RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J. - (1.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that as is evident from the name of candidates selected for the interview, the Petitioner has been found to be eligible for the post of Registrar. The contention of the Respondents is frivolous and hence, the petition is maintainable. The issue here is whether the experience of the private respondent can be called to be equivalent of 8 years of service as a Deputy Registrar and can be appointed as a Registrar of Aliah University.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the Private respondent was never associated with the University administration. The learned counsel relies on the case of Vice Chancellor L.N. Mithila University Vs Dayanand Jha reported in 1986 (3) SCC 7 to draw attention to the point of equivalence which has been drawn solely on the basis of pay. In the said case, the Vice Chancellor by the virtue of his power under section 10(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act had transferred the respondent from the post of Principal of a particular college to the post of Reader of another college. Owing to this, an appeal by special leave was directed against the judgement and order of the Patna High Court quashing the order of the Vice Chancellor. It was held by the High Court while allowing the writ petition that, although the two posts of Principal and Reader were carried on the same scale of pay, it could not be said that the post of a Reader is an equivalent post as that of the principal in a legal sense. Therefore, the appeal had failed and was dismissed by the High Court. It was made clear however, that the University shall be at liberty to transfer the respondent as Principal in any other constituent college.
(3.) Similarly, the question here is as to what post is equivalent to the post of Deputy Registrar vis a vis the Statute of University. Schedule 1 to the Aliah University Statute, 2016, the Secretary, Faculty council and Deputy Registrar, all require the exact same qualification. Since this involves fulfillment of an objective criteria and not a subjective satisfaction of the members of the committee, the contention that the "Expert opinion " of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered by the Hon 'ble Court is- liable to be rejected. Even though such findings of the selection committee ought not to be "ordinarily " interfered with, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has interfered with the findings of the selection committee in cases where the essential qualification was not fulfilled.;