TARAKNATH DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the appointment of the respondent No. 9 to the post of the Assistant Registrar of the respondent No. 3.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the respondent No. 3 had published an advertisement for the purpose of appointment of one Assistant Registrar by the advertisement bearing No. RF 0709. Such post was reserved for scheduled caste. The respondent No. 9 had participated in such selection process and was given the appointment to such post by a resolution dated September 17, 2009 passed by the Executive Council of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner had learnt from a letter dated the July 22, 2014 issued by the respondent No. 9 to the Director of the respondent No. 3 admitting that, the respondent No. 9 had secured 49.75% marks in the M.A. examination and that, he did not possess the requisite experience for such post. Subsequent to coming to know of such fact, the petitioner had made a representation dated July 10, 2015. The petitioner had thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Quo Warranto as well as Mandamus and Certiorari.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the qualifications required for the post as published in the advertisement. He has, referring to such qualifications, submitted that, the respondent No. 9 does not have a B+ Masters degree. The respondent No. 9 also does not have at least 5 years experience in a supervisory capacity in a university or in Research Institute. Consequently, the respondent No. 9 could not have been considered for such post. The appointment of the respondent No. 9 should be declared as invalid. Appropriate writ of Quo Warranto to should be issued for such purpose. If a Quo Warranto is found not to be available to the petitioner, then at least a writ of Mandamus and Certiorari as prayed for.