AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) THE appellant by means of this Special Appeal, challenges the order of learned Single Judge dated 22nd July 1982 dismissing his writ petition.
(2.) INITIALLY, in the writ petition, the appellant claimed relief against Inder Raj Singhvi, respondent No. 4; Syndicate, University of Jodhpur, respondent No. 5 and Mrs. Kalyani Shivaraman, respondent No. 6. Before us, the challenge was confined to the appointment of Inder Raj Singhvi, respondent No. 4. The allegation was that respondent No. 4 was selected by a committee constituted contrary to Section 4 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 (Act No. 18 of 1974) as amended by Act No. 24 of 1976. The appellant appeared in the interview held for the post of branch Librarian as well as Deputy Librarian. The post of Deputy Librarian is inferior to that of Branch Librarian. Branch Librarian is an 'officer' within the meaning of S. 2 (iii) of the Raj. Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' which runs as under: - " 'officer' means the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Assistant Registrar, the Librarian of a University and, includes any other officer by whatever name designated and, declared by the Statute to be an Officer of that University. " Section 3 of the Act provides that no teacher and no officer shall be appointed except on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted u/s. 4. Sub-Section (2) of S. 3, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, reads as under:- "3 (1 ). . . 3 (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), every appointment of a teacher or of an officer in any University made in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be null and void. " Section 4 provides for the constitution of Selection Committee. Section 4 (1) (v), with which we are concerned in the present case, refers to column 1 and 2 of the 1st Schedule. Amongst the various categories of persons mentioned in Col. 1, one of them is 'officer'. We have already stated above that a Branch Librarian is an 'officer' within the meaning of the Act. Consequently item no. 6 of column 1 of the Schedule is relevant in this case, which is reproduced below: - "deputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian or Junior Technician in the Library or any other officer in the Library having his pay in a scale not lower than that of the Lecturer. Two experts not connected with the University concerned having special knowledge of Library Science and Library Administration to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor of such University. " Sub-Section (3) of Section 5 lays down as under: - "every Selection Committee shall be bound by the qualifications laid down in the relevant law of the University concerned for the post of a teacher or, as the case may be, of an officer. " The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant appeared in the interview for the post of an 'officer', he was not interviewed in accordance with the provisions laid down in item no. 6 of column 1 of the Schedule, as quoted above. Learned counsel contended that the Selection Committee was illegally constituted in as much as one Mohan Swaroop Maheshwari, who was a member of the Selection Committee, was not qualified and an expert on the subject for which interview was held. Therefore, the constitution of the Selection Committee was not valid.
(3.) WE have no difficulty in accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the post of a Branch Librarian falls within the definition of. the word 'officer' given in S. 2 (iii) of the Act, but we find ourselves unable to interfere with the present appeal on this ground. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Mohan Swaroop Maheshwari was not competent to become a member of the 'selection Committee' as he was not an expert in the Library Science, is not tenable. From the record we find that Sri Maheshwari was a lecturer in the Department of physics, University of Jodhpur. In the absence of any provision in the Act or the Statute laying down the qualifications of experts, who could participate in the interview, it is not possible for us to find him unqualified to participate in the aforesaid interview and on that basis, the selection of respondent no. 4 cannot be quashed. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that it was strange that the appellant was found fit for the post of Deputy Librarian by the same Selection Committee whereas he was not found fit for the post of Branch Librarian. That is so, but that circumstance is not conclusive in itself to indicate that the decision of the Committee was biased or sufferred from an error with which the court could interfere. It is not the function of the court to hear appeals against the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize relative merits of the candidates. The learned counsel for the appellant also took us to the writ petition and pointed out that appellant was more competent, and meritorious than respondent no. 4, namely, Inder Raj Singhvi. We are not required to judge the merit of the candidates. It was the job of the Selection Committee to judge as to whether a candidate was fit for the particular post or not, as the Selection Committee is an expert body and has the expertise on the subject. The court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in such matters. It is not in dispute that the Syndicate had not made any Statute contrary to what was provided for by the Act. The former may have the power to do so under the Act. The Act provides a particular manner in accordance with which, a statute could be framed, repealed or amended. The same could not be done otherwise than in accordance with Act. ;