R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Anupam Vashista, resident of House No. 503/7, Urban Estate, Gurgaon has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against Guru Jambheshwar University, respondent No. 1, its Vice -Chancellor, respondent No. 2, its Chancellor, respondent No, 3 and Sh. Dharamvir, IAS. currently working as Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, respondent No. 4, and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issues quashing the order dated 10.12.1999 Annexure P15 vide which respondent No. 3 has withdrawn the appointment letter issued to the petitioner who was selected and appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Business Management in pursuance of the post advertised vide advertisement dated 27/28.4.1999, Annexure Pi, and consequently his selection and appointment has been annulled erroneously and against all the principles of natural justice. It has also been prayed that the report on the basis of which the appointment of the petitioner was annulled is wholly without jurisdiction and arbitrary. The petitioner has further made a prayer for the quashment of the decision dated 21.1.1999 taken by the Executive Council and also the alleged report of the Sub Committee while taking its decision dated 21.1.1999. It has been further prayed by the petitioner that directions be given to respondents No. 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to join as Lecturer in the Department of Business Management in the respondent No. 1 University as a consequence of his section and appointment made vide letter dated 11.8.1998, Annexure P8.
(2.) THE case set -up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 was established by an Act of Haryana legislature to promote studies and research in the emerging areas of higher education with special focus on new frontiers of technology, pharmacy, environmental studies, non -conventional energy sources, management studies and other areas of science and technology. On 27/28.4.1998 the respondent -University advertised some posts of Lecturers, Professors, Readers etc. vide advertisement Annexure P1. These posts were duty sanctioned and created by the University in accordance with the provisions of 1995 Act with the approval /sanction of State Government. These were regular vacant posts available with the University. The advertisement simply sought applications without listing any specialisation. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Business Management was as under : - "QUALIFICATION & EXPERIENCE FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT : "Ph.D. or Fellows of IIMs ICA, ICWA or Master's Degree plus professional experience of 2 years. Specialization, - Quantitative Techniques/Operations, Research/Production Management/Computer Applications." The petitioner is M.A. (Economics) and M.B.A. and has professional experience of 3 years and - ?. months. After his M.A, (Economics) he worked with Capital Farms & Estates Pvt. Ltd. from 17.2.1993 to 16.4.1995 as Manager Finance. He joined R.R. Finance Consultants Ltd. as Research Analyst. He has vast professional experience and specialisation i.e. quantitative techniques, operations research/production/management/computer applications. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Business Management and appeared before the interview Committee duly constituted comprising of members mentioned in para 7 of the present writ petition. The petitioner was selected to the post advertised. The Selection Committee was duly constituted as per the Act of the University. There was no technical defect in the constitution of the Committee nor was anything wrong when the selections were made by the Selection Committee. On 11.8.1998 the Selection Committee sub - milted its recommendations which were considered by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 11.8.1998 and the appointment letter Annexure P8 was issued to the petitioner on 13.8.1998. On 13.8.1998 itself the petitioner received a telegram from the University stating therein that the offer of appointment has been stayed till further orders as per Government instructions dated 12.8.1998. The only reason given by the Government is that the University was making unnecessary appointments and was making appointments ignoring the qualifications while making these selections and further directed not to allow all those persons who had been issued appointment letters to join unless the justification for appointment has been examined on merits. On 13.5.1999 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that he did not possess the relevant professional experience of 2 years in the prescribed specialisations as held by a committee appointed by the Executive Council. The petitioner submitted the reply on 20.5.1999 in which he also sought personal hearing which was granted to him on 29.7.1999. On 29.7.1999 the petitioner also raised number of issues inter -alia stating that he was fully qualified to be appointed on the post in (sic) not. There was a natural bias in the mind of the new Vice Chancellor, who wanted to see that the process of selection earlier done by the Executive Council must be annulled. Further, in short, the case of the petitioner is that he had the requisite experience and qualifications; he acquired skills while in active service in the corporate sector and, therefore, the decision of the University in withdrawing the appointment letter smacks of extraneous considerations. This order is on account of the non -application of mind and is perverse and thus is liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and it was pleaded by these respondents that no fundamental or other vested legal right of the petitioner has been infringed in any manner. According to them, in the month of April, 1998, 66 leaching posts were advertised. The last date of receiving the applications was 8.6.1998. After receipt of the applications and scrutiny of the same, interviews were held for the appointments on 39 teaching posts from 1.8.1998 to 8.8.1998. On the basis of interviews, the Selection Committee recommended candidates including the petitioner for appointment on 21 teaching posts. The selections of the petitioner and other candidates as recommended by the Selection Committee were approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 11.8.1998 and the petitioner and others were issued appointment letters on the same day. The selection of the petitioner along with others and their subsequent appointments as teachers was dogged by various controversies listed below: - "(a) While releasing grants as well as sanctioning posts, the Government of Haryana i.e. respondent No. 1 have been emphasising that the appoints in the University must be only need -based in view of the financial constraints. After the advertisement No. 1/98 was issued by the University, the State Govt. vide their letter dated 19.6.98, had cautioned the university that in view of the conditions imposed by them (State Government) while creating posts for various teaching departments of the University and the recommendations made by the UGC visiting committee according to which various departments were to be merged, and to effect economy in expenditure, only those posts be filled up which are of immediate necessity and for which there was strong justification. (b) Even the approval of the recommendations of the Selection Committee by the Executive Council has not been less -controversial. (c) Even when the appointment letters to the selected candidates were purported to be issued on 11.8.98, the Registrar, who is also the Secretary of the Executive Council had made a suggestion for examining the qualification etc. of the selected candidates in view of the letter of the Director, Higher Education, Haryana dated 5.5.1998 (Annexure R/3).;