- (1.) Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar (hereinafter referred to as the University) invited applications for one post of Admn.-cum-Accounts Officer. The advertisement appeared in the Daily Tribune dated December 21,1991. The required qualification for the post was stated as under:- "Essential (i) At least 2nd class graduate or a Master's degree in a recognised University, (ii) At least 12 years experience of working in a University/Educational institution/State Govt./Research Institution of which at least 3 years should be in a supervisory capacity an Suptd. or equivalent. Desirable: S.A.S. or Higher Standard Exam, of University or Chartered Accountancy or Cost Accountancy or LL.B. Exam, from a recognised University or Institution." In response to the advertisement 32 Candidates applied for the said post. The university at the first instance issued interview letters to seven candidates including the petitioner, and fixed 12.2.1992 as the interview date. According to the petitioner, because of some political pressure exercised by respondent No. 3, the interview date was postponed to 14.2.1992 and all the candidates who had applied for the post, whether eligible or not, were called. Respondent No. 3 who was not eligible for the post, was selected and appointed, and this appointment is being impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) In the written statement filed, respondents No. 1 and 2 have admitted that initially seven candidates were called for interview, but "letter on all the remaining candidates were also called for interview giving general relaxation in qualification." They have further averred that a duly constituted Selection Committee had called 32 number of candidates for interview and out of these, 19 candidates appeared. On consideration of the claims of the candidates on the basis of comprehensively designed criteria, the Committee found respondent No. 3 to be more suitable for the post. Because of her (respondent No. 3) 10 years' supervisory experience as General Manager in Confed and her good performance in interview, she was selected and her case was recommended to the Vice-Chancellor for relaxation in 12 years' experience. The Vice-Chancellor approved the relaxation in experience relating to respondent No. 3 and she was appointed to the post and has since joined her duties. Respondent No. 3 on the same terms has filed her written statement.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification, but was selected. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are not sure as to when relaxation in qualification in their case was given. As stated in para 4 of their written statement relaxation was given some time from 12.2.1992 to 14.2.1992 i.e. before the candidates had appeared for interview. On the other hand, in para 2 of preliminary objections they have stated that after respondent No. 3 appeared for interview, her case was recommended to the Vice-Chancellor for relaxation in 12 years' experience and on receipt of recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Vice-Chancellor relaxed the condition of qualification in the case of respondents No. 3. It is thus, apparent that respondent No. 1 and 2 themselves are not certain as to when qualification in the case of respondent No. 3 was relaxed. Though the petitioner has averred that qualification was relaxed because when respondent No. 3 was serving with the confed, she was taken on deputation by Ch. Bhajan Lal in Centre till the remained a Centre Minister and now due to political pressure, qualification in her case has been relaxed and she has been selected and appointed, yet this averment has remained only an allegation and cannot be accepted on the face of it, but nevertheless once respondents No. 1 and 2 decided to relax the qualification, it was incumbent upon them to re-issue the advertisement so that after relaxation, all eligible persons could apply for the post. This Court in Kuldip Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab and others, 1972 SLR 706, had held that once the qualifications have appeared in the advertisement inviting applications, those qualifications cannot be changed and the selection has to be made out of the candidates possessing these qualifications. The Division Bench of this Court in Parkash Vir and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 1992 1 SLR 157, has further held that the authorities are bound by the conditions laid down in the advertisement and no deviation therefrom is permissible. Every person who applies in response to the advertisement is entitled to say that the selecting is to be made on that basis and that basis alone. The relaxation made in that case was held to be unauthorised and not sustainable. For arriving at this conclusion, the Division Bench had relied upon the following observations of the Apex Court in The District Collector and Chairman Vizianangaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Viziznangram and another vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 4 SLR 237:- "It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications then the appointee or appointees, but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint person with the inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly states that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact." In view of the above authoritative pronouncements, I have no hesitation in holding that selection of respondent No. 3 for the post of Admn.-cum-Accounts Officer was not in accordance with the advertisement and respondent No. 2 was not eligible for being selected or appointed on the date of appointment.;