without Ph. d. , qualifications even though number of Ph. d. , candidates and even more higher qualification candidates were available in abundance and the consequential vacancies were filled up without advertising the posts. Roster system was not followed i. e. , reservation policy has not been followed and in the notification calling for applications, post-wise reservation is not published. Therefore, the entire selections are vitiated in violation of Articles 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia. It is apparent on the face of the selection that a number of candidates belonging to a particular community were selected and the University laws are not followed while making selection. Thus, the entire selection of candidates to the teaching posts may be quashed by setting aside the appointments. Counters are filed by the respondents denying the allegations made in the writ petitions and stated that the allegations made in the writ petitions are baseless. The respondents have followed the University laws and selections were made by the s election Committee as per the merits of the candidates. The Selection Committee constituted with Heads of Departments, three external members and other Members. Therefore, the contention that the respondents made selections without following the university Laws are not correct. The reservation policy is followed by roster system which is in vogue in Universities since long time and Rule 22 of the A. P. State and subordinate Service Rules was strictly followed in appointing the candidates for the reserved posts. There are no merits in the writ petitions making baseless allegations against the respondents. The petitioners have no locus standi in the service matters and the writ petitions filed as public interest litigation are not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this point itself. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one petitioner is an advocate, who is interested in the welfare of the Society and maintaining the merits of the teaching staff of the University and see that the reservations are strictly followed by maintaining roster system. Therefore, as an advocate, he has got locus standi to bring to the notice of this Court the irregularities committed in the appointments for the teaching staff of the University. The other writ petitioner is a Research Associate of the University. Therefore, his writ petition is maintable.