B R BAPUJI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 issued an employment notification on 31st May, 1989 calling for applications for various posts including the post of Reader in the Applied Linguistics. Number of candidates filed their applications. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 9 applied for the post. The petitioner was not selected whereas respondent No. 9 was selected and he was eventually appointed as Reader by an order dated 4th December, 1989. This Writ Petition has been filed immediately thereafter and is pending since then. The selection and appointment of respondent No. 9 has been challenged through the medium of this Writ Petition. Mainly the selection and appointment of respondent No, 9 has been challenged on the ground that respondent No. 9 was not eligible to be appointed as Reader in Applied Linguistics in the Centre for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies. It is further stated that the petitioner was eligible and a direction is sought from this Court that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 9 be quashed.

(2.) Before this notification another notification had been issued in May, 1988. After this notification was issued certain candidates applied, according to petitioner respondent No. 9 also applied who was not at all eligible, but the posts were not filled up although certain candidates like one Miss. Usha Devi was eligible. The posts were allowed to remain vacant. So, in pursuance of the advertisement made in the year 1988 no appointments were made and thereafter same posts were notified again after a lapse of one year by the 1st respondent-University vide employment notification No. RECTT/5/89, dated 31st May, 1989. The qualifications stipulated were the same as stipulated in the notification of 1988. In response to 1989 notification the petitioner as well as respondent No. 9 and certain other candidates applied for the post of Reader in Applied Linguistics and eventually respondent No. 9 was selected. Respondents 2 to 8 were the members of the Selection Committee who interviewed the petitioner on 30th November, 1989. The petitioner states that he was interviewed for 45 minutes and he had fared well in the interview, but respondent No. 9 was selected and orders were issued appointing him as Reader on 4/5th December, 1989.

(3.) Before appreciating the controversy a reference has to be made to notification issued in the year 1989. Under serial No. 2, qualifications, experience, areas of specialisations and likely number of vacancies for various faculty positions has been mentioned. The qualifications prescribed for Readers are enumerated as below: "READER