K. J. Shetty, C.J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the validity of the selection of respondent no. 4 fur the post of the principal of Baba Barua Das Mahavidyalaya, Paruiya Ashram Faizabad.
(2.) THE selection was made by a statutory Commission. THE Commission was constituted under the provisions of U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (shortly called the Act). THE Commission consisted of eminent academicians including some experts in certain disciplines. THEre were in all six posts of principals for being filled up. THE petitioner and respondent No. 4 were among the candidates for consideration by the Commission. The petitioner possessed minimum qualification prescribed for the post of the Principal, but not respondent No. 4. The Commission, however, relaxed the minimum qualification of respondent No. 4, on the ground that he has to his credit very high standard of research work. On the comparative assessment of the qualifications and the experience of candidates a merit list was prepared by the Commission. In that list the petitioner has been ranked at serial No. 21, and respondent No. 4 at serial No. 3. Since there were only six posts to be filled up quite naturally, the respondent No. 4 was selected and posted, but not the petitioner.
(3.) BEFORE us, counsel for the petitioner urged three contentions ; first relates to the method adopted by the Commission for relaxation of the minimum qualification ; second relates to the power of relaxation exercised by the Commission and the third one we will presently set out. The first two contentions urged, should not detain us any longer. We have already considered the validity, of these contentions in Writ Petition No. 6057 of 1986, The Committee of Management v. State of U.P., 1987 AWC 248 which has been disposed of yesterday by a Bench of which one of us was a member (Hon'ble K. J. Setty C.J.). There it was observed that the Commission has got power to relax the minimum qualification prescribed for the post irrespective of the fact whether the candidate has asked for such relaxation or not. That case also pertains to the selection of respondent No. 4, and the decision therein, therefore, binds us.;