Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J. - (1.) The prayer in this writ petition was for the issuance of a rule nisi, requiring the respondents to show-cause as to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued, directing them to forbear from giving effect or further effect to, and rescind and cancel the order appointing respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 to the post of lecturer in Veterinary Surgery and Radiology, The grievance of the petitioner in short was, that although the petitioner had the requisite qualifications, the respondent authorities wrongfully and illegally had appointed the respondent Nos. 4, 5,6.& 7 as lecturers in the four vacant posts in the department of Veterinary Surgery and Radiology in the West Bengal University of Animal Fishery Sciences, hereinafter, referred to as the University. As regards respondent No. 4, the petitioner had no grievance. According to the petitioner, none of the other three successful candidates, being respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 had the necessary qualification of Ph. D. in Veterinary Surgery and Radiology. It had also been alleged in the petition that in 1998, the respondent authorities had advertised for the post of a lecturer but no appointment had been made, because the respondent authorities wanted to wait till candidates of their choice could be appointed.
(2.) It had been alleged in the petition that in terms of Rule 105(3) of the Statutes of the University, the Selection Committee did "not prepare and submit a panel of 12 candidates, by arranging their names in order of merit" in respect of the four posts for which the advertisement had been published. According to the petitioner, the Constitution of the Selection Committee- was bad, since the Vice Chancellor had appointed two external experts, whose names did not appear in the panel of experts, approved by the Council on the recommendation of Faculty Council-Members. It was submitted by Advocate for the petitioner, that the respondent No. 7, at the time of interview, did not even have the minimum qualification for the advertised post of lecturer. He argued that the University authorities had appointed lecturers not in accordance with its rules and statutes, but in accordance with their whim and favouritism. In support of his submissions, he cited and relied on an unreported decision dated January 15, 2001, in W. P. No. 1978 of 2000 (1) Dr. Md. Ketab Ali v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
(3.) There was nothing to prevent the University authorities from publishing advertisements such as the first advertisement, it was argued by Advocate for the respondent authorities, and for their own reasons deciding not to pursue the matter of appointment. He submitted that the petitioner had participated in the appointment proceedings, and having failed to obtain appointment, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the procedure which had been adopted by the authorities. It' was contended by him, that the appointment of the two experts by the Vice Chancellor was lawful and in accordance with the rules of the University. He submitted that during the course of the hearing of this application, earlier, a prayer had been made on behalf of the respondents, by Counsel, for leave to produce all records relating to the appointment of the two external experts in order to establish that the panel had been duly approved by the Council. The prayer had been allowed, and the matter had been adjourned. He argued that Section 10 of the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences Act, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the Act, provided specifically, that in the event of an emergency, the Vice Chancellor was authorised to take any action and have it ratified by the appropriate authority later. The appointment by the Vice Chancellor of the two external experts, according to him was ratified soon, thereafter, by the Council, in the next available meeting. The facts in the unreported decision relied on by the petitioner, according to him were quite different to those in this case, and the ratio enunciated in that decision was not applicable in this case. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decisions reported in 1999(2) CHN 289, and 1997 (4) SCC 426. He argued that the private respondents had already been appointed in pursuance of the decision of the Selection Committee, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner could not be given any relief. In support of his submissions, he cited and relied on the decision reported in 1996 (3) SCC 320. According to him, the Selection Committee had made its selection in compliance with the rules of the University, in that respect, and that the Court would be slow to interfere on the mere allegation by an unsuccessful Candidate, who had not objected to the selection process earlier, and in support of the contention, he cited and relied on the decision reported in AIR 1990 SC 140.;