R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) By this petition a direction is sought by opposite-party to permit petitioner to appear before the selection committee for post of lecturer in the faculty of Life Sciences and consider her case on merits. What appears that on 24th December, 1985 an advertisement was issued by the University inviting applications for the posts of Readers and Lecturers, in the faculty of Life Sciences. The petitioner-, who is a Ph. D. and as a lecturer in Botany at Government Girls' Post Graduate College, Ghazipur since 1980 applied for both. She has been called for interview for the post of Reader. But as she did not receive any letter for post of lecturer, she approached the authorities and after having come to know that it was not a mistake but that she has not been called she moved this petition on 29th August, 1986. To counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University it has been explained that petitioner could not be called for interview of lecturer as 237 applications had been received whereas only 74 candidates were to be called. This required screening. Therefore, Vice-Chancellor who is chairman of selection committee laid down certain norms to call the best candidates. It is averred that according to the principle laid down by the vice-chancellor interview letter could be issued to candidates of four categories one who were Ph. D. with four first class, second Ph. D. with three first class, third Ph. D. with last two first class and fourth with four first class. This was done to call the very best. And as petitioner although Ph D but had first class in High School only and second class in remaining she did not satisfy the norms. As regards discrepancy of issuing interview latter for Reader it is averred that as candidates for the post of Readers were less the petitioner had been called.
(2.) Various submissions have been made. But we consider it unnecessary to mention or decide them as from the list of candidates to whom interview letters have been issued and which has been produced by the learned counsel for University, it is apparent that many candidates are there who fall in category four. That is they have four first class but they are not Ph. D. If calling of candidates from this category in presence of Ph. D. was not permissible then it amounts to calling candidates of lesser merit than petitioner, therefore, she be came entitled to be called as a matter of right. For this it is necessary to mention that in the advertisement issued by University copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 the applications were invited from candidates (a) having Ph. D. degree or high class research work in the concerned subject, (b) high first or second class M. Sc. degree with good academic record from beginning till end or equivalent degree from a Foreign University in the subject concerned. It further provided that where Ph D. or candidates with high class research work were not available or were not suitable persons with good academic record from beginning to end could be appointed provided they had done research work in some research laboratory or establishment on condition that they shall obtain Ph. D. in five years. The advertisement further provided that how good first and second class should be worked out.
(3.) What is clear from it, therefore, is that although a candidate with high first or second class were eligible to apply but he or she could be called only if candidates from first category that is Ph. D. were not available or were found unsuitable. The question of unsuitability could not arise in case of petitioner because she has already been called for the post of Reader. In any case that is not the case of opposite-party she could of course have been validly screened out if candidates had been called from first three categories only. But since candidates from fourth category have also been called it amounts to eliminating petitioner against persons of class (b) of the advertisement who could have been called only if Ph. D. were not available. The argument of learned counsel for University in the first instance that a candidate must not only be Ph.D. but should have good academic record is not borne out by the advertisement. If that would have been so then the word and or some such word would have been used to join the two clauses. He, however, realised the fallacy in the argument as then candidates with good academic record without Ph. D. could not have applied even. Field of eligibility would have narrowed down to Ph. D. only. Therefore, he urged that screening out was done category-wise namely amongst Ph.D. and with good academic records. Since amongst Ph. D. better candidates were available the petitioner stood excluded. No such stand has been taken in the counter-affidavit. In fact it could not have been taken. No percentage or proportion to be called from each group has been fixed. Clauses (a) and (b) in the notification only mention minimum qualification to enable a candidate to apply. They specify field of eligibility. After applications were received they formed one group that is candidates eligible for post of lecturer. From them interview letters had to be issued to requisite number of candidates who were Ph. D. If there was still scope then the candidates with good academic record could be called. For this norms had to be laid down. It was done by the' Vice-Chancellor. Whether he could doit alone is another matter. Effort has however been made to call only those candidates who were very good. But in his anxiety to adhere to the best he forgot the restrictions placed by the statutes and advertisement that candidates with good academic record could be called only if Ph. D. were not available. The petitioner or candidates like her could be screened out if the requisite number to be called would have exhausted by issuing letters to candidates of category one to three. But once letter were issued to candidates of category four it was against the advertisement. In fact between three and four there should have been category of PH. I), with good second class. Therefore, even though the effort of Vice-Chancellor was to call the very best it was against the statute.;