- (1.) THIS writ application is directed against the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of Audio Visual Operator in Social Work under the Visva-Bharati University.
(2.) THE backdrop of the case in a nutshell is as under: By advertisement No.7/2004 the respondent University invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment in the post of Audio Visual Operator, Social Work under the respondent No-1. THE essential qualifications for the above post were graduate with Certificate/Diploma/ Degree in Computer Science. THE petitioner and the respondent No.4 participated in the selection process, amongst other eligible candidates in the above selection process. Interview took place on May 22, 2005 the respondent No.4 was appointed in the post under reference on May 22, 2005. On or about June 4, 2005 the petitioner came to know that under the Recruitment-cum-Promotion rules for General and Non-general/Technical employees of Visva-Bharati University (non-teaching), the essential qualifications were graduate preferably in science followed by a Diploma/ Certificate/Training in Audio Visual Aids from a recognised University. Immediately he submitted a representation dated June 22, 2005 to the respondent No.2 raising objection with regard to selection of the respondent No.4 in the above post on the ground of non-fulfilment of essential qualification. Since the respondent university paid no heed to his representation, this writ application was filed. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent University prescribed the essential qualification for the post of Audio Visual Operator, Social Work under the respondent University (hereinafter referred to as the said post) de hors the essential qualification for the said post as prescribed in the Recruitment-cum-Promotion Rules for General and Non-general/Technical employees of Visva-Bharati University (non-teaching) (hereinafter referred to as the said recruitment Rules). According to him no external expert was included in the selection committee for taking interview of the eligible candidates for the said post. According to him it was done in violation of the provisions of 20(G) of the statute of the respondent university. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was appointed in a hot haste without publishing a panel for the selected candidates. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon the decisions of Rajkumar v. Shakti Raj, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2110, Dr. Md. Ketab Ali, reported in 2001(2) CHN, 419 and Visveswaraya Technological University v. Krishnendu Holder, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1429.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the said post remained vacant for a long time of the respondent No.2 prescribed essential qualification in deviation from the recruitment rules. According to him, though the said recruitment rules prescribed Diploma/Certificate/Training in Audio Visual Aids from a recognized institution as one of the essential qualifications, the respondent No.2 changed the above essential qualification to Certificate/Diploma/Degree in Computer Science in exercise of powers conferred upon him by subsection(3) of section 14 of the Visva-Bharati Act, 1951. According to him a Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot examine the nexus or necessity of having Certificate/Diploma/Degree in Computer Science with the said post. IT is further submitted by him that the said post was not covered under the provisions of statute 20(G) of the statutes of the respondent University and there was no bar and or impediment for statute a selection committed without external expert. He relies upon the decisions of University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491, J.P. Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University, reported in AIR 1980 SC 2141, Medical Council of India v. Sarong, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 427, Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology v. Gagandeep Sharma & Anr., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 157 and University of Jammu v. T. S. Khan, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1788.;