SHAMAS-UD-DIN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHER -i -Kashmir Institute of Medical Science Srinagar (for short hereafter called as the Institute) invited applications by advertisement No: 5 of August 10,1988 for the post of Professors/ Associate Professor Asstt. Professor and lecturers to be appointed for the Institute in various faculties. One of the faculty relevant for this petition advertised for the posts of professors is in immunology. The petitioner as well as respondent No;8 who were holding the posts of Associate Professors in the department of Immunology in the Institute, also applied for the post of professors. The Apical Selection Committee constituted for the purposes of selection by the Institute includes in it two Expertes from outside the State, who are respondents 3 and 4 in this petition, were also one of the members of the Selection Committee. The selection Committee interviewed the candidates including the petitioner on November 26, 1988 probably after the interviews were taken petitioner became apprehensive of his non -selection giving rise to the present petition, wherein a writ of Certiorari is claimed for quashment of the alleged selection of respondent No:8 on the grounds as projected in the writ petition.

(2.) AFTER notice of show cause to the respondents, the respondents 2 and 8 filed their objections and contested the petition against its admission. It is strongly resisted on the ground that the petition is premature as Selection process is not yet complete and no results have been declared nor the Governing Body of the Institution has yet taken any decision for appointment on the said post. Alongwith the objections filed by the respondent No: 8 attested copies of the affidavits of respondents

(3.) PROFESSOR G P. Talwar and of respondent No 4 Professor Dr. A M MaJavia have also been filed including certain documents showing the comparative merits of the petitioner and respondent No:8 In the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent 3 and 4 they have categorically stated that the interviews taken by them were most objective and judicious to the best of their ability refuting the allegations of bias alleged in the petition against them by the petitioner. 3. Rival arguments were heard at length on the question of admission