Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The Sampurna Nand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, a University governed by the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act; invited application for appointment of lecturers in various subjects including Sanskrit Vidya by means of advertisement No. 1/2004 dated 6th of August, 2004. The dispute in the present writ petition is confined to the appointment of respondent No. 6, Dr. (Smt.) Promodinit Panda as lecturer in the said University in the department of Sanskrit for Sanskrit Vidya. Challenging the legality, propriety and validity of the appointment of the respondent No. 6 the present writ petition has been filed by Dr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, who was also one of the applicants for the aforesaid post.
(2.) Briefly stated the present petition, has been filed on the ground that the University by means of advertisement No. 1/2004 invited applications for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit and prescribed the minimum requisite qualification. The Selection Committee duly constituted for the appointment of lecturer in Sanskrit Bhasa, recommended name of the petitioner at serial No. 1 and that of the respondent No. 6 at serial No. 2 but the Executive Council of the University illegally disagreeing with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee issued appointment letter to the said respondent, who does not possess the minimum/essential qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement. It has also been averred that her application was rejected by the Head of the Department but due to intervention of the Vice Chancellor; she was called for interview. She being wife of the Registrar of the University, the University was biased in her favour and the Vice Chancellor and the University on account of mala fides issued appointment letter to the contesting respondent No. 6 which being contrary and illegal is liable to be quashed.
(3.) Three sets of counter affidavits have been filed. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent's No. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. the Vice Chancellor, Executive Council and the Registrar refutes the contents of the writ petition and has justified the appointment of the respondent No. 6. The counter affidavit and the supplementary affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6 are also on similar lines. However, Prof. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, Head of Sanskrit Department who was arrayed as respondent No. 5 has tiled a counter affidavit which not only supports the petitioner's allegation but attempt has been made on his behalf to widen the scope of the writ petition by raising such controversies which were not even raised and pleaded by the petitioner. Therefore, the effective counter affidavit is of that of the University and of the respondent No. 6. Their stand is that the respondent No. 6 possesses the minimum essential qualification and as such there is no illegality in the resolution of the Executive Committee resolving to appoint the respondent No. 6. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been stated "The Vice Chancellor has given his marks in sealed cover envelope. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court the Photostat copy of the minutes of the Selection Committee are being filed and marked as C.A.4". The University has also come out with the case that the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 both were permitted for interview as both were eligible vide para 10 of the counter affidavit.;