PUKH RAJ PUROHIT Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant by means of this Special Appeal, challenges the order of learned Single Judge dated 22nd July 1982 dismissing his writ petition.

(2.) INITIALLY, in the writ petition, the appellant claimed relief against Inder Raj Singhvi, respondent No. 4; Syndicate, University of Jodhpur, respondent No. 5 and Mrs. Kalyani Shivaraman, respondent No. 6. Before us, the challenge was confined to the appointment of Inder Raj Singhvi, respondent No. 4. The allegation was that respondent No. 4 was selected by a committee constituted contrary to Section 4 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 (Act No. 18 of 1974) as amended by Act No. 24 of 1976. The appellant appeared in the interview held for the post of branch Librarian as well as Deputy Librarian. The post of Deputy Librarian is inferior to that of Branch Librarian. Branch Librarian is an 'officer' within the meaning of S. 2 (iii) of the Raj. Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' which runs as under: - " 'officer' means the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Assistant Registrar, the Librarian of a University and, includes any other officer by whatever name designated and, declared by the Statute to be an Officer of that University. "

(3.) WE have no difficulty in accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the post of a Branch Librarian falls within the definition of. the word 'officer' given in S. 2 (iii) of the Act, but we find ourselves unable to interfere with the present appeal on this ground. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Mohan Swaroop Maheshwari was not competent to become a member of the 'selection Committee' as he was not an expert in the Library Science, is not tenable. From the record we find that Sri Maheshwari was a lecturer in the Department of physics, University of Jodhpur. In the absence of any provision in the Act or the Statute laying down the qualifications of experts, who could participate in the interview, it is not possible for us to find him unqualified to participate in the aforesaid interview and on that basis, the selection of respondent no. 4 cannot be quashed.