- (1.) In these application filed by Commission for review of order dated 22.8.1986 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Numbers 13033 and 13618 of 1986 the primary question is if the order dated 22nd August, 1986 allowing the petition suffers from any error which may entitle this Court to recall it. Admittedly 25 posts of Hindi lecturers were advertised. Out of this 11 were for girls college which could be filled by female lecturers only and the remaining could be filled by cither. For this 150 candidates were to be called. But interview letters were issued to 170 candidates. At the time of hearing of the petitions the learned counsel for Commission explained that since candidates had applied twice or thrice, interview letters were issued to some candidates in duplicate and triplicate in accordance with their registration numbers. But discrepancy remained about four, therefore, a direction was issued to Commission lo interview the remaining candidates of category two which consisted of 83 applicants. In review application it is stated that factually there was no discrepancy and the explanation at the time of hearing for the four candidates could not be given due to very short time granted by this court and involvement of staff of Commission in interview which were going on. In order to verify it the learned counsel for Commission was directed to produce the original registers showing the number of applications, their registration numbers. The original forms of candidates and the register showing the candidates no whom interim letters were issued. After perusing them it became apparent that there was to discrepancy. Although 170 interview letters had been issued but factually only 150 candidate were called. The number had gone up because two or three latters were issued to some candidates registration twice or thrice. It happened because earlier advertisement was issued in 1983. It was cancelled in 1985. Option was given to candidates to withdraw who did not desire to be considered. Therefore, some oi the candidates who had applied in 1983 and had not withdrawn, their candidature appear to have applied in 1985 as well. Some others sent more than one application to ensure presumably against postal delay. In any case factually there were duplication and triplication. Once the discrepancy stands explained, then the basis of order passed by this court namely arbitrariness disappears. Since the order was passed on misapprehension of fact for which the explanation given by opposite parties appears to be reasonable, the orders cannot be maintained. Learned counsel then attempted to support the order on grounds which were advanced at the time of argument of writ petition, but was not adverted to. He urged that guidelines framed by Commission are against statute 11.13 of the first statutes framed by the University. Although the statutes produced are of Gorakhpur University but it is admitted by learned counsel for Commission that similar if not same Statutes providing minimum qualification for post of lecturer in degree colleges have been framed by all the Universities. It is M. Phil, degree or a recognised degree beyond the Masters level or published work and consistently good academic record, that, is, beyond 54%. In the guidelines that have been framed by Commissions many as 13 categories have been made. For instance, category is of Ph. D. with average 55% in Higher Secondary and degree, and above 54% in post - graduate. Category 2 is of Ph. D. with 50% in Higher Secondary and degree and above 54% in post - graduate. Similar categorisation is for M. Phil, and then for M. A. 60% in all three so on and so forth. The marks in High School arc not taken into account. Since these guidelines are for degree colleges the emphasis is on better percentage of marks at higher level. How can this be said to be arbitrary of against Statutes cannot be appreciated. In fact they bring out the objective for which Commission had been constituted. Further they have been framed in exercise of power under Regulation 6 which permits the Commission to frame guideline to screen out candidates.
(2.) It was also urged that since there were 25 posts the Commission would call 5.95 candidates only for each candidate in accordance with guidelines, but since they called 150 candidates it was done purposely to benefit some, therefore, the order passed by this court did not need any modification. The argument is devoid of any merit. In the guidelines framed it is provided that if total number of posts to be filled include in it post of girls colleges also, then the candidates shall be called separately in proportion to the number of female and general teachers multiplied by number mentioned in the guidelines. For instance the vacancy for female teachers was 11 and general 14. For vacancies 11 to 15 the guidelines require six candidates to be called for each vacancy. That is 66 + 84 = 150. The decision to call 150 candidates as such was in accordance with guidelines.
(3.) For Dr. Sushma Misra it is vehemently argued that she being Ph.D. having consistent good academic record the opposite parties acted illegally in not calling her interview. Learned counsel submitted that the Statute having provided for consistently good academic record the guidelines could not ignore the marks obtained in High School, And if that was taken into account then her average was more titan 54%. It is not disputed that the Commission has adopted the guidelines as mentioned in the Statute. But while framing the guidelines under Regulation 6, it has omitted marks obtained in High School. Since it has been done uniformly for all categories and with a view to select candidates who secured better percentage in higher classes, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or against Statutes. The omission of High School marks for determining consistently good academic record cannot be said to be invalid. And if marks of High School are omitted, then petitioner does not fall in category 1. Her percentage in category 2 was lower than the requisite numbers of candidates that could be called from that group.;