M.Katju - (1.) RESPONDENT no. 2 issued an Advertisement dated 3-8-88 inviting applications for the post of Deputy Librarian. True copy of the Advertisement is Annexure I. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and he was selected vide Annexure II. The management appointed him and the petitioner joined with effect from 1-8-89 and claims to have been working since then. The principal of the College vide letter dated 18-7-90 requested respondent no. 1 to send his approval to the petitioner's appointment, but the said respondent vide his letter dated 28-9-90 informed the principal that the petitioner could not be appointed as he did not possess requisite experience. True copy of the letter dated 29-8-90 is Annexure 8. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of respondent no 1. In this counter affidavit, it has been alleged in paragraph 4 that the petitioner did not have experience of two years as a Asstt. Librarian, Dy. Librarian, Librarian etc Against an existing post, and hence he is not eligible to be appointed In paragraph 8 it has been admitted that the petitioner produced an experience certificate of having served as Librarian for two years in V.B.D.R.S.A. Sanskrit Mahavidyalay, Jaunpur but it is alleged that the said certificate cannot help the petitioner since there does not exist any post of Librarian in the said college. A copy of the letter of the Manager of the said Sanskrit Mahavjdayalaya dated 24-10-89 is Annexure C. A 1. In this letter it has been stated that the petitioner worked as the Librarian in the college from 21-12-86 to 1-1-89 i. e for more than two years, although there is no post of Librarian in the college. It has also been stated that the petitioner worked efficiently as Librarian for this period. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, in which it has been stated that the petitioner is still working as Dy. Librarian vide certificate dated 24-1-92 of the principal. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that respondent no. 1 arbitrarily refused to grant the approval to the petitioner's appointment as Librarian. A perusal of the Advertisement (Annexure I) shows that the essential qualification for being appointed Dy Librarian is a Degree in Library Science and two years experience Admittedly, the petitioner has a Degree in Library Science, and it is also proved that he has two years experience. Even if there was no post of Librarian in the Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, the fact that the petitioner in actuality worked for over two years as a Librarian gives him the requisite experience. In these matters we have to see the intention of the rule. Here the intention obviously is that the person who may be appointed should have two years experience of working a in Library. There is no such requirement that there must be a post of Librarian in the establishment where the petitioner worked. Since the petitioner admittedly has the requisite experience he was fully qualified to be appointed Dy. Librarian. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29-8-90 refusing to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment is arbitrary and illegal and is hereby, quashed The respondent no. 1 is directed to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment and pay him salary and arrears.
(3.) WITH these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.;