E N SRINIVAS Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this petition raises an issue of significance pertaining to the purity of procedure that is incumbent in the conduct of public authorities in matters pertaining to recruitment. The moot point that has been vehemently debated centres around the question as to whether a public authority is justified in aborting the recruitment sequence prior to its reaching a stage of finality. while it is conceded that the power to suspend or modify the process is inherent, the further subsidiary question that has been posed is as to whether the manner in which that power is exercised can be questioned. As a corrollary, the incidental aspect of the matter that falls for determination is as to whether in cases where that power is improperly exercised, a court would be justified in directing the derailed process to be restored to its original point and to be continued in the same manner as though it would have proceeded but for the interruption or variation. A few of the relevant facts that have given rise to this dispute are set out below;

(2.) the petitioner has passed his master's degree in arts with sanskrit and is a first rank holder in that subject from the bangalore university. He had been awarded four gold medals for his outstanding performance and the records show that he has been a meritorious student all through. The bangalore university published a notification dated 12-10-1993 inviting applications for several courses, one of which was to the post of lecturer in sanskrit. This post was classified and advertised as a general merit post. The petitioner filled in the prescribed form along with the application fees and submitted these before the last date i.e., 13-12-1993. Having regard to the petitioner's merit and the fact that he was head and shoulders above most of the other applicants, he had expected to receive a call letter for interview and an appointment later thereafter, but nothing happened. On making enquiries, he was informed that the university had set up a sub-committee to look into the question of regularisation of several other persons in whose cases certain impediments existed but where the authorities had decided to regularise the appointments, and that this sub-committee had submitted certain recommendations. On the basis of these recommendations, the university is alleged to have altered the position and reserved the post of lecturer in sanskrit for a scheduled caste student. Pursuant to this, the heads of the departments had been asked to notify certain vacancies on the notice board vide notification dated 17-1-1994 and to forward the applications from eligible candidates on or before 31-3-1994. On this basis, it is contended that the respondents subsequently appointed respondent 4 to the post of lecturer in sanskrit. It is alleged by the petitioner that unlike the earlier advertisements, that on this occasion the entire process was done very quietly and behind his back and in Order to favour the 4th respondent. he also points out that out of the 6 posts in the department of sanskrit, there is already a candidate belonging to the scheduled caste and that therefore, there is adequate representation to the reserved category candidates even if it is the contention of the university that this ratio is required to be borne in mind.

(3.) the defence of the university is that in the first instance, the petitioner is only an applicant for an advertised post and that consequently, he is only entitled to be considered. He has no right and in any event, no enforceable right in respect of that post on the basis of which he can insist on a writ of mandamus being issued to the authorities to appoint him. Furthermore, it is contended that the university has the absolute right to suspend or revoke the invitation for applications and that none of the candidates who have applied, can question the power of the university in this regard. On facts, the university justifies its action by pointing out that the sub-committee for regularisation of the appointments of several other persons had put forward a recommendation that the existing vacancies should be utilised in a particular manner and that it was pursuant to this recommendating that the post of lecturer in sanskrit was shifted over to a scheduled caste candidate. They contended that for purposes of accommodating those persons it was decided to make certain modifications in the posts that had been advertised and that this was perfectly permissible. Respondent the selected candidate, has contended that his appointment is perfectly within the frame work of law, that the vacancy was for a schedule caste candidate and that the petitioner could not be considered for the post as he belongs to the general category. respondent 4 has submitted that insofar as his appointment does not suffer from any infirmity, that no relief should be granted to the petitioner and in any event, not at the expense of dislodging him.