Dr. (Mrs.) Waseem Begum vs The University Of Delhi And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1215 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of prohibition against respondents 1 & 2, from allowing the respondent No. 3 in any manner participating or interfering with the selection process for appointment to the post of Lecturer of Urdu in the respondent No. 2. A further direction is sought enjoining the respondents 1 & 2 (hereafter compositely called 'University') from permitting respondent No. 4 to participate in the selection process.

2. The petitioner completed her post-graduation (M.A.) in the Department of Urdu of the University in 1988, in the first division. She also completed her M.Phil in 1990. The subject of her choice at that level was Classical Poetry. She enrolled in the Doctorate course and awarded a Ph.D. In Urdu in 1994. Thereafter, she worked for six months in Jamia Millia Islamia and subsequently as a Research Associate for two years in the University Grants Commission (UGC). During her academic career, the petitioner had undertaken work in Urdu Classical Poetry of 17th and 18th century A.D. It has also averred that the petitioner has a publication, of the year 1996 on the eighteenth century poet Mushafi, to her credit.

3. The University had, on 18.6.2001, advertised certain vacancies and invited applications from eligible candidates. Relevant extracts of the said advertisement reads as follows:

'UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 18th June, 2001997

Part-I

Applications on the prescribed form are invited for the following posts in various Departments of the University so as to reach the Registrar, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 latest by 20th July, 2001.

             xxx             xxx
            xxx             xxx 
 

 PART-II
 

Application are also invited for the following posts which have been advertised in the advt. No.: Estab.IV/161/99 dated 15.6.1999; Estab.IV/164/99 dated 5.11.1999 and Estab.IV/165/2000 dated 24.3.2000)). Persons who have applied earlier need not apply again. However, applications received earlier will be screened according to the revised essential qualifications.

Sl. No. Deptt. Post(No.of Posts)/Reservation(if any)

Special/Desirable Qualifications, if any.

       xxx        xxx
 

Urdu Lecturer(4) (SC-1)
 

 First Post : Classical Poetry (17th & 18th Century A.D.). Second Post : Classical Prose (17th & 18th Century A.D.). Third and Fourth Posts Open (SC-1).
  xxx xxx 
 

NOTE:
 

1. It will be open to the University to consider names of suitable candidates who may not have applied.
 2.  xxx xxx 
3.  xxx xxx 
 

4. Relaxation of any of the qualifications may be made in exceptional cases on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.' 
 

4. The petitioner had applied for the post. It is alleged that third respondent who was the Head of the Department of Urdu in the University and one of the Members of the Screening Committee in the recruitment process, was interested in the candidature of some applicant. It is alleged that before the issuance of the advertisement on 18th June, 2001, another advertisement had been issued and even the date of interview had been fixed, but was later cancelled.

5.The petitioner was appointed as ad hoc Lecturer in the Department in January 2002 and started continuously working in that position. It is averred that subsequently on 26.9.2002, respondent No. 4 had applied for the advertised post, namely, more than a year after the expiry of the last date. In this background, the interview of candidates took place on 7th and 8th November, 2002. The fourth respondent was issued a called letter for interview. However, the petitioner was not called for interview. It is alleged that the petitioner had fulfillled the criteria for the advertised post and in fact her name had been cleared in the screening process but nevertheless she was not considered or interviewed. The petition was filed with these allegations on 6.11.2002. The petitioner has produced copies of all her qualifications and also material in support of her experience, to say that she had both the necessary essential qualifications for the post, namely, 17th and 18th century Urdu poetry and also experience in that regard. The petitioner has also averred that by virtue of notification dated 31.7.2002, issued by the UGC she was exempted from the requirement of having qualified in the NET examination, consequently she was appointed as ad hoc lecturer.

6. The petitioner has termed her non-consideration and the consideration of the fourth respondent (who applied after the last date) as arbitrary. It is also alleged that the procedure adopted by the University in screening is contrary to law and in any case was not advertised.

7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petition was amended in view of the selection having been completed and four candidates having been appointed to the posts. The petitioner has alleged that two candidates were pupils who had completed their Ph.D. Under Professorship of Siddiquer Rehman Qudwi, one of the members of the Selection Committee. It is also alleged that no candidate was selected for appointment in the post advertised Urdu Classical Poetry and Classical Post for 17th and 18th century. It is also alleged that there is no teacher to teach Classical Urdu poetry as per advertisement in the Urdu Department of the University. The selection procedure has also been impugned on the ground that two candidates who were called for interview were not even graduates; they had completed oriental course in a Madarsa which is not even recognized as a graduation course. It is further averred that none of the candidates interviewed possessed the prescribed or advertised qualifications.

8. The University, in its return has stated that 349 applications were received in response to the advertisement. As per certain norms that had been formulated earlier, the University appointed a short listing/screening committee comprising of three members; they were the incumbent Head of Department, the previous Head of Department and the senior most Professor due for consideration to the post of HOD. That practice was apparently followed except that the incumbent HOD was not included since his wife was an applicant for the post. In his place, the Dean, Faculty of Arts participated in the Committee. It is averred that the Screening Committee took the criteria outlined in executive resolution under 297 dated 27.1.1998 and short listed 73 candidates for the four posts. The criteria prescribed by the Short Listing Screening Committee was First Division on Bachelor's and Master's Decree with Ph.D. and that the candidate should have qualified NET or should have been exempted NET. It is averred that the petitioner had represented for being called for interview; it was considered and declined since she did not fit the description of the criteria prescribed by the Screening Committee.

9. The University relies upon Note-I contained in the advertisement, (supra) to justify its consideration of candidates who had not applied within time. It is stated that the provision enabled it to consider all suitable candidates who had not applied as per the notification. The exclusion of the petitioner from consideration is defended on the ground that the Short Listing Committee decided to limit consideration from amongst 349 applicants to those fulfillling the criteria as per sub-clauses 1 & 2 of Category-I, under the Executive Committee resolution dated 27.1.1998. The petitioner had not secured first division in graduation although she has first division in her M.A. and possessed M.Phil and Ph.D., therefore, she could not be considered. The University denies that two candidates did not possess any recognized degree. It has given particulars about the qualifications held by them.

10. As far as allegations about the consideration by the respondent No. 3 of the two selected candidates is concerned, there is no specific denial to the allegation for the said third respondent was a participant in the interview process. The said two candidates, namely, Dr. Arjumand Ara and Dr. Bakr Abbad are alleged to be eligible and their qualifications have been described in the counter affidavit. The University denies that the third respondent was a party to the screening process. However, there is no specific denial to the allegations that the said third respondent participated in the interview held for selection. Similarly, there is no denial to the fact that the two of the candidates (as per the amended writ petition), namely, Dr. Arjumand Ara and Dr. Mohammed Kazim had worked under the third respondent who was their guide and supervisor for their respective Ph.D. courses.

11. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the University for screening, which resulted in non-consideration of the petitioner's candidature is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that this procedure was no-where indicated in the advertisement. The Respondents were bound to comply with the terms of the advertisement, consider and apply their minds to the requirements of the post and not super-impose a criteria or procedure that would lead to the elimination of the eligible candidates on the one hand and the consideration, selection and appointment of ineligible candidates on the other.

12. Learned counsel submitted that the minutes of the Screening Committee held on 9th October, 2002 (which were produced), nowhere disclose application of mind to the requirement of the post, namely, relevant qualification and experience in 17th and 18th century Urdu poetry. Instead, the Screening Committee focused merely on the criteria of candidates answering the description as per Category-I (i) and I (ii) of the E.C. Guidelines. This led to the elimination of the petitioner who indisputably possessed the prescribed and advertised qualifications, having studied at the M.Phil and Ph.D. level. The counsel also submitted that neither the pleadings nor the documents reveal that any of the candidates possess the advertised qualifications. Mr. Sanghi relied upon the judgment reported as Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi ,to say that the employer is bound by the terms of advertisement, and cannot, under any circumstances deviate from the essential qualifications prescribed by it. This would include not only the qualifications but also the procedure applicable for selecting and appointing candidates.

13. Learned counsel submitted that acceptance of the application of the fourth respondent and his consideration in the selection process was tainted. He submitted that the established rule in all cases where recruitment to public employment, is resorted through advertisement, is to limit or restrict consideration from amongst those who apply before the cut off date. In the present case, the cut off date was 20.7.2001. Admittedly, the respondent No. 4. did not apply by then; he applied more than a year later. Under the circumstances, the consideration of his application and issuance of interview letter to him vitiated the entire selection process.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in both the counter affidavits, (both to the un-amended as well as amended petition) University has not disclosed whether any of the four selected candidates possessed the advertised qualification, relatable to the post, i.e. Seventeenth and eighteenth century Urdu poetry. He, therefore, submitted that merely because they held post-graduation degrees in Urdu they were not entitled for appointment to the specific post, namely, Urdu Lecturer, classical poetry (17th and 18th century A.D.). The counsel further submitted that since four posts of Urdu Lecturer, were advertised (of which two posts related to specific subjects or topics, namely, 17th and 18th century A.D. Classical poetry and 17th and 18th century classical prose respectively and the other two posts being open or general posts in the subject,) the University was under an obligation to ensure that only those who answered the description and had the requisite experience and qualifications for such posts, were considered and appointed. Seen from this perspective, the appointment of four persons none of whom possessed qualifications, in respect of the post of Urdu Lecturer Classical 17th and 18th Century A.D. poetry, was not in accordance with law.

15.Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no denial about the participation by the third respondent in interview process by the respondents. He relies upon the averments in the amended counter affidavit, which merely state that the third respondent was not part of the screening process. It nowhere states that he was not part of the interview process in which two of the selected candidates who were his pupils at the Ph.D. level were considered and appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amounted to an admission to bias. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Manik Lal vs. Prem Chand, 1957 SCR 575; Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow, and Ashok Yadav vs. State of Haryana, in support of his submission that the participation of the third respondent in the official process, namely, interview, amounted to bias and vitiated the entire proceedings.

16.Mr. M.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent University contended that since a large number of applications were received for the four posts, the University had devised a procedure for screening. This procedure was not peculiar to the recruitment in question; it was as per a resolution of the executive council applicable to all recruitments. A copy of the said resolution has been produced. It contains several categories or guidelines for consideration of candidates at the stage of screening. The relevant parts of that resolution are as below:

'GUIDELINES/NORMS FOR CALLING CANDIDATES FOR INTERVIEW FOR THE POST OF LECTURER

Categories in order of preference.

 Category No. Bachelor's Degree  Master's Degree  M. Phil Degree   Ph.D.     Remakrs
Cat.1              xx                 I                 I          II         II
                   xx                 I                 I          I          I
                   xx               B.Phil              -         M.Phil      -
xx                 Ph.D.             Ph.D.             Ph.D.      Ph.D.       xx
 

Candidates besides fulfillling the qualifications mentioned in all the categories should clear NET or should have submitted Ph.D. thesis or completed their M.Phil degree by 31st December, 1993. 
 

 Note:
  

1. Normally, not more than 30 candidates should be called for interview for one post and 15 more for each additional post subject to a maximum of 75.
 

2.   xxx  xxx
 

3.If a candidate belonging to any particular category has been called for interview, all the candidates with equivalent of higher qualifications from the category must be called for interview.
 

4.   Xxx  xxx
 

5.    xxx  xxx
 

6.    xxx  xxx
 

7. A person who has worked as Lecturer in a College/Department in the University for six months or more will be given preference over others for being called for interview within the same category.'
 

17. It was submitted that the Screening Committee decided to short list only those candidates fulfillling the criteria as per clauses 1 & 2 in Category-I. The petitioner did not possess a first class degree at graduation level and, therefore, was rightly excluded. This cannot be termed as arbitrary. Mr. Singh further submitted that there was no question of any bias at the stage of screening since the third respondent was not a party; only three persons were members of the Committee, as per established practice and procedure.

18. As far as the consideration of the four candidates is concerned, the counsel submitted that all of them possessed the requisite qualifications and are eligible to be appointed.

19. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the candidature of 4th respondent could be considered as Note-I to the advertisement dated 18.6.2001. He was deemed suitable to be considered and was therefore rightly considered. The task of every Screening Committee or indeed even recruiting agency is to ensure that the best talent is considered. So long as an application received before the actual recruitment process began, there was nothing wrong in consideration of the fourth respondent; in any event he was not selected; therefore, the selection process cannot be termed arbitrary.

20.The counsel for respondent submitted that there is no denial of participation by the third respondent in the Selection Committee which interviewed candidate on 7th/8th November, 2002. He however relied on the actual minutes, produced along with the amended counter affidavit to submit that the third respondent was only one amongst seven members which included the Vide Chancellor. Under these circumstances, the participation of the third respondent did not result in bias by the whole Committee.

21. The following issues arise for consideration:

(1) The correctness and the legality of the screening process adopted by the university;

(2) Whether the non-consideration of the petitioner vitiated the selection process;

(3) The effect of consideration of the fourth respondent; and

(4) Whether the selection illegal and arbitrary on account of participation by the third respondent, in the interview.

22. In the present case, admittedly, the advertisement issued in June 2001 led to a large number of applications as against four advertised posts. The University adopted a procedure of calling for only those candidates who fulfillled a defined criteria, as per an earlier resolution of 1998. That resolution (quoted supra) broadly categorized candidates. Each category contained sub-classifications based upon the academic performance in graduation/post-graduation etc. In the present case, the Screening Committee decided to call only those candidates who had first division in graduation and post-graduation as per Category-I (i) and also possessed M.Phil and Ph.D. degree. The Category-I (ii) was also adopted; it provided that the candidate should possess first division in Bachelor and Master's degree and also hold Ph.D. without holding a M.Phil degree. The third category covers candidates who possess second division in graduation and first division in Master's degree and also are holders of M.Phil and Ph.D. There is no dispute that the petitioner was covered by the Category-I (iii). However, the Screening Committee in its wisdom decided to confine the zone of consideration to candidates in category-I (clauses [i] & [ii]). It was submitted that this was done in view of Note-I to the guidelines, which stipulated that a maximum of 75 candidates could be called for interview in any selection process. Keeping in mind that parameter, 73 candidates were called for four posts.

23. In every recruitment process, the employer or the recruiting agency, as the case may be is required to follow certain standards of procedure. Such procedures have to be either notified or at least have to confirm to the standards of fairness, mandated by the Constitution. The eligibility of every candidate would have to confirm to the advertisement issued for the purpose. Hence, the primary obligation of the selection committee or the employer would be to ensure that eligible candidates possessing the required qualifications and experience are considered and at the same time ensure that the zone of consideration is kept within manageable limits. Often in performing this balancing task it would be legitimate for the selection committee or the employer as the case may be to prescribe a screening process. While there can be no two opinions that in the interest of ensuring that candidates who possess the eligible criteria should be considered and, therefore, it would be interest of efficiency that a screening takes place for which purpose a suitable procedure can be adopted equally that procedure ought not to result in weeding out those who are eligible or result in violation of an a binding rule or result in arbitrariness.

24. In the judgment, relied upon by the petitioners, namely, Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society's case (supra) it was held as follows:

'It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of 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 than 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 persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated 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.'

25. In some judgments of the Supreme Court, the legitimacy of adopting separate mechanism for screening candidates has been upheld (S.P. Biswal vs. State Bank of India, 1991 Supl. II SCC 354; Union of India vs. T. Sundaraman, ). In the latter case, the court had even gone to the extent stating that fixing of a criteria that was above the minimum eligibility for the purpose of short listing could be termed permissible. In that case as well as in another case relied upon in the judgment, M.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Navneet Potdwar, insistence of greater experience than what was prescribed for the purpose of short listing was held to be permissible.

26. In the judgment reported as State of Punjab vs. Manjeet Singh, , the court had held where special qualifications or any prescribed standard of efficiency over and above the eligibility criteria are provided by the rules or the State, it would be impermissible for the recruiting agency, namely, the Commission to impose any extra qualification/standard for maintaining minimum efficiency, in the task of short listing. This reasoning was followed in a subsequent judgment, namely, Inder Prakash Gupta vs. J & K, , where the Court held that prescribing of any cut of mark in the recruitment, not contemplated by statutory rules was impermissible.

27. It would now be necessary to tie the two streams of seemingly conflicting authorities. It is apparent that the recruiting agency or the employer can, for the purpose of ensuring that suitable candidates are considered, and sifting out ineligible candidates, adopt a screening process. This screening process or procedure should include criteria, that has to conform to what was prescribed or advertised. The agency concerned can even impose a higher standard, vis-a-vis experience i.e. by way of greater experience and adopt that as a screening yardstick to exclude candidates; however, it cannot impose a qualification which was not prescribed by rules and make that the basis for short listing candidates.

28. In the present case, University's compulsion in adopting a screening procedure is undeniably legitimate. However, the minutes of the Screening Committee disclose that it merely confirmed to the requirement of upper criteria of having to consider 75 candidates for four posts and in that process confined the zone of consideration to two sub-categories alone. This resulted in exclusion of those persons who did not possess either first class degree in graduation or first class degree in M.A. but who were otherwise eligible in all respects. In the case of the petitioner, this procedure operated prejudicially; she did not possess first class graduation degree. However, she had a first class M.A, possessed M.Phil and also Ph.D. The procedure adopted also did not take into consideration the qualification necessary for the post of 17th and 18th century A.D. Urdu Poetry i.e., as to whether the candidates screened and found fit actually possessed the qualifications and the experience relatable to the post. In other words, there was no application of mind to the needs of the post. There is no dispute that the petitioner fulfillled the criteria described for recruitment to the post as per the advertisement. Hence, her exclusion on the one hand as well as inclusion and consideration of others was arbitrary.

29. The above finding is on the premised on the footing that the University in neither of its counter affidavits denies that for Urdu Lecturer in 17th and 18th century poetry, the qualification and experience relateable to the post are essential; and that the petitioner did possess them. Therefore, the findings of Point 1 and 2 are that the procedure adopted by the University was arbitrary and that the exclusion of the petitioner's name from consideration was vitiated.

30. Every selection process contains various elements which commence from issuance of notification/advertisement, that would define the qualifications and criteria, and prescribe last date for entertaining the applications; processing of applications and; written exams/interview; formulation and publication of selected list culminating in appointment. An important element in this whole process is the fixing the last date for entertaining application. This is necessary since it would be the cut off date for determining the eligibility criteria, be it experience or qualification (refer to Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Suppl.3 SCC 168 and Mills Douglas Michal vs. Union of India, ). Those interested or desirous of applying are put on notice that they should submit their applications within the time fixed for the purpose. The eligibility as per the application would also judged on the last date prescribed for the application, and not on its date of consideration. If these parameters are kept in mind, there can be no question of entertaining any person's application beyond the date fixed for the purpose unless it is extended suitably by a corrigendum, also notified in the same manner as the original advertisement. If any other mode is resorted to, it would amount to under minding the object of the selection procedure and result in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in that, the authority concerned would be entertaining applications without even notifying the public about the possibility of such consideration, thus leading to exclusion of those who do not apply.

31. In the present case, the respondents have admittedly considered the application of respondent No. 4 who was in fact cleared by the screening committee but, however, was subsequently not selected. This action has been justified on the basis a note. However, I am of the opinion that the note does not come to the rescue of the University since admittedly no corrigendum was issued or published extending the last date or indicating a new cut of date.

32. The question, therefore, is whether the consideration of the fourth respondent and the exclusion of the petitioner could be characterized as arbitrary to the extent that the petitioner was excluded from consideration and the said respondent should not have been considered having applied beyond time prescribed. There is no scope for any conclusion other than that the University acted in violation of Article 14. Nevertheless, that factor alone in my considered opinion does not vitiate the selection since the said respondent No. 4 was not ultimately appointed. However, I shall deal with the effect of this finding as regards infraction of Article 14 at a later stage in the judgment.

33. The issue for consideration on this point is whether the participation of respondent No. 3 in the interview process can be stated to vitiate the entire selection and appointment of candidates to the post. The petitioner alleged that the said third respondent was a tutor and guide to at least two of the selected candidates, who were appointed. This has not been denied in the pleadings. The University has produced a copy of the minutes of the interview, which recommended four names for appointment. The interview Committee did include respondent No. 4. The rule of bias enunciated in the three judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, is that an administrative order or decision is said to be vitiated by bias if the admitted facts and circumstances disclose real likelihood or possibility of bias. Bias has been termed as 're-dispossession or prejudice'and the test applied in all the cases is whether the allegations amount to reasonable apprehension of bias or if there is a real danger bias.

34. In the decision reported as Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, 2001(1) SCC 182, the Supreme Court stated that while applying the test of bias, all the surrounding circumstances ought to be collated and a finding of bias given if the inescapable conclusion is an existing and real danger of bias. In such an eventuality alone would the administrative action fail. The Court there had inferred bias on the basis of a chain of events and circumstances which pointed at ill will on the part of the higher authority, in the course of disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, in Badrinath "vs-. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors., , the Supreme Court had concluded, (in the context of the disciplinary proceedings) that the involvement of an officer, who had displayed bias in the recording of confidential reports and other circumstances, constituted proof of bias. On the other hand, in several other cases such as Jagat Bandhu Chaturvedi vs. G.C. Rai, 2000(9) SCC 739 and Rasmiranjan Das vs. Sarojkanta Behera and Ors., , the court had repelled the allegations of bias on account of participation by a Member of Selection Committee where their relatives were candidates and there were allegations that such members were interested in such candidates.

35. The above decisions would show that bias, like mala fides, essentially is a matter of fact, which has to be proved. In the case of bias (where non-pecuniary bias as is alleged in the present case) the relationship has to be precisely defined and the closeness or proximity of the relationship has to be specifically shown so that the inference of bias is inescapable; all necessary supporting material has to be adduced. In the present case, the entire submissions by the petitioner are premised on the third respondent being the tutor of two selected candidates. This fact was not disputed by the University; it has also not disputed that he was a part of the interview committee. But beyond these allegations, there is no further material to show that the relationship of the third respondent, with the selected candidates, went beyond that of a tutor and that he was vitally interested in their candidature or was found, or even likely to go out of his way, (having regard to the nature of relationship with the said two candidates), to recommend their cases. One factor that cannot be lost side is that the Interview Committee comprised of 7 persons including Vice-Chancellor; the third respondent was one among them. Taking all these factors into consideration, I am of the view that the petitioners have not succeeded in proving real likelihood of bias.

RELIEF

36. The petitioner had approached this Court originally at a stage of when the interview was about to be held. Subsequently, after selection and appointment, of four candidates, the petitioner sought and was granted liberty to amend pleadings. The writ petition was therefore amended and certain new pleas were added. The Court, by its order dated 23.4.2003, after hearing the parties in CM 3356/2003 recorded that appointment of the new Lecturers by the respondents shall be subject to final orders in the writ petition.

37. The findings on points 1 & 2 as well on point No. 3 disclose that the University adopted an arbitrary procedure resulting in exclusion of eligible candidates like the petitioner. It also resulted in non-application of mind by the authorities to the needs of the post as far as the eligibility criterion was concerned. Inherent and implied in the advertisement was the necessity of ensuring that those possessing qualification and experience relatable to the post of Urdu Lecturer, 17th and 18th century poetry had to be considered and appointed. The record nowhere discloses that this was done; admittedly the petitioner, an eligible candidate, was screened out.

38. In view of the conspectus of the fact and having regard to the findings, I am of the view that the selection process to the post of Urdu Lecturer (17th and 18th Century A.D. Poetry) was riddled with far too many infirmities and illegalities. The selected candidates are not before the Court. It has been held in several judgments that in such proceedings, selected candidates are necessary parties, and their appointments should not be quashed. However, this Court had made it clear, in these proceedings, to the respondent by its order, that the appointments would be subject to outcome of these proceedings. In this view, the said selected candidates were put on notice through the respondents, who was under an obligation to disclose the pendancy of these proceedings, in an appropriate manner.

39. Having regard to the facts and also keeping in mind the fact that four appointments were made in the year 2002/2003, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate to quash the appointments. It would therefore be necessary to suitably mould the relief.

40. In view of the above finding about the process of selection being arbitrary, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner's case is considered as of 8th November, 2002 by another Selection Committee along with the candidature of all the four selected candidates, and a fresh selection list is prepared. The University is accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioner along with those of the other four candidates and select one person, having regard to the advertisement dated 18.6.2001, to the post of Urdu Lecturer (17th and 18th century poetry). The petitioner and the other candidates shall be given reasonable and appropriate notice by the University in this regard, that shall interview them, by adopting such criteria that shall have regard to the qualifications and experience relatable to the post in question. This process shall be completed within a period of ten weeks from today, and a revised appointment list shall be issued thereafter, in accordance with law, in respect of the said post, and the other three posts.

41. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.