- (1.) In this writ petition, the appointment of 2nd respondent as Registrar of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, is assailed.
(2.) The facts relevant for the case arc that a notification was issued by the University on 17-4-1997 calling for the applications for appointment to the post of Registrar in the scale of Rs.7070-10100 precribing certain qualifications and other requirements with regard to experience. The petitioner along with others including the 2nd respondent submitted applications and consequently a Selection Committee was constituted and selections were held on 25-6-1997. A panel was prepared. by the Selection Committee wherein the 2nd respondent was placed at Sl.No.1 and the petitioner was placed at Sl.No2. The said panel was placed before the appropriate committee namely the Board of Management and the said Board considered the selections made by the Board and approved the panel without any modification. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent was issued with the appointment order dated: 25-6-1997. The said action of the 1st respondent University in appointing the 2nd respondent is assailed in this writ petition.
(3.) The learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner raised the following principal contention : The educational qualifications and other requirements have been specified by the University. The said qualifications were fixed by the competent authority under the statute, on the directions of this Court in earlier Writ Appeal. Therefore, the said qualifications are statutory in nature and therefore they have to be observed in letter and spirit and any violation of the said requirement will vitiate the entire process of selection. He also submits that the appointment order issued to the 2nd respondent suffers with inherent bias and therefore it has to be set aside. Thirdly the terms of appointment order are also contrary to the provisions of the Act and the statute framed thereunder. The post of Registrar falling under Category-II is a Non-teaching post and the age of superannuation is 58 years, but, however, in the case of 2nd respondent he was allowed to continue for 60 years or for a period of 5 years whichever is earlier. The said stipulation is contrary to the provisions'. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent fulfils all the conditions laid down under the notifications and the selections are made in accordance with the rules and therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in the process of the selection. They also submits that the order of appointment issued is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the statute and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;