BHAGAVANDAS LAHOTI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the selection of respondents 4 and 5 as the Professors of Philosophy in Osmania University on several grounds: viz., (1) the selection is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the Selection Committee: (2) only one post was advertised and selecting the candidates for two posts is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 18); (3) that in spite of the direction from the Election Commissioner that there should not be any selections during the election process, the selection of respondents 4 and 5 had taken place during that period only. Hence the same is illegal.

(2.) A detailed counter is filed by the second respondent-University and respondent No.5 Respondent No.4 has not filed any counter.

(3.) Regarding the first point, the petitioner contended that the membersof the Selection Committee were influenced by respondents 4 and 5. It is stated in the affidavit that one of the members of the Selection Committee namely, Dr. Sundararamayya, Department of Philosophy, Andhra University, Waltair, who was an external expert, was close to the 4th respondent and that the said Dr. Sundararamayya and the 4th respondent together translated certain text books for the Telugu Academy. Therefore, the presence of Prof. Sundararamayya was an added advantage to the 4th respondent and in these circumstances the selection of the 4th respondent is vitiated by bias. Regarding 5th respondent, it is stated that he had good relations with the Head of the Department viz., Sitarama Reddy and the said Sitarama Reddy was a family friend of the fifth respondent and the husband of the fifth respondent by name Nooruddin Khan got M.Phil, and Ph.D. under the supervision and guidance of Sitarama Reddy. It is further alleged that the husband of the 5th respondent got Ph.D. at the hands of Prof. Sitarama Reddy after his retirement and Prof. Sitaram Reddy conducted viva voce after his retirement, that too in the absence of the petitioner. On this basis it is alleged that Prof. Sitaram Reddy was an added advantage to respondent No.5 in her selection as one of the Professors of Philosophy.