S S MOHAPATRA Vs. CHANCELLOR UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned advocates for the petitioner, for the University and for opp. parties 3 and 4, we find that the petitioner has prayed inter alia : '......this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this writ application; Issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the selection of opp. party Nos. 3 and 4 shall not be quashed and as to why the petitioner being the only eligible candidate for the post of Lect -in -law should not be appointed and if the opp. parties fail to show cause or satisfactory cause, your Lordships may be pleased to make the said rule absolute; And may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders, to opp. parties No. 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Lect -in -law (constituent colleges) under the Utkal University and to grant any other relief/reliefs as your Lordships would deem fit and proper;

(2.) THE petitioner; in fact, challenges the selection of opp. parties 3 and 4 for the post of Lecturer -in -Law (constituent colleges) under the Utkal University. He has two -fold objection. First, it is contended that the Selection Committee was illegally constituted and the members of the said Committee were not eligible to participate in the meeting of the Selection Committee. Secondly, it is submitted that the persons selected, i.e. opp. parties 3 and 4, had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria and although the petitioner had passed the U.G.C. eligibility test for lecturership in the faculty of Law, that has been ignored.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the two Experts who had participated in the Selection Committee were members of the Moderation Board and question setters respectively for LL. M. and LL. B. examinations during the year 1989 -90 and therefore, they should not have been selected as Experts under the Utkal University. Participation of such members in the selection meeting has vitiated the selection process.