INDU BUSHAN SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pleadings in this petition, undoubtedly suffer from an unprovoked evil of verbosity, when the short question that awaits the verdict of the court is whether or not the respondents were justified in not permitting the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee, which was constituted for the purpose of filling a post of lecturer in Inorganic/Analytical Chemistry in the University of Jammu. The briefs facts are:

(2.) THE Registrar, Jammu University, on Nov. 17, 1977, advertised a post of lecturer in Inorganic/Analytical Chemistry. The petitioner, who is M. Sc., in Physical Chemistry, and has also got a Doctorate in Solid State Chemistry, considering himself eligible for the post, also applied for the same. The post had to be filled on the recommendation of a Selection Committee, constituted for the purposes of judging the comparative merit of different aspirants after holding an interview, but the petitioner was stopped at the threshhold and the doors of interview slammed on him. Some candidates were interviewed by the members of the Selection Committee, whose choice, it appears, ultimately fell upon one Dr. Satya Prakash Arya. The petitioner is aggrieved of this act of the respondents, as according to him, they have by doing so, clearly discriminated him vis -a -vis the candidates allowed to be interview by the Selection Committee, and thereby unjustifiably and malafide taken away his fundamental right of being considered for the post. The edifice of his claim to the post rests upon two pillars. One, that he having already been selected by the Selection Committee for the post of a lecturer in Physical Chemistry, which includes Analytical Chemistry and appointed on the post in a leave arrangement, which he was still holding, had a prior right to be absorbed permanently, as had been done earlier in the case of Dr. N. Kumar, and Dr. P. L. Kachru, and there was no - need to call for fresh applications for the post presently fallen vacant, and two, that even otherwise too, he was fully competent to be appointed on the post being M. Sc. in Physical Chemistry, and PhD in Solid State Chemistry, as Physical Chemistry also included the subject of Analytical Chemistry and Solid State Chemistry included the subject of Inorganic Chemistry, which he had in fact been teaching for the last two years. Here again, he has quoted an earlier instance of Dr. Puran Chand Kalsi, who being M. Sc in Physical Chemistry, was appointed as a lecturer in Inorganic Chemistry. To prove his earlier appointment, he has referred to Resolution No: 56 dated 26 -8 -1976, and has also relied upon the recommendation of his acting Head of the Department, Dr. Bassi, to prove his merit and eligibility, which is to the effect that he is competent to teach Analytical/Physical Inorganic Chemistry. In the premises, he has prayed that either a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to confirm him on the permanent vacancy of lecturer in Inorganic/ Analytical Chemistry in preference to others without making any further selection, or the selection held at his back be quashed by a writ of certiorari.

(3.) THE stand taken by the respondents, en the other hand is, that Chemistry has - four distinct branches, namely, Organic Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry. The petitioner is M. Sc. in Physical Chemistry a subject different from Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry. Even though, according to them ,these four branches over -lap each other in a narrow field, yet, Ëœwhat was required as the minimum qualification for the post advertised was specialisation in the particular branch, which the petitioner did not possess, being PhD neither in Inorganic Chemistry nor in Analytical Chemistry, but only in Solid State Chemistry. The petitioner, according to the respondents, was temporarily appointed as a lecturer in Physical Chemistry in a leave arrangement, and this did not give him a right to be appointed permanently on a new vacancy, without the post being advertised, and the candidates interviewed by the Selection Committee. They have further alleged, that on the advice of the Public Service Commission, as well as the University Grants Commission, the practice of appointing permanently on a new post, persons who had been earlier appointed temporarily on tire recommendation of the Selection Committee, without advertising the new post and holding fresh interviews has since been abandoned. They have questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds, that no right, constitutional or legal, of the petitioner was involved, nor was the decision of the respondents, which according to them, was an academic one, justifiable, adding further, that disallowing the petitioner from appearing before the Selection Committee, was neither mala fide nor discriminatory and that Dr. Satya Prakash who has been recommended by -the Selection Committee and also approved by the Syndicate was a necessary party to the writ petition.