Writ Petition No. 9386 of 2011

25th July, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S.P. BRAHME
Respondent Counsel: Mr. K.B. CHAUDHARY, Mr. S.P. SHAH, Mr. PARAG P. SHAHANE, Mr. S.B. TALEKAR, Mr. N.E. DESHMUKH

Cases Cited:
Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan, 1993(Suppl.3) SCC 168 :1993 AIR SCW 1488 [Para 4,10]
Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India, 2007 ALL SCR 2623=(2007) 4 SCC 54 [Para 4,9]
Kiran Rajaram Nimbalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007(3) Bom.C.R. 987 [Para 4]
Dr. Sudhakar Shankarrao Sarwate Vs. Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering, 1999(4) ALL MR 305=2000(4) Bom.C.R. 136 [Para 4,10]
Bholanath Mukherjee Vs. R.K. Mission V. Centenary College, 2011 AIR SCW 2960 [Para 5,8]
Bramchari Sidheswar Shai, AIR 1995 SC 2089 Dt. 2-7-1995 [Para 8]
District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 [Para 10]
Sukram Pal Singh Saharawat Vs. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Alenganj and others, 1993 Lab.l.C. 555 [Para 10]
Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 1 SCC 138 [Para 10]
Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Chander Shekhar and another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 [Para 11]

JUDGMENT

B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. :- Looking to the nature of controversy involved, Rule is made returnable forthwith & matter is heard finally with consent of the parties. Adv. Brahme for petitioner assails selection of the respondent no. 6 as Assistant Professor on the ground of lack of essential qualification of NET/SET in her. Exemption from NET/SET is available only if candidate has Ph.D. Here, respondent 6 does not possess NET/SET and relies upon Ph.D. which she acquired after the last date prescribed for making of applications. He also alleges bias or malafides on part of the Selection Committee. Petitioner also seeks appointment in respondent 5 College in her place. While issuing notice on 12.1.2012, this Court has already cautioned the parties that petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

2. Respondent 1 is State of Maharashtra through its higher & technical education department while respondent 2 is the University established under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994- referred to as 1994 Act, hereafter. Respondent 3 is an authority in said University conferring the doctorate ie Ph.D. Respondents 7 to 10 are the from the members of the Selection Committee alleged to be not faithful in discharge of their duties & who according to petitioner, have favored respondent 6 though she lacked the doctorate qualification. Respondent 4 is the educational institute which runs respondent 5 College in which respondent 6 has been appointed as an Assistant Professor.

3. Respondent 4 published two advertisements one on 26.11.2010 & other on 20.12.2010 calling applications to fill in the posts of Asst. Professors in various subjects including public administration. This post in public administration was/is in open category. Applications were to reach Principal of respondent 5 College within 15 days. Candidate was to posses (i)- masters degree with at least 55% marks, (ii) NET/SET clearance, & (iii) Candidate awarded Ph.D. degree in accordance with the UGC ( minimum standards & procedure for award of Ph.D.) Regulations, 2009 were exempted from NET/SET. These regulations are hereinafter referred to as 2009 Regulations. Submission of applications by petitioner as also by respondent 6 within time is not in dispute. Service of petitioneran aspirant from SC category, on clock hour basis with respondent 5 College, approval thereto by competent authority. Not only this fact that petitioner had NET/SET clearance & Ph.D. before the last date prescribed for making of application is not in dispute. Similarly, absence of NET/SET with respondent 6 and conferral of Ph.D. upon her on 20.01.2011 ie after last date for submission of application, is also not in dispute. Selection Committee consisting of 7 members interviewed the aspirants and respondents 7 to 10 are from amongst them. Respondent 7 was her guide for Ph.D.

4. In this background Adv. S.P. Brahme for petitioner states that as respondent 6 did not posses the essential qualifications till last date of submission of application for employment & got Ph.D. only on 20.1.2011, she was not eligible and could not have been put in zone of consideration. Her introduction therein is only due to influence of respondent 7 who was her guide for Ph.D. Said guide abused his position by not disclosing the lack of qualification & further obliged by recommending a solitary name. The respondents 7 to 10 due to his influence did not draw up a select list so as to enable the respondent 4/5 to find out second best or third best from amongst the interviewed candidates. Single recommendation was only to favour respondent 6 & to coerce respondents 4 & 5 to appoint her. The rescheduling or postponing of interviews is only to permit said respondent to appear therein. According to him, it is not necessary to join all members of the Selection committee as party before this Court & only those whose bonafides are assailed have been correctly impleaded. Judgments at 1993 (Suppl. 3) SCC 168 - 1993 AIR SCW 1488 "Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan", (2007) 4 SCC 54 : [2007 ALL SCR 2623] - Ashok Kumar Sonkar v . Union of India, Un reported judgment dated 9.8.2005 in WP 3758 of 2005 at Nagpur, 2007(3) Bom.C.R. 987- Kiran Rajaram Nimbalkar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000(4) Bom.C.R. 136 : [1999(4) ALL MR 305] - Dr. Sudhakar Shankarrao Sarwate vs. Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering are pressed into service by him. Information supplied to petitioner on 6.2.2912 under Right to Information Act, 2005 is also strongly relied upon. He contends that present petitioner is the only eligible & competent applicant who ought to have been selected & appointed because of his previous service with respondent 5 College and prays for a direction to appoint present petitioner in place of respondent no. 6.

5. Adv. Talekar for respondent 6 contends that the respondent 6 & petitioner were interviewed on 10.6.2011 & at that time respondent 6 was having Ph.D. degree and hence her selection is not bad. Acquisition of necessary qualification before interview & appointment is sufficient in this situation. She had submitted her thesis for Ph.D. on 14.6.2010. He relies upon 2011 AIR SCW 2960 -"Bholanath Mukherjee v. R. K. Mission V. Centenary College". As remaining committee members are not before this Court as respondents & they constitute majority, the petition must be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent 7 has submitted that said respondent has acted as per law & impartially. As only one candidate was found eligible, only one name was recommended and there are no malafides in it. Reply affidavit is relied upon to urge that respondents 8 to 10 who were other members of the Committee were not under his influence. It is accepted that respondent 8 & 9 were also the students of respondent 7. Adv. Talekar as also Adv. Deshmukh submit that respondent 7 could not have influenced decision of majority of the members. Affidavit filed on these lines by respondent 8 & 9 are read out by their Counsel Shri Deshmukh. Adv. Shaha for respondent 4 & Adv. Shahane for respondent 5 are opposing the petition. Attention of Court is invited to affidavit in reply of respondent 4 dated 3.7.2012 by respondent 4 & of respondent 5 sworn by principal Dr. Ramchandra Ippar to show that respondent 6 has been validly selected & her selection as also appointment is duly approved by University on 2.9.2011. It is submitted that this Court can not direct appointment of petitioner. Said principal has also pointed out letter written by respondent 6 to permit her to participate in selection process as her interview for Ph.D. was scheduled on 20.1.2011. The affidavit also discloses the circumstances in which the interviews were required to be postponed. The explanation is to rebut the contention of petitioner that said postponement was to accommodate respondent 6. But in present facts we do not find it necessary to refer to these details. It also needs to be mentioned that respondent 7 has attempted to demonstrate his general reputation to defend the charge of bias & petitioner has filed a counter-affidavit disputing it. Learned AGP has urged that State Government is a formal party. Nobody has appeared for other respondents though they are served.

7. The facts above show that respondent 6 was not having requisite qualifications on last date stipulated for applying for job. Respondent 4 was aware of this defect & therefore only she sought permission to participate from respondent no.4. There was/is no other reason to seek such concession. She in reply affidavit accepted that respondent 7 was her guide. On 10.6.2011, total 25 applicants were interviewed & comparative chart prepared therefor does show some better candidates, if Ph.D. of respondent 6 or then candidature of petitioner is to be ignored. It is not in dispute that she does not posses NET/SET & can be eligible for post of Asst. Professor, only if her Ph.D. is legally relevant. There are others who do not possess NET/SET or Ph.D. but have M.Phil. We can not sit in appeal or hold conclusively that they were better either than respondent 6 or then petitioner. But, if the respondent 6 is not & can not be in competition, the definite outcome of the selection process can not be predicted. This finding therefore does not permit us to issue a direction to appoint present petitioner in place of respondent no. 6.

8. It will be appropriate to consider "Bholanath Mukherjee v. R. K. Mission V. Centenary College" (supra) relied upon by respondent 6 first. This judgment is delivered in peculiar background. Admittedly, there had been a controversy with regard to the special status enjoyed by the Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda Centenary College at Rahara for a long period of time. In 1980 it was claimed that Shivamayananda did not have the requisite qualifications for being appointed as the Principal and that he had not been appointed by a duly constituted Governing Body. . During the pendency of this writ petition, the University of Calcutta issued three notices to the Ramakrishna Mission to reconstitute the Governing Bodies of the Ramakrishna Mission Residential College, Narendrapur, Ramakrishna Mission Shiksha Mandir, Howrah and Ramakrishna Mission Vidya Mandir, Howrah. The legality of these notices was challenged by the Ramakrishna Mission by filing an Interlocutory Application in the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge who held that institutions established by Ramakrishna Mission were protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India & the West Bengal Act of 1975 and West Bengal Act of 1978 would not be applicable. It, however, rejected the claim of Ramakrishna Mission under Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid judgment was carried in appeal before the Division Bench by the writ petitioners as well as the State of West Bengal and Calcutta University. The Division Bench heard all the appeals together, and by a common judgment dismissed all the appeals. The Division Bench upheld the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that Ramakrishna Mission being a minority based on religion was protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, that the Ramakrishna Mission had the right to establish educational institutions as religious denomination under Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India. Appeals to it were decided by Hon. Apex Court by a common judgment dated 2nd July, 1995 in the case of Bramchari Sidheswar Shai, (AIR 1995 SC 2089). Hon. Apex Court reversed the finding of High Court on Art. 30 but then on other issues it held :-

"In the said view we have taken in the matter of constituting a Governing Body by the Government of West Bengal in respect of the Ramakrishna Mission College at Rahara, there is no need to go into the question that there has been infringement by the Government of Ramakrishna Mission's fundamental rights to establish and maintain educational institutions under Article 26(a) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as such a question does not arise, in view of the answer already given by us on Point 3 above. So also, question of directing the West Bengal Government because of the W.B. Act of 1975 and the W.B. Act of 1978, to constitute governing body on "standard pattern" of sponsored college envisaged under its Memo dated 18-4-1978 in respect of Ramakrishna Mission College, cannot arise".

After the decision in the aforesaid case, again Writ Petition was filed in 1997 the challenging initially the appointment of Swami Shivamayananda and Swami Divyananda as Principal and Honorary Vice-Principal respectively as made without following the provisions of the West Bengal Act of 1975 and West Bengal Act of 1978. However, both the persons during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court went on open ended leave. Thereafter on 14th May, 1999, the college authorities elevated Swami Sukadevananda (respondent No. 3) Vice-Principal of the College to the post of Acting Principal with immediate effect, again without following the West Bengal Act of 1975 and West Bengal Act of 1978. He was designated as the Principal of the College on 20th March, 2001 & appointment of Swami Sukhadevananda, as Principal of the College led to the amendment of the writ petition incorporating a challenge to his appointment. It is in this background that the Hon. Apex Court noted that litigation dids not survive as the appellants had retired. Even if the writ petition was to be allowed and the appointment of respondent No. 3 was declared null and void, none of the appellants could be appointed on the post of Principal. It also found that in absence of any interim order, respondent 3 had more than fifteen years of required experience for the post of Principal. Therefore, the ground that the respondent No. 3 was not qualified as he did not possess the necessary experience would also no longer be available to the appellants. A pure and simple service dispute sought to be camouflaged as a public interest litigation was therefore not countenanced. In penultimate paragraph, therefore, the Hon. Apex Court has observed :-

"25. Before we part with this judgment, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the correctness of the High Court's judgment as we have dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the concerned appellants have already retired from service and it would not be in the interest of anybody to go into the merits."

These facts therefore clearly show that the Hon. Apex Court has not laid down that in all cases acquisition of an essential qualification like Ph.D. later on can cure the defective selection or then that its absence is merely an irregularity. This judgment is of no help to respondent no.6.

9. In (2007) 4 SCC 54 : [2007 ALL SCR 2623] - Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, the Hon. Apex Court has concluded the controversy about date relevant for finding out the eligibility. The appellant Ashok Kumar applied on 30-5-1995 & on that day, he had not completed his MD in Sharir Kriya, an essential qualification. He passed the said examination only on 30-10-1995. He was allowed to appear before the Selection Committee, despite the fact that he did not hold the requisite qualification till the date of filing of such application. He, however, was selected and offered an appointment. He joined the said post. He placed following contentions for consideration-(1) In absence of any cut-off date having been specified in the advertisement and in view of the fact that the statute or statutory rules in this behalf are also silent in regard to the question as to whether the Selection Committee could allow the appellant to take part in the selection process as he had completed his MD before he was considered therefor, the High Court committed a manifest error in arriving at the finding. (2) In view of the fact that the appellant was confirmed in the post of Lecturer, it was obligatory on the part of the Visitor to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. (3) The University having taken a definite stand before the High Court in the earlier writ petition that the appellant was selected in terms of the prevailing practice, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. (4) The jurisdiction of the Visitor being limited under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, new appointment could not have formed the subject-matter of his decision. (5) Respondent 4 being himself ineligible, he did not have any locus standi to maintain the writ petition or make a representation before the Visitor of the University. (6) In any event, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it was obligatory on the part of the High Court in equity to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Hon. Apex Court :-

" 20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application."

"34. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irregular, the same can be regularised. The court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of the law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity.

35. We have noticed hereinbefore that in making appointment of the appellant, the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and statutory rules were not complied with. The appointment, therefore, was illegal and in that view of the matter, it would be wholly improper for us to invoke our equity jurisdiction."

We find that these observations of Hon. Apex Court apply with full vigour here.

10. In Dr. Sudhakar Shankarrao Sarwate vs. Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering [1999(4) ALL MR 305] before the Division Bench of this Court, it was submitted that respondent No.6 - Dr. Askhedkar (therein) had obtained Ph.D. on 7-11-1990 prior to his appointment on 8-11-1990 and, therefore, his selection was valid. Support was drawn from the case of District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi - (1990) 3 SCC 655, where the Hon. Supreme Court took a view that the respondent having acquired requisite qualification, it would be unjust to deprive her of the post and directed the authorities to regularise her appointment. It was argued that grant of Ph.D. on 7-11-1990 related back to the date earlier to 11-6-1990 since that respondent No.6 had submitted his thesis much prior to 6-11-1990. It was urged that the declaration of result relates back to the date of examination and, therefore, respondent No.6 was qualified on the date he applied for the said post and the date on which he was appointed. Case of Sukram Pal Singh Saharawat vs. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Alenganj and others - 1993 Lab.l.C. 555 wherein the Allahabad High Court held that petitioner's success in examination dated back to his appearance in examination and hence he possessed requisite academic qualification on date of occurrence of vacancy and was qualified for the post of ad hoc lecturer on that date. The case of Ravinder Sharma (Smt.) and another vs. State of Punjab and others - (1995) 1 SCC 138 where though the appellant was found not to possess qualifications prescribed by Regulation 7 and the appointment was held to be bad, the Hon. Supreme Court gave liberty to the Government to consider her case for regularization on merits with effect from the date of acquiring necessary qualifications. Said Division Bench held that the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan (supra) cited supra settles the law on the subject and it found it fruitful to refer to paras 10 and 11 of the said Apex Court Judgment which are as under :-

"10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this court in A. P. Public Service Commission Hyderabad vs. B. Sarat Chandra and District Collector and Chairman Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi.

11. However, for the reasons which follow, we are not inclined to set aside the selection in spite of the said illegality. The selected candidates have been working in the respective posts since February 1985. We are now in January 1993. Almost eight years have elapsed. There is also no record before us to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits of the candidates and to relax the minimum qualifications in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the considerations which weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid, it would result in injustice to those who have been selected. We, however, feel it necessary to emphasis and bring to the notice of the University that the illegal practices in the selection of candidates which have come to light and which seem to be followed usually at its end must stop forthwith. It is for this purpose that we lay down the following guidelines for the future selection process:

A. The University must note that the qualifications it advertises for the posts should not be at variance with those prescribed by its Ordinance/Statutes.

B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said date should not be taken into consideration, as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be remembered that when the advertisement/notification represents that the candidates must have the qualifications in question, with reference to the last date for making the applications or with reference to the specific date mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In the circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even be better than those who apply, can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration.

C. When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes the minimum required qualifications unless it is specifically stated in the advertisement/notification both that qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on which they will be relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal.

D. The University/Selection Committee must mention in its proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxations, if any, in respect of each of the candidates in whose favour relaxation is made.

E. The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee should be preserved for a sufficiently long time, and if the selection process is challenged until the challenge is finally disposed of. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if the minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken that they are not available."

The Division Bench has noticed that the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established one, is upheld by Hon. Apex Court.

11. This Division Bench also relied upon the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and another- (1997) 4 SCC 18, (Review Petition) where the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the proposition that when an advertisement inviting applications required the qualification to be possessed on the date of submission of the application, permitting the candidates who did not fulfill that requirement but acquired the requisite qualification later albeit before the holding of interview to appear for interview, is impermissible and the Supreme Court reverted its earlier decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma's case, 1993 Suppl (2) SCC 611. The Apex Court had admitted the Review Petitions confined to two issues-

1. Whether the view taken by the majority (Hon'ble Dr. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) that it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he was not qualified by the last date prescribed for receiving the application is correct in law and whether the majority was right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy?

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, would it not be just to restore the direction of the Division Bench with respect to the inter se seniority between the two sets of candidates, namely those who were qualified as on the last date for receiving applications and those who were not so qualified. In other words, the question is whether the direction of the Division Bench to treat the candidates who were not qualified by the last date of receipt of applications as juniors, as a class, to those who were qualified, was not a just one?

and concurred with the opinion of Hon. Shri Sahai, J and held that:-

"The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R. M. Sahai, J (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview".

12. The Division Bench at Nagpur applied the above law in the matter of respondent 6 - Dr. R. D. Askhedkar as under :-

"Pursuant of the Advertisement dt. I -4- 1990 in "The Hitavada", Dr. R. D. Askhedkar applied for being appointed as Professor in Industrial Engineering (P.G. Mechanic). Admittedly, Dr. R. D. Askhedkar did not possess Ph.D. on 11-6-1990 which was the last date for making applications for the said post. Dr. R. D. Askhedkar has obtained his B.E. (Mechanic) in IInd Class, then his Master Degree in M. Tech. in First Class in the year 1975 and Ph.D. from Nagpur University on 8-11-1990. While selecting Dr. R. D. Askhedkar, the Staff Selection Committee in its recommendation has taken note of this fact and while recommending him for appointment mentioned, "It is recommended that the appointment letter be issued only after Ph.D. Degree is awarded to him". This forecloses the case of Dr. R. D. Askhedkar who was then Professor. It cannot be gainsaid as admitted before us by the learned counsel for respondent no. 6 that as Dr. Askhedkar, has already submitted his thesis prior to 11-6-1990, subsequent conferring of Ph.D. on 7-11-1990 would relate back to the date when the thesis came to be submitted. The case of Sukharam Pal cited supra relied upon by the Respondent No.6 does not come to his rescue. With due respect, the observation of Allahabad High Court was in reference to certain ad hoc appointments which were under scrutiny before the Court and this is not the ratio of the decision in that case. In Rekha Chaturvedi's case (cited supra) the Apex Court has clearly laid down that 'unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts".

It held that as R. D. Askhedkar did not possess the necessary qualification on 11-6-1990, his case ought to have been rejected at the stage of scrutiny itself. Division Bench concludes -

"Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Dr. Askhedkar did not possess minimum qualification of ph. D. in the concerned subject on or before 11-6-1990 and, therefore, did not possess minimum qualification for being appointed as Professor".

13. It is not necessary to consider the other judgments cited by petitioner, as almost all of the leading precedents find consideration above. The above discussions clinch the controversy in favour of the petitioner & against respondent 6 conclusively. Her selection is itself void & can not be regularised.

14. The fact that respondent no. 7 was guide of respondent 6 for her Ph.D. is not in dispute. Other two members of the selection committee viz. respondent 8 & 9 were/are his students only is not in dispute. The sole recommendation made by the selection committee may also be an exceptional event in present facts as apart from present petitioner & respondent 6 with her legally relevant qualification , there were few other candidates like respondent 6, present for interview & have been interviewed. But then, selection committee consisted of total 7 members & out of them only 4 have been impleaded before us. Other 3 members are not before the Court & obviously, petitioner has no grievance against them and hence, they are not necessary as per Adv. Brahme. All committee members have taken a joint decision & made a unanimous recommendation. When others who have equally contributed to it are not given the opportunity to explain the choice made or their side & respondent 10 has chosen not to file any reply affidavit, we can not return a finding of abuse of power or nepotism against the entire selection committee. We can not declare the selection process itself vitiated as it is single & unseverable. Bias of individual or majority can not result into such unanimous recommendation unless others agree to it. Hence, we hold that petitioner has failed to prove on record any such conspiracy or malpractice. Here, respondent 6 does not possess essential qualification of NET/SET and Ph.D. which she acquired after the last date prescribed for making of applications is irrelevant. Deliberate act on part of respondents 7 to 10 to overlook absence of an essential qualification in respondent 6, a fact also conveniently ignored by respondent 2/3 University while approving selection & extending approval, shows an apparent illegality & is sufficient to doubt their bonafides and transparency of the entire selection process. These factors are also sufficient to reject prayer of petitioner to direct issuance of an appointment order to him as also prayer of respondent 6 to consider her case for regularization due to subsequent acquisition of Ph.D.

15. Similarly the delay in holding the interviews by itself can not be viewed as fatal to selection. The first advertisement was on 26.11.2010 & other was on 10.12.2010. Applications were to be made within 15 days and thus last date which can be treated as cut-of date was in the month of December, 2010 itself. Interviews are held on 10.6.2011 ie before the commencement of the new academic year. Petitioner himself participated in it without any protest. He is not alleging any arrangement between the management of College & respondent no. 6. Hence, we do not find any case made out on account of said delay.

16. Thus, for reasons recorded above, the proceedings of the selection committee held on 10.6.2011 are quashed & set aside. Selection & appointment of respondent no. 6 in pursuance thereof as also appointment order dated 14.6.2011 issued to her are set aside. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 are directed to constitute a new & impartial selection committee for conducting those interviews afresh as per law. Petitioner or any other person earlier discharging duties of the post of Asst. Professor shall be allowed to continue to do the same till newly selected incumbent becomes available after these fresh interviews. Process to interview the candidates who were present & participated in the interviews on 10.6.2011 shall be completed within period of three months from today.

17. Writ petition is thus partly allowed. Respondent 2 & 7 shall each pay Rs. 3000/- as costs to present petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.