MADHVI YASEEN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR, SRINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seek annulment of the order passed by the University of Kashmir, respondent No: 1 herein, appointing respondent No: 6 as Reader in the Post Graduate Department of History in the University of Kashmir.

(2.) ON 6 -11 -1975, respondent No: 1 through its Registrar issued a notice inviting applications for different posts including that of Reader in the Post Graduate Department of History which had fallen vacant in the University of Kashmir, and prescribed therein, the minimum qualifications for such posts. The petitioners as well as respondent No: 6, besides six others applied for the post of Reader in the Department of History. The Selection Committee which was constituted under Section 36 of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the Act." for the selection of candidates, considered the cases of all the applicants and selected respondent No: 6 for the post who was eventually appointed as Reader in the Post Graduate Department of History in the University of Kashmir vide order No: F -4 (RHST -26) ADM/KU dated 23 -2 -1976 issued by respondent No: 1. The petitioners have assailed this order on the grounds: that the Selection Committee for the purpose was not validly constituted, that whereas the petitioners possessed all the statutory qualifications for the post respondent No: 6 did not possess all of them, that the Selection Committee as well as the University Council in selecting and appointing respondent No: 6 did not only over -look the provisions of the Act as well as the statutes made thereunder, but also ignored the superior merit and seniority of the petitioners vis -a -vis respondent No: 6, and that the impugned order malafide and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THE respondents have on the other hand contended: that not only the petitioners but respondent No: 6 too possessed all the statutory qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader, that there was no defect in the constitution of the Selection Committee, that the Selection Committee had re -amended the name of respondent No: 6 after reaching the conclusion that he was best of all the candidates who had applied for the post, that the selection and appointment of respondent No: 6 was made strictly in accordance with the Act and the statutes made thereunder and that the impugned order was neither malafide nor in any manner violative of the principles of natural justice. Respondent No: 6 in addition to these objections has pleaded that petitioner No: 1 being a non -State subject was not entitled to any appointment, much less a promotion, that the petitioners had failed to avail of alternative remedy provided under Section 45 of the Act, that writ in the form of qua -warranto was the only relief which the petitioners could have claimed in the circumstances of the case, that petitioner No: 1 was guilty of suppressieveri, that assuming though not admitting that the constitution of the Selection Committee was ultra vires of the Act, yet the petitioners had clearly waived this objection by appearing before the very said Committee and that, in any case the impugned order could not be challenged as the doctrine of defective exercise of powers was a clear bar to it.