- (1.) Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gulrez Khan for the Petitioner, Sri G.K. Singh, appearing for Respondent No. 6 and Sri B.D. Mandhyan appearing for the Respondent University.
(2.) Counter-affidavits on behalf of the University as well as on behalf of Respondent No. 6 have been filed to which rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. Supplementary counter-affidavits on behalf of the University as well as Respondent No. 6 have been filed to which rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. Pleadings being complete between the parties, with the consent of the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.
(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerge from pleadings of the parties are; an advertisement being Advertisement No. 4/2000 was published by the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') in the newspaper inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in different departments including four posts of Lecturer (Physics). Out of four posts, one post was for general category. According to the advertisement, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, last date for submission of the application was 31st August, 2000 through registered post only. The Petitioner being qualified for the post of Lecturer (Physics), submitted application as general category candidate. Interview letter dated 5th November, 2001 was issued to the Petitioner to appear before the selection committee on 20th November, 2001. The selection committee interviewed the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 6. The Respondent No. 6, who claimed to have submitted an application in response to the advertisement, did not fulfil the requisite qualification at the time of submitting application. The case of the University is that on an application submitted by Respondent No. 6, the Vice Chancellor passed an order on 6th November, 2000 directing that Respondent No. 6 be also interviewed by the selection committee and in pursuance of the direction of the Vice Chancellor, the selection committee interviewed the Respondent No. 6 and in the panel, which was prepared by the selection committee, the name of Respondent No. 6 was at Serial No. 1 and the Petitioner was at Serial No. 2. The recommendations of the selection committee were accepted by the Executive Council and consequently appointment letter was issued to Respondent No. 6. The Respondent No. 6 joined on 19th December, 2001 as Lecturer in the department of Physics of the University. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for following reliefs: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the selection and consequential appointment, if made, of Respondent No. 6 on the post of Lecturer in Physics in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur declared on 13.12.2002 and published in "Rashtriya Sahara' dated 14.12.2001, Gorakhpur Edition. Respondent No. 1 and 5 may also be directed to produce the entire records in this regard. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 not to give appointment to Respondent No. 6 on the post of Lecturer in Physics in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, passed following order on 21st December, 2001: Sri Dilip Gupta has accepted notice on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 and may file counter-affidavit within three weeks. Issue notice to Respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 returnable at an early date. Unil further orders, the appointment on the post of lecturer shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in support of the writ petition, raised following submissions: (i) The Respondent No. 6 had neither passed the NET (National Eligibility Test) nor was Ph.D. on the last date of submission of the application form, i.e., 31st August, 2000 and he being not eligible, was not entitled to face the selection committee. The qualification of NET was obtained by Respondent No. 6 much after the last date of submission of application form by certificate dated 9th July, 2001. It is submitted that Respondent No. 6 being not eligible, could not have been included in the panel and the consequential appointment is illegal. (ii) The Respondent No. 6 had not even made any application pursuant to the advertisement No. 4/2000; his application was entertained under an order passed by the Vice Chancellor without any basis and the order of the Vice Chancellor permitting Respondent No. 6 to be interviewed was illegal. It is submitted that undue favour was shown to Respondent No. 6 in permitting him to participate in the selection. (iii) Inclusion of name of Respondent No. 6 in the panel recommended by the Selection Committee being illegal, he being not qualified and having also not applied in pursuance of the advertisement, the Petitioner, whose name was included at serial No. 2 in the panel is entitled for selection and appointment.;