THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.13340 OF 2011 DATED: 29.04.2011 Between: Dr.D.Udaya Kumari …Petitioner And 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.13340 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the show-cause notice No.DU/Estt./E-2/EQ/2011, dated 08.04.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents to forbear from canceling the appointment of the petitioner. 2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was recruited through a regular departmental process as Deputy Director (Publications Division) in the 2nd respondent university on 01.10.2010 and since then she has been discharging her duties to the best of her ability; that the impugned order is passed calling for his explanation as to why her appointment should not be cancelled; that, as seen from the impugned order, the third respondent has already concurred with the view taken by the Two Men Committee and therefore it is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent university contended that the impugned order is only a show cause notice issued calling for explanation of the petitioner and that the petitioner can as well submit her explanation to the said notice, and there no grounds to quash the same. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the Executive Council in its meeting held on 30.03.2011 resolved to: “agree the Two men Committee Report and requested the University to initiate action to cancel the appointment of the petitioner which is made in contravention to the rules and regulations.” The report insofar it relates to the petitioner is concerned, reads thus: “The application shows that Dr.Udaya Kumari, worked as Assistant Professor in Dravidan University for one year. Her selection is not as per the eligibility criteria laid down in the Notification since she does not possess experience of five years equivalent to Assistant Professor and other essential qualifications. Hence, in the opinion of the committee, she was not eligible to be called for interview for the post of Deputy Director.” 5. In pursuance of G.O. Rt.No.876 HE (UE-I) Dept., dated 12.11.2010, a Two Men Committee was appointed by the Government to enquire into certain appointments made in 2nd respondent university, and the Committee submitted its report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government called for remarks on the Committee Report, and the 2nd respondent university said to have submitted its remarks to the Government. Thereafter, the Executive Council resolved to agree with the report of the Two Men Committee. The appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Director of Publications in 2nd respondent university is in pursuance of a Notification issued by the university and she was subjected to selection process by the Executive Council. 6. It is not in dispute that process of recruitment is regulated either by statutory rules or resolutions passed by the Executive Council of the University. It is now well settled that it is open to the appointing authority to lay down requisite qualifications for recruitment to the posts in the university. What should be the qualification for a post is a matter for the administration to decide. The requisite qualifications are expressly mentioned in the Notification. It is the privilege of the university to decide the relevance of the requisite qualifications vis-à-vis the post. For being eligible, a candidate must possess the prescribed qualifications as notified. Once the true import of the requisite qualifications is ascertained, then the recruitment must be in terms of such qualifications. Further more, mere qualification is, however, not enough for appointment. The candidate must be suitable for the job and the suitability has to be adjudged according to some norms. The above aspects have to be borne in mind to decide whether the appointment of the petitioner is in accordance with norms prescribed in the Notification or not. The university has to consider the case of the petitioner independently not influenced by any observations made by the Two Men Committee. 7. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner shall submit her explanation as required in the impugned notice dated 08.04.2011 and thereafter the case of the petitioner has to be considered independently in accordance with the Notification, Resolutions of the Executive Council of the University and regulations of the university governing the appointment and service conditions of the petitioner as Deputy Director of Publications uninfluenced by the fact finding recommendations made by the Two Men Committee and duly taking note of the response submitted by the university to the Government in response to the committee report. 8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 29-04-2011 Hsd