IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19745 of 2006 Between: Dr. K. Sai lakshmi W/o dr. Ch. Diwakar, S.V.P. Engineering College, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chancellor Andhra Pradesh University, Visakhapatnam 2 The Registrar, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530 003. 3 The Executive Council, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530 003. 4 The Selection Committee, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530 003. 5 Dr. Susheela Bai D/o A.r. Singh Geetam college, of Sciences, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in selecting and issuing appointment order to the 5th Respondent herein as Associate professor in Engineering Chemistry Department pursuant tot he Advertisement No. TS3/2006 dated 31-05- 2006, as illegal, arbitrary and against rules and statues of the University and set a side the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to select and appoint petitioner in the said post and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondents: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: The Andhra University issued an advertisement, dated 31.05.2006, inviting applications for the posts of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in various disciplines in the Engineering. The petitioner and fifth respondent submitted applications for the post of Associate Professor in Engineering Chemistry, which was reserved for woman. The University selected and appointed the fifth respondent, through their proceedings, dated 03.10.2006. The petitioner challenges the same. It is contended that in the advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that the candidate for the post of Associate Professor in Engineering Chemistry not only must possess the qualifications of Post Graduation and Ph.D., in the relative discipline, but also specialization in Inorganic Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry and though the petitioner alone is specialized in Inorganic Chemistry, the University has chosen the fifth respondent. The University filed a counter-affidavit mentioning the respective qualifications possessed by the petitioner on the one hand and the fifth respondent on the other hand. It is stated that the Selection Committee found both the candidates fulfilling the minimum requirements, but the fifth respondent is more meritorious, and accordingly, selected her. The fifth respondent filed counter-affidavit furnishing the details of the qualifications held by her. It is stated that she too has studied the Inorganic Chemistry in the Post Graduation course and in addition to that, she did not only Ph.D., but also has studied M.Tech., in IIT Mumbai. Heard Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned Standing Counsel for the University and Sri V.Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the fifth respondent. For the post of Associate Professor, the prescribed qualifications are as under: “Ph.D degree with first class degree at Bachelor’s or Master’s level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology with 3 years experience in Teaching/Industry/ Research at the level of Lecturer (Assistant Professor) or equivalent. or First class degree at Master’s level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology with 5 years experience in teaching/research/industry at the level of Lecturer (Assistant Professor) or equivalent. Such candidates will be required to obtain Ph.D. degree with in a period of 7 years from the date of appointment of Associate Professor. Candidates from Industry/Profession with First Class Bachelor’s degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology or First Class Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology and Professional work which is significant and can be recognized as equivalent to Ph.D. degree and with 5 years experience would also be eligible.” In addition to that, the advertisement has also mentioned about the specialization for the post of Associate Professor in Inorganic Chemistry/Analytical Chemistry under the heading of specialization/ preferential/desirable qualifications. It is not clear as to what, among the Inorganic Chemistry, and Analytical Chemistry, is specialization/ preferential or desirable qualification. Be that as it may, a perusal of the qualifications held by the petitioner on the one hand and the fifth respondent on the other hand, discloses that the fifth respondent holds superior qualifications. The University has summed up the qualifications of two candidates, which are as under: Petitioner Dr.K.Sai Lakshmi 5th respondent Dr.G.Susheela bai 10th class, I class, 60%, 1982 {Board of Secondary Education} 10th Class, I Class, 75%, 1987 {C.B.S.E.} Inter {Bi.P.C.}, 1st Class, 61.7%, 1984 {Board of Intermediate Education} 10+2 {M.Bi.P.C.}, I class, 75%, 1987 {C.B.S.E.} B.Sc.(Chemistry Main), I Class, 71% (Andhra University) B.Sc. (M.P.C.), I Class, 86%, {Osmania Universty} M . S c . C h e m i s t r y , 57.5%, {Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 1989} M.Sc.General Chemistry, 70%, {Central University, Hyderabad, 1992} M .Phil, Inorganic Chemistry, 71% {Andhra University, 1992} M.Tech, Material Science, 86.4% {IIT, Mumbai, 1995} Ph.D. 1997, Inorganic Chemistry, (Andhra University) Ph.D. 2003, Physical Chemistry (Osmania University {IICT} In addition to the qualifications mentioned above, the fifth respondent had passed M.Tech. from IIT Mumbai, after securing 92% of marks in the GATE examination. Though it is strongly urged by Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, that specialization in Inorganic Chemistry is essential, the advertisement does not support his contention. It has already been pointed out that the advertisement is vague as to the requirement of the specializations. Further, it is not clear as to whether specialization must be at the level of degree, post graduation or research levels. The choice obviously must be of the Selection Committee, which not only knows the job requirements of the concerned post, but also holds the equipment to assess the relative merits of the candidates. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the appointment of the fifth respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.23.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}