WA/99/1999 of Dr.B.R.Bapuji Vs Registrar on 27 December 2004

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-12-1998 inW.P.No.17628 of 1989, whereby the learned single Judge directed the ViceChancellor of the respondent-University to appoint a Committee of atleast threeexperts who could examine as to whether the Diploma which R9 possessed was infact equivalent to Masters Degree in Applied Linguistics or not?

2. The core issue in the Writ Petition rages around the legality of the selection ofReader in Centre for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies by University ofHyderabad (Central University), Hyderabad. The writ appellant is the writ petitionerin W.P.No.17628 of 1989. He filed the writ petition seeking the following relief:

“ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Honourable Courtmay be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ especially one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining tothe respondent No.1 order No.UH/R/Rect/89/T/706, dated 4.12.1989in appointing the respondent No.9 to the post of Reader in Appliedmay be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ especially one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining tothe respondent No.1 order No.UH/R/Rect/89/T/706, dated 4.12.1989in appointing the respondent No.9 to the post of Reader in Applied Linguistics based on the recommendation of the Selection Committeeconsisting of respondent Nos.2 to 8 and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution ofIndia besides being violative of principles of natural justice and passsuch further or other orders as the Honourable Court may be pleasedto deem fit and proper.”

3. The facts giving rise to filing of this Writ Appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

The University of Hyderabad issued an employment notification in May 1988 callingfor applications for the post of (1) Reader in Applied Linguistics and (2) Reader inTranslation studies in Centre for Applied Linguistic and Translation Studies. R1 wasone of the applicants applied for the post of Reader in Applied Linguistics. Nonewas selected to the post of Reader in Applied Linguistics Department and theselection committee allowed the post to remain vacant. For the very same post,another notification was given on 31.5.1989. Pursuant to the notification number ofapplicants responded. The petitioner and R9 were among them who responded tothe notification-dated 31.5.1989. The selection committee consisting of R2 to R8interviewed the candidates and selected R9 to the post of Reader in AppliedLinguistics. R1-University issued appointment order No.UH/R/Rect/89/T/706 dated4/5-12-1989. The petitioner who is an unsuccessful candidate filed writ petitionquestioning the selection of R9 to the post of Reader in Applied Linguistics on theground that R9 was ineligible to apply to the notified post. It is averred in the affidavitfiled in support of the writ petition that R9 had no prescribed qualification andteaching experience as on the date of notification and thus he was ineligible to beconsidered to the post of Reader in Applied Linguistics. R1 and R9 filed countersresisting the writ petition. It is the case of R9 that he possessed post M.A. Diplomaand Advanced Diploma in Linguistics which are equivalent to Masters Degree inLinguistics and that he possessed requisite number of years of teaching experienceas on the date of interview and thus he satisfied the prescribed qualifications in thenotification. The learned single Judge having noticed that R9 lacks requisite numberof years of experience as on the date of notification did not choose to quash theselection on the basis of pure equities. We deem it appropriate to refer the relevantportion of the impugned judgment and it reads as under:

“ So, in the present case also almost ten years have passed after the selectionhad been made. Therefore, following the decision of the SupremeCourt, although holding that the respondent No.9 had not been eligibleon the crucial date and he should not have been considered at all forselection, I am of the view that it will be harsh on respondent No.9 if hisselection and consequential appointment is quashed after ten years.Had he not been selected or considered for appointment, perhaps hewould have been considered or even selected in subsequentselections, but in between he has lost ten years. Therefore, though Iagree that the arguments made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, yet the selection cannot be quashed on the basis of pureequities.”had been made. Therefore, following the decision of the SupremeCourt, although holding that the respondent No.9 had not been eligibleon the crucial date and he should not have been considered at all forselection, I am of the view that it will be harsh on respondent No.9 if hisselection and consequential appointment is quashed after ten years.Had he not been selected or considered for appointment, perhaps hewould have been considered or even selected in subsequentselections, but in between he has lost ten years. Therefore, though Iagree that the arguments made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, yet the selection cannot be quashed on the basis of pureequities.”

4. With regard to the second objection, which has been taken by the petitioner as tothe educational qualification, the learned single Judge directed the Vice Chancellorof 1[st] respondent-University to appoint a committee to consider whether thediplomas which R9 possessed were in fact equivalent to Masters Degree or not. Wedeem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the impugned judgment and it isthus:

“ Therefore, I direct the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University to appoint acommittee of atleast three experts who would examine whether thediplomas which the respondent No.9 possessed were in factequivalent to Master’s degree or not. After the report is submitted bythe Committee, which should be obtained within a period of one monthafter its appointment by the Vice Chancellor, the Vice Chancellorshould act on the basis of the recommendation made by the saidcommittee. If the Committee comes to the conclusion that thequalifications possessed by respondent No.9 were not equivalent tothe M.A. in Applied Linguistics, the services of respondent No.9 shallbe terminated. However, if they come to the conclusion that thequalifications possessed by respondent No.9 were equivalent to theMaster’s degree in applied Linguistics his appointment shall stand.committee of atleast three experts who would examine whether thediplomas which the respondent No.9 possessed were in factequivalent to Master’s degree or not. After the report is submitted bythe Committee, which should be obtained within a period of one monthafter its appointment by the Vice Chancellor, the Vice Chancellorshould act on the basis of the recommendation made by the saidcommittee. If the Committee comes to the conclusion that thequalifications possessed by respondent No.9 were not equivalent tothe M.A. in Applied Linguistics, the services of respondent No.9 shallbe terminated. However, if they come to the conclusion that thequalifications possessed by respondent No.9 were equivalent to theMaster’s degree in applied Linguistics his appointment shall stand.

Before departing with the case, I would like to give following directionto the respondent University authorities so that in future there are nosuch controversies:

a. It should be specified in the advertising notice that thecandidates should possess the qualification on the date whenthe applications are received.candidates should possess the qualification on the date whenthe applications are received.

b. In case a qualification is laid down as eligibility for a post and there is other equivalent qualification to that qualification, thatshould be specified in the advertisement itself so that no personwho has an equivalent qualification can be deprived ofcompeting for the post and no person gets a benefit who has nobasic qualification but even then claims that he had anequivalent qualification.

With these observations this petition is disposed of.”

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submits that the learnedsingle Judge having held that R9 lacked the basic educational qualification gravelyerred in directing the Vice Chancellor to appoint a committee of experts to considerwhether the diplomas possessed by R9 are equivalent to M.A. in AppliedLinguistics. It is his further submission that R9 had no requisite teaching experienceby the last date of receiving applications and therefore he should not have beenconsidered at all for selection. He would also contend that continuance of R9 fornumber of years will not create any equity in his favour and would not get anysanctity and that any lenient view taken on the facts of the present case in favour ofR9, it would be putting a premium on dishonesty and fraudulent practice. In supportof his submissions he placed reliance on a large number of decisions of SupremeCourt and this Court and they are:

1. J.P.KULSHRESHTHA V. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

2. DISTT. COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN, VIZIANAGARAM SWRSSOCIETY v. M.TRIPURA SUNDARI DEVISOCIETY v. M.TRIPURA SUNDARI DEVI

3. REKHA CHATURVEDI V. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

4. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA V. CHANDER SHEKHAR

5. BHUPINDERPAL SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

6. K.SHEKAR V. INDIRAMMA

7. RAJENDRA PRASAD v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

8. NAGESHWARAMMA V. STATE OF A.P

9. A.P.CHRISTIANS MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY V.

10. S.B.DWARAKANATH V. R.DILIP KUMAR

11. ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEESASSOCIATION V. ADITYA PRATAP BHANJ DEV

12. N.B.RAMESH V. B.KRISHNA REDDY

6. In J.P.KULSHRESHTHA V. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY, the Supreme Court heldthat while there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitateto dislodge decisions of academic bodies. If the Chancellor or any other authoritylesser in level decides an academic matter or an educational question, the courtkeeps its hands off, but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it isnot fair to keep the court out.

7. In DISTT. COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN, VIZIANAGARAM SWRS SOCIETY v.M.TRIPURA SUNDARI DEVI, the Supreme Court held that when an advertisementmentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of thesame, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointeeconcerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualificationsthan the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because theydid not possesses the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to afraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstancesunless it is clearly stated that the qualifications in such circumstances be a party tothe perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.

8. REKHA CHATURVEDI V. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN, the Supreme Courtheld that in absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notificationinviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should bejudged, the only certain date for scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date formaking the applications. When the Selection committee took into consideration therequisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date ofpreferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself theselections in question are liable to be quashed. It is useful to refer para 10 of the cited judgment and it is thus:

“ THE contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should beexamined with reference to the date of selection and not with referenceto the last date for making applications has only to be stated to berejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence ofknowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts wouldbe unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question ornot, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless theadvertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which thequalifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection orotherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do notpossess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to makeapplications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to acontrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not havethe qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at anuncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the numberof applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it mayleave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be sofixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others,arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in theadvertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to whichthe requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for thescrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making theapplications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when theSelection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri ManojSwarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on thedate of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, itacted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections inquestion are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection mayalso be made to two recent decisions of this court in A.P. public servicecommission, Hyderabad v. B. Sarat Chandra and District Collector &Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society,Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi .”

9. In ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA V. CHANDER SHEKHAR the Supreme Courtwhile reviewing the earlier decision held that the majority opinion in ASHOKKUMAR SHARMA’s case is unsustainable and amounted to a clear error in lawapparent on the face of the record. The majority view in the earlier decision was thatin as much as 33 respondents (appellants before them) were qualified by the date ofinterview though not by the date of advertisement inviting the applications there wasno illegality in allowing them to appear for the interview. The Supreme Courtreviewing the earlier decision accepted the minority view by judgment dated 10-3-1997 and held as follows:

“ 6. THE review petitions came up for final hearing on 3/3/1997. We heardthe learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu& Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issuereferred to in our Order dated 1/9/1995 is concerned, we are of therespectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr T.K.Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. Theproposition that where applications are called for prescribing aparticular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility ofthe candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date andthat date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires theprescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot beconsidered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/publishedcalling for applications constitutes a representation to the public andthe authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot actcontrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it wereknown that persons who obtained the qualifications after theprescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed toappear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could alsohave applied. Just because some of the persons had appliednotwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualificationsby the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on apreferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at theinception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was notdoubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also theproposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan.The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority wasable to get the best talent available and that such course was infurtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissiblejustification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and anerror apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J.(and the division bench of the High court) was right in holding that the33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for theinterview.”the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu& Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issuereferred to in our Order dated 1/9/1995 is concerned, we are of therespectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr T.K.Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. Theproposition that where applications are called for prescribing aparticular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility ofthe candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date andthat date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires theprescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot beconsidered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/publishedcalling for applications constitutes a representation to the public andthe authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot actcontrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it wereknown that persons who obtained the qualifications after theprescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed toappear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could alsohave applied. Just because some of the persons had appliednotwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualificationsby the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on apreferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at theinception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was notdoubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also theproposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v

. It cannot actcontrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it wereknown that persons who obtained the qualifications after theprescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed toappear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could alsohave applied. Just because some of the persons had appliednotwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualificationsby the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on apreferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at theinception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was notdoubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also theproposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan.The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority wasable to get the best talent available and that such course was infurtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissiblejustification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and anerror apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J.(and the division bench of the High court) was right in holding that the33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for theinterview.”

10. In BHUPINDERPAL SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB the Supreme Court heldthat the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfiedby the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevantservice rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date asmay be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; and ifthere is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied byreference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received

11. In K.SHEKAR V. INDIRAMMA, the Supreme Court held that the clause in theadvertisement enabling selection committee to recommend candidate for lower postthan the post applied for does not empower the committee to make appointment onunadvertised post.

12. In UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, the Supreme Court held that by committingfraud any employment is obtained, such a fraudulent practice cannot be permitted tobe countenanced by a court of law.

13. In RAJENDRA PRASAD v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, the Supreme Courtheld that it is for each University to decide the question of equivalence ofexaminations and it would not be right for the Supreme Court to sit in judgment overthe decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Courtpossesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether anyexamination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examinationheld within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality ofteaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic questionin which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University.

14. In NAGESHWARAMMA V. STATE OF A.P, the Supreme Court held that thestudents who have undergone training in private teacher training institutesestablished without permission cannot be permitted to appear at the examinationsunder Art.32 or 226 of the Constitution. These institutions were established and thestudents were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued bythe Government. If by a fiat of the Court the Government is directed to permit them toappear at the examination Court will practically be encouraging and condoning theestablishment of unauthorized institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction ofthe Court either under Art.32 of the Constitution or Art.226 should be frittered awayfor such a purpose. The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children ofimpressionable age and Court cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children,teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certainminimum period in a properly organized and equipped Training Institute is probablyessential before a teacher may be duly launched.

15. A.P.CHRISTIANS MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY V. GOVERNMENT OFA.P, the Supreme Court held that the court cannot issue direction to the University toprotect the interests of the students who had been admitted to the medical college asthat would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and theregulations of the University. The Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and theregulations made by the University itself. That would be destructive of the rule oflaw.

16. In S.B.DWARAKANATH V. R.DILIP KUMAR, this High Court held that in theabsence of cut off date specified in advertisement as to acquiring of prescribedqualifications, last date of receipt of applications be taken as relevant date forascertaining eligibility for selection and appointment.

17. In ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED TRIBES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONV. ADITYA PRATAP BHANJ DEV our High Court held that delay in filing writpetition is not a ground to allow appointment obtained by fraud to be enjoyed andthat the court cannot allow any fraud to perpetuate itself any longer.

18. In N.B.RAMESH V. B.KRISHNA REDDY, our High Court held that makingappointments contrary to the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement or therecruitment rules particularly by the authorities which are instrumental of the Stateshall not be appreciated as it amounts to playing fraud on the public.

19. In CENTRAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR UNANI MEDICINE NON-GAZETTED EMPLOYEES UNION v. UNION OF INDIA, (W.P.No.8061 of 1991disposed of on 10-8-1999), this Court held that when an advertisement mentions aparticular qualification and an appointment is made with regard to the same, it is nota matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned.Making appointment contrary to the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement orthe recruitment rules particularly by the authorities who are the instrumentalities ofthe State cannot be appreciated as it amounts to playing fraud on the public. Whileinterfering with the selection made in the year 1991 it was observed as follows:

“It is true that the selections and appointments were made in the year 1991and the selected candidates including the 5[th] respondent are functioning intheir respective posts. But the petitioner immediately approached this Courtinvoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution ofIndia. The petitioners cannot be blamed if the writ petition could not bedisposed of within a reasonable time. This court however, at the time ofadmission passed an interim order directing the selection already made tobe subject to the result of the writ petition. Refusal to interfere by this Courtwould amount to perpetuating fraud and illegality.

For the aforesaid reasons, the selection and appointment of the 5[th]respondent alone as the Research Officer (Chemistry) is set aside. The 6[th]respondent center shall issue a fresh notification for selection andrecruitment in the resultant vacancies. The norms for selection andappointment shall be notified by the 6[th] respondent for the benefit of alleligible candidates. Required criteria shall be evolved to ensure equality ofopportunity to all the eligible candidates.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs quantified at Rs.2000/-.”

20. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for R1-University submits that as on thedate of scrutiny of the applications, the law prevailed was that the date of interviewwas the relevant date to consider whether the applicants had requisite qualificationand experience and therefore R1-University could not be found fault basing on thesubsequent change of law that the last date of receipt of applications was therelevant date to consider the eligibility of the applicant. In support of his submissionhe placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in ASHOK KUMAR SHARMAVs. CHANDER SHEKHER. The question fell for consideration in the above referreddecision is whether or not candidates who are fully qualified to be appointed as junior Engineer on the date of interview, but whose results have not been declaredon the date of submission of their applications were entitled to be considered forappointment to the post of Junior Engineer. The above question has been answeredin the affirmative in para 15 of the judgment which reads as follows:

“ THE fact is that the appellants did pass the examination and were fully qualifiedfor being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing theappellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis oftheir comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get thebest talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that theinterview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis ofqualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus basedon sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. Itwas in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualifiedon the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that theresults of the examination in which they had appeared had beendelayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on thedates of the interview and taking into account the generally followedprinciple of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinionthat the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the divisionbench was incorrect and the view expressed by the learned SingleJudge was, on the facts of this case, the correct view. Accordingly, weset aside the impugned judgment of the division bench and restore thatof the learned Single Judge. In the result, we uphold the resultsannounced by the recruiting authority. The appeal is allowed in theabove terms. However, we make no order as to costs.”for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing theappellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis oftheir comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get thebest talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that theinterview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis ofqualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus basedon sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. Itwas in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualifiedon the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that theresults of the examination in which they had appeared had beendelayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on thedates of the interview and taking into account the generally followedprinciple of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinionthat the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the divisionbench was incorrect and the view expressed by the learned SingleJudge was, on the facts of this case, the correct view. Accordingly, weset aside the impugned judgment of the division bench and restore thatof the learned Single Judge. In the result, we uphold the resultsannounced by the recruiting authority. The appeal is allowed in theabove terms. However, we make no order as to costs.”

The judgment in the above cited case came to be reviewed by the Supreme Courton 10-3-1997. In the review, the minority opinion was approved while holding themajority opinion as impermissible justification.

21. The learned counsel appearing for R9 submits that the learned single Judgeafter considering the entire material on record directed the Vice Chancellor toappoint a committee to examine whether the Diplomas possessed by R9 areequivalent to Masters Degree in applied linguistics and that the Vice Chancellorconstituted a committee in pursuance of the directions given by the learned singleJudge and the said committee examined the matter and submitted a report opiningthat two diplomas viz., Post M.A. Diploma in Linguistics and Advanced Diploma inApplied Linguistics possessed by Dr.Panchanan Mohanty are equivalent to M.A. in

Applied Linguistics and thus the selection and appointment of R9 as Reader inApplied Linguistics cannot be disturbed at this distance of time.

22. Before dwelling on the rival contentions, we deem it appropriate to refer thequalifications and experience required for the post of Reader in Centre for AppliedLinguistics and Translation Studies and they are as follows:

a. A first or high second class Master’s degree in the subject concernedand consistently good academic record;and consistently good academic record;

b. A doctorate degree and considerable published work of high standard;

c. At least five years post-graduate teaching experience or five years ofpost graduate teaching experience and post doctoral researchexperience taken together.post graduate teaching experience and post doctoral researchexperience taken together.

As per the general information, the University reserves the right to relax any of thequalifications, experience, age etc. in exceptional cases in respect of all posts on therecommendations of the Selection Committee. Clause (5) of the general informationreads as follows:

“ 5. GENERAL

i. Reservations in respect of teaching posts (LECTURERS ONLY) existas per University Rules for candidates belonging toSCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES.as per University Rules for candidates belonging toSCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES.

ii. The prescribed qualifications and experience are the minimum and themere fact that a candidate possesses the same will not entitlehim/her for being called for interview. The University reservesthe right to restrict the candidates to be called for interview to areasonable number on the basis of qualifications andexperience higher than the minimum prescribed.mere fact that a candidate possesses the same will not entitlehim/her for being called for interview. The University reservesthe right to restrict the candidates to be called for interview to areasonable number on the basis of qualifications andexperience higher than the minimum prescribed.

iii. It would be open to the University to consider the names of suitablepersons who may not have applied.persons who may not have applied.

iv. The University reserves the right to relax any of the qualifications,experience, age, etc. in exceptional cases in respect of allposts on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.experience, age, etc. in exceptional cases in respect of allposts on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.

v. The number of vacancies indicated in this information leaflet istentative. The University reserves the right toincrease/decrease the number of posts at the time of selectionsand make appointments accordingly.tentative. The University reserves the right toincrease/decrease the number of posts at the time of selectionsand make appointments accordingly.

vi. Payment of T.A.: Outstation candidates called for interview will be paidcontribution equivalent to return single second-class railwayfare towards journey expenses.contribution equivalent to return single second-class railwayfare towards journey expenses.

vii. Canvassing in any form on behalf of any candidate will disqualify suchcandidates.”candidates.”

We may note here that the University reserves the right to relax any of thequalifications, experience, age etc. in exceptional cases in respect of all posts on therecommendation of the selection committee.

23. Few dates that are relevant to be noted and they are as under:

a. Last date of receipt of application 15.7.89.

b. Interview for the notified posts was held on 30.11.89.

c. Appointment order to R9 was issued on 4/5-12-89 directing to report to theDean, School of Humanities on or before 17.1.1990. R9 soughtextension of time and joined duty on 2.6.90.Dean, School of Humanities on or before 17.1.1990. R9 soughtextension of time and joined duty on 2.6.90.

d. The appellant/petitioner filed Writ Petition even before R9 reported for duty.This fact was recorded by the learned single Judge on 25.1.1990.The order passed on 25.1.90 reads as follows:This fact was recorded by the learned single Judge on 25.1.1990.The order passed on 25.1.90 reads as follows:

“ Post the writ petition for final hearing subject to part heard cases on19.2.90. Post the WPMP along with the main writ petition. By the impugnedorder, the R9 was asked to join duty on or before 17-1-90. From the recordsproduced by Sri.V.Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for theUniversity, it appears that R9 requested the University to grant him furthertime, for joining duty, till 1-5-90. From the note it appears that the Universityhas granted time till 14.4.90 to report for duty. It is accordingly recorded.”

24. It has come on record that R9 joined duty as Reader on 2.6.90. It appears thatthe appellant also got selection as Reader in the year 1991. This makes us to knowthat both the appellant and R9 are working as Readers in Center for AppliedLinguistics and Translation Studies. The appellant challenged the selection of R9 asReader in Center for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies for more than one reason. One of the reasons is that R3 has favoured R9 on the ground of soil infinityand caste favoritism Para 11 of the writ petition reads as follows:

“ 11. The selection of the respondent No.9 is vitiated by malafides as therespondent No.3 has got his in favour of the respondent No.9. Both ofthem hail from the state of Orissa. It is learnt that both are related. It isfurther learnt that the respondent No.9 was called for the interviewwhen the Reader post was first notified in the year 1988 at theinstance of the respondent No.3 even though the respondent No.9was not qualified since he did not possess five years of teachingexperience. The post of Reader in Applied Linguistics though notified,applications were called for and interviews were held, was not filled insince the respondent No.9 was not eligible for the post. On 31-5-1989and the interviews were further delayed so as to enable therespondent No.9 to complete the five years of teaching experience.Thus, it is evident that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in order toaccommodate the respondent No.9 have adopted dubious means,ignoring the factum that they have come under severe criticism bythis Hon’ble Court in the earlier writ petition where the petitioner was asuccessful candidate.”respondent No.3 has got his in favour of the respondent No.9. Both ofthem hail from the state of Orissa. It is learnt that both are related. It isfurther learnt that the respondent No.9 was called for the interviewwhen the Reader post was first notified in the year 1988 at theinstance of the respondent No.3 even though the respondent No.9was not qualified since he did not possess five years of teachingexperience. The post of Reader in Applied Linguistics though notified,applications were called for and interviews were held, was not filled insince the respondent No.9 was not eligible for the post. On 31-5-1989and the interviews were further delayed so as to enable therespondent No.9 to complete the five years of teaching experience.Thus, it is evident that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in order toaccommodate the respondent No.9 have adopted dubious means,ignoring the factum that they have come under severe criticism bythis Hon’ble Court in the earlier writ petition where the petitioner was asuccessful candidate.”

25. The respondents have specifically denied of the relationship between R3 andR9. The appellant is a Doctorate and he belongs to the category of highintellectuals. It is not the desire of any one to born in a particular region orcommunity or caste. The birth of a person in a particular region, community or casteis accidental and one has to accept it. It disintegrates with the death of a person. Theappellant having made such an uncharitable allegation against R3 has failed tosubstantiate the same. The decision in ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA V. CHANDERSHEKHAR disposed of on 18.12.1992 was governing the field by the date of theselection and appointment of R9. In this background, we do not find any flaw in thefinding of the learned single Judge that the selection of R9 cannot be quashed onthe basis of pure equities. With regard to the qualifications the learned single Judgedirected the Vice Chancellor to appoint a committee to consider whether Diplomaspossessed by R9 were equal to Master’s Degree in Applied Linguistics. Such acourse is not essential since the general clauses in the notification empowers theUniversity to relax any of the qualifications, experience, age, etc. in exceptionalcases in respect of all posts on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.However, since the committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor in pursuance of thedirections of the learned single Judge has taken into various aspects such as syllabus prescribed for Post M.A. Diploma and Advanced Diploma and M.A. in Applied Linguistics and recorded a verdict. The Supreme Court held in RAJENDRAPRASAD v. KARNATKA UNIVERSITY that it is for each University to decide thequestion of equivalence of examinations and it would not be right for the Court to sitin judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on whichthe court possesses any expertise. Such is the situation, it cannot be permitted tocontend that R9 lacks necessary educational qualification for being appointed as aReader in Center for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies.

26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the selection and appointmentof R9 as Reader in Center for Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies,University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad is not required to be disturbed. In the result, thisWrit Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

Tnb

Dated: 27-12-2004. ( G.Bikshapathy, J )

( B.Seshasayana Reddy, J )

To

1. Registrar University of Hyderabad,

Central University (PO) Gachibowli, Hyderabad- 500 134

2. 2 CD copies

........REGISTRAR