GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 30. 10. 1991 against the respondents with the prayer that the recommendations of the Selection Committee in pursuance of the interviews held on 26. 10. 1991 for the post of Assistant Professor of Botany be quashed in toto and the respondents be asked to hold fresh interviews and in that, the petitioner may also be called.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- Certain posts of Assistant Professors in the Department of Botany in the University of Jodhpur were advertised through Annex. 1 on 10. 9. 91 in the newspaper "hindustan Times". The petitioner, who is Msc. (Botany) and Phd. from the recognized University, applied for the said post and submitted the application form. The qualifications for the said post are mentioned in Annex. 2 and the same are as follows:- (a) A Doctorate's degree or research work of an equally high standard; and (b) Good academic record with atleast second class (G in the seven point scale) Master's degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University of equivalent degree from a foreign University. Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary programmes, the degrees in (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subject. Provided that if the selection committee is of the view that the research work of a candidates as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high standard, it may relax any of qualifications prescribed in (b) above. " Since the petitioner has passed her M. Sc. (Botany) from Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (UP) in 1986 and she also got the degree of Ph. D. from the same University, therefore, in all respects, she was fulfilling all the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor. The Constitution of the Selection Committee, the procedure of the Selection Committee and the disqualification for sitting as a Member are contained in Sections 4 to 6 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Special) Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1974") and the relevant clause contained in Section 5 (3) of the Act of 1974 is reproduced hereinbelow :- " 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. " However, to the utter dismay of the petitioner, although she was fully qualified and eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer), but she was not called for interview and she was illegally deprived for consideration of the said post, which was unfair and unjust. Since thereafter recommendations made by the Selection Committee in pursuance of the interviews held on 26. 10. 1991 were approved by the Syndicate for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany, therefore, they may be quashed as the petitioner was not called for interview though she had requisite qualifications for the said post. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents on 14. 10. 1998 and in the reply, the main contention of the respondents was that the petitioner was not found eligible to be called for interview, as per the short listing methods. No doubt the petitioner was having minimum qualifications for the said post, but as per short listing Rules, she was not called for interview. Hence, this writ petition be dismissed. In this petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by not calling the petitioner for interview though she had minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor, a discrimination has been made by the respondents against the petitioner, which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the whole selection should be set aside and method of short listing is also contrary to rules. On the contrary, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the selection cannot be set aside as the persons, who were selected for the posts of Assistant Professors (Lecturers), have not been made parties to this writ petition and in their absence, their appointments cannot be set aside and apart from this, since in short listing, the case of the petitioner was not found favourable by the Selection Committee, therefore, in such matters, no interference should be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions including in M. P. Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar (1), and later on in Union of India and Anr. vs. T. Sundararaman (2), has upheld the principles of short listing of the candidates.
(3.) THEREFORE, in the present case, if the Selection Committee adopted the principles of short listing, it cannot be said that its action was irrational or improper or illegal or contrary to rules. Position of law with respect to interference under writ jurisdiction of the High Court against the autonomous body like University. The Educational Authorities should be left without interference from the Court and other outside agencies in administering their disciplinary jurisdiction over the matters of examinations and appointments. The interference in matters of University through writ jurisdiction should be made only when :- (1) That there is a patent and undoubted violation of a provision in the statute or regulation or ordinance governing the particular subject; (2) That this non-compliance or violation should have directly resulted in a substantial restriction of the service or benefit which a citizen is entitled to get from the University; and (3) That the direction or relief sought should be such that it should not add to the inconvenience suffered by the public at large, disproprortionate to the injustice or inconvenience that is sought to be remedied. ;