SCHOLARS AND TEACHERS ACTION COMMITTEE Vs. ANDHRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellants here in and another person i.e., the Scholars and Teachers Action Committee (STAC) Andhra University represented by its convenor and four members of the said Action Committee to quash the Andhra University Advertisement No.T.S2/88dated25-10-1988and to set aside all the appointments made pursuant to the said advertisement.

(2.) The Dean of Academic Affairs & Secretary of the Selection Committee, Andhra University, Waltair, the second respondent in the writ petition issued the said advertisement calling for applications for 167 posts of Professors, Readers, Lecturers efc., indifferent faculties of the University. In response to the said advertisement a large number of candidates submitted their applications. Interviews were conducted in July, 1989 and after completing the selections by the Selection Committee, appointments werer made in the month of May, 1990. The writ petition, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed on 13-2-1991. The advertisement and the entire selection made pursuant thereto were challenged in the writ petition on the sole ground that the advertisement did not clearly indicate the number of posts or vacancies reserved for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes etc, either subject-wise or group-wise even though the rule of reservation was applicable for the posts of Lecturers and Readers and the University was bound to observe the roster system and the carry forward rule. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed by the petitioners-appellants on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sureshchandra Verma v. Nagpur University (1) AIR 1990 SC 2023, which laid down that the advertisement or the employment notice for appointment of teaching staff should indicate clearly the number of reserved posts subject-wise and that mere mention in the advertisement of the total number ' of reserved posts would not be sufficient The writ petition, was, in fact, filed after the said judgment ofthe Supreme Court was delivered pn21 -8-1990. On the basis of the said judgment, it was contended that all the appointments made pursuant to the said advertisement are null and void.

(3.) The first respondent-University and the third respondent-Vice Chancellor filed separate counter-affidavits contending inter alia that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition, they have no interest either directly or indirectiy in the subject matter of the writ petition, they have nothing to do with the selections and appointments made pursuant to the said advertisement, that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the affected parties, namely, various persons who were selected and appointed, that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, that the advertisement has been issued strictly in accordance with the University Act, statutes and Regulations which do not require the number of reserved posts to be specified subject-wise or post-wise in the advertisement itself, that the appointments have been made duly following the rule of reservation and the roster system and that there is no illegality whatsoever either in the advertisement or in the selections made pursuant thereto.