M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) Whether or not the petitioner has suffered breach of her fundamental right if the she was not called for interview for the post of Lecturer in Mediaeval History in Tilakdhari Post-graduate College, Jaunpur is a short and interesting point which falls for determination of this court in this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner in pursuance of an advertisement notice dated 3. 8. 1988 was appointed as adhoc lecturer in Mediaeval History of the institution in question on 27.9.1988. The appointment letter contained a condition that and when a candidate for the post is selected by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, the appointment of the petitioner on the said post shall come to an end automatically. The petitioner has passed M.A. In II Division. As per the norms she is eligible for being considered on regular basis also as a lecturer. She claims that she has a brilliant academic record and has now acquired two years experience as adhoc lecturer in the said institution,
(3.) The Respondent No. 1 is said to have advertised the post for regular appointment and the petitioner is said to have applied for being selected as a lecturer. The petitioner was not called for interview though she waited for being called for interview for last one year. The petitioner has learnt that some other candidates were called for interview for appointment against the said post and in all probability she will not be called for interview . She has challenged her exclusion from interview as arbitrary, illegal and violative of her rights. It is stated that any criteria of norms for excluding the petitioner from interview is violative of her fundamental right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further stated that the person of lesser experience, acumen, and proficiency have been called for interview and have been recommended for posting as lecturer in Mediaeval History in place of the petitioner by the Commission. The petitioner says that she has been discriminated and the process of selection is vitiated by the arbitrary action of the respondents. On the aforesaid grounds the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to appoint any other person on the post of lecturer which is held by her in the institution on the basis of arbitrary, unjust and illegal selection held by the respondent No. 1 she also prays for quashing of the selection of any other candidate recommended by the respondent No. 1 for appointment.;