THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 24341 of 2009 Dated: 03.03.2010 Between: Prof. A.Malla Reddy, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Regional Centre for Urban & Environmental Studies, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 24341 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioner is the Deputy Director of Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies, Osmania University. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notification dated 21.10.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent – Osmania University - inviting applications for the post of Director of the Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies, Osmania University is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and accordingly to set aside the same. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the senior most Professor concerning to the faculty of Urban affairs and member of the service of the 1st respondent-institute alone is eligible for holding the post of Director on in-charge or full time basis as resolved by the Governing council in its meeting dated 31.05.2007. The facts in brief are as under: The Regional Centre for Training and Research in Municipal Administration was established in the Department of Public Administration, Osmania University in the year 1970 pursuant to a decision taken by the Government of India. Subsequently, the same was renamed as Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies. In the year 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered between the Government of India through Ministry of Urban Affairs, New Delhi and Osmania University, Hyderabad to cater to the research needs of four Southern States and Pondicherry. The 1st respondent is an organisation funded by the Government of India and it is under the administrative control and academic support of the 2nd respondent-University. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, the Director of the 1st respondent-institute shall be appointed on All India basis by the Chairman of the Governing Council of the Institute on the recommendations of the Governing Council consisting of the following members: i. Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University – Chairman ii. Secretary, MUA & E, Govt., of India or their nominees – Member iii. One nominee each from Two State Governments in the Centre’s Jurisdiction on rotation, to be nominated by MUA & E. - Members. iv. The senior Professor of the Centre or the related Disciplines in the O.U to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, OU – Member. v. Director, RCUES. --- Member & Convenor. One Professor D.Ravindra Prasad, was initially the Director of the 1st respondent-institute. He retired from service in the month of October, 2004. Thereafter, Professor S.Bhupathi Rao, who was the Head of the Department of Public Administration of Osmania University at that time, held the post of in-charge Director. Challenging his continuation as in-charge Director, even after he was relieved as Head of the Department, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27653 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Governing Council of the 1st respondent-institute to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2004 as well as the claims of all the eligible and competent persons for appointment as in-charge Director within a period of eight weeks. Accordingly, the Governing Council in its meeting held on 04.05.2006 relieved Professor S.Bhupathi Rao and appointed the Head of the Department of Public Administration as in-charge Director. The Governing Council further resolved to advertise the post and also fixed the eligibility criteria. In terms of the said resolution, notification dated 10.11.2006 was issued by the 2nd respondent-University inviting applications for the post of Director. The eligibility criteria fixed under the said notification was under: a. A Doctorate Degree in Public Administration/Social Sciences. b. 17 years of experience in research and/or training and consultancy at National, Regional and State level Urban Institutions. c. At least five years experience in the subject of Urban Affairs/Urban Administration/Urban training research Institutions. d. An eminent scholar with published work of high quality. In response to the same, the petitioner and two other eligible Professors were called for the interview and they appeared before search-cum-selection committee on 07.05.2007. As per the merit assigned by the said committee, the petitioner was placed at the first place and he was recommended for the post of full time Director. However, the Governing Council of the 1st respondent in its meeting held on 31.05.2007 resolved not to act upon the recommendations of the search-cum-selection committee and re-fixed the eligibility criteria as 15 years of working experience with atleast five years experience in Urban Affairs. The other eligibility conditions specified in the notification dated 10.11.2006 were decided to be continued. Thereafter, a fresh notification dated 11.06.2007 was issued by the 2nd respondent-University calling applications from the eligible persons for the post of Director of the 1st respondent-institute. The eligibility criteria in the said notification was prescribed as under: e. A Doctorate Degree in Public Administration/Social Sciences. f. 15 years of experience in research and/or training and consultancy at National, Regional and State level Urban Institutions. g. At least five years experience in the subject of Urban Affairs/Urban Administration/Urban training research Institutions. h. An eminent scholar with published work of high quality. The petitioner and another candidate by name Professor Ashok Kumar attended the interview on 20.12.2007 and it is claimed that the selection committee had recommended the petitioner’s name. It is alleged that without finalising the said selections and without placing the recommendations of the selection committee dated 20.12.2007 before the Governing Council of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent-University issued a fresh notification dated 21.10.2009 calling applications from the candidates for the post of the Director of the 1st respondent. The eligibility criteria fixed under the said notification runs as under: a. A Doctoral Degree in Public Administration/Urban Affairs/Social Sciences. b. 15 years of experience in research and/or training and consultancy at National, Regional, State level Urban Institutions or UGC recognized institutions. c. Experience in the subject of Urban Affairs/Urban Administration/Urban training research Institutions is preferable. d. An eminent scholar with published work of high quality. The said notification is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that the eligibility conditions fixed in the impugned notification dated 21.10.2009 are contrary to the eligibility conditions fixed by the Governing Council in its meeting dated 31.05.2007. It is also contended that having notified the vacancy by issuing advertisement dated 11.06.2007 and constituting a selection committee which interviewed the candidates on 20.12.2007, it was not open to the 2nd respondent to issue the impugned notification afresh without placing the recommendations of the selection committee dated 20.12.2007 before the Governing Council. At any rate, without cancelling the selection made pursuant to the earlier notification dated 11.06.2007, the 2nd respondent-University ought not to have issued the impugned notification dated 21.10.2009. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned notification is tailor made to suit the persons of the choice of the 2nd respondent and the eligibility conditions have been deliberately expanded to make eligible the present in-charge Director, Professor S.Bhupathi Rao. It is also alleged that the impugned notification dated 21.10.2009 has been issued only to see that the writ petitioner is excluded from the selection process. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it is explained that the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent had jointly taken a decision about the eligibility criteria of the Director in the interest of the organization. It is also stated that the eligibility criteria has been fixed so as to find an experienced human resource who can deliver the expected out come effectively since the Director has to lead the organization with integrity and commitment. It is further pleaded that the selection committee which met on 20.12.2007 recommended that “none found eligible”. Hence, the governing counsel decided to re-advertise the post. So far as the qualifications specified in the impugned notification dated 21.10.2009 are concerned, it is explained that the Vice Chancellor of the 2nd respondent-university being the Chairman of the 1st respondent-institution, after careful consideration of the non availability of eligible, qualified, experienced human resource despite two previous notifications, finalised the qualifications specified in the impugned notification and the same was within the purview of the powers vested in the Vice Chancellor. The petitioner had also applied for the post of Director in response to the said notification and he was also eligible to face the selection committee subject to the result of the pending writ petitions and subject to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Various contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the continuation of the in-charge Director of the 1st respondent-institution alleging that the present in-charge Director was unqualified and that the petitioner’s candidate ought not to have been ignored since the petitioner was the senior most professor in the 1st respondent institution dealing with discipline of urban and environmental studies. However, I am not inclined to enter into said controversy since the post of Director has already been notified for appointment on permanent basis. As could be seen from the pleadings narrated above, the contentious issue in this writ petition is whether the eligibility criteria specified in the impugned notification dated 21.10.2009 is in accordance with the criteria fixed by the Governing Council and whether the same stands judicial scrutiny. There can be no dispute that as per the Memorandum of Understanding between Osmania University and Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, Government of India, the Director of the 1st respondent –institution shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Governing Council of the 1st respondent on the recommendations of the Governing Council. The Chairman of the Governing Council is the vice chancellor of the 2nd respondent University. In the meeting dated 04.05.2006, the Governing Council fixed the eligibility criteria for the post of the Director of 1st respondent-institute and one of the qualifications prescribed was 17 years of experience in research and/or training and consultancy at National, Regional and State level Urban Institutions. Subsequently, in its meeting dated 31.05.2007, it was resolved by the Governing Council to reduce the experience from 17 years to 15 years. It was so mentioned in the notification dated 11.06.2007. It is contended in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-University that no suitable candidate was found by the selection committee in the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 11.06.2007 and therefore the impugned notification dated 21.10.2009 was issued inviting applications afresh altering the eligibility criteria. On a comparison of the qualifications prescribed in the impugned notification dated 12.10.2009 with the eligibility criteria that was specified in the earlier notification dated 11.06.2007, it is clear that so far as the experience is concerned, the following alterations have been made. a. … ….. … …. b . 15 years of experience in research and/or training and consultancy at national, regional, state level urban institutions or UGC recognized institutions. c. Experience in the subject of urban affairs/urban administration/urban training research institution is preferable. As could be seen, the experience in UGC recognized institutions has been inserted afresh in the impugned notification. Similarly, whereas in the earlier notification, at least five years experience was made mandatory, in the impugned notification, no specific period of experience has been mentioned and more over the experience is not made mandatory. It is apparent that there is lot of disparity between the eligibility criteria fixed under the earlier notification dated 11.06.2007 and the impugned notification dated 21.10.2009. It is alleged by the petitioner that the eligibility criteria specified in the impugned notification has not been fixed by the Governing Council, but the alteration is made as per the decision of the Vice Chancellor of the 2nd respondent-University which is impermissible under law. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned notification is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Though the petitioner’s allegation could not be disputed by the 2nd respondent in its counter affidavit, it is contended that the Vice- Chancellor of the University, being the Chairman of the 1st respondent institution, is vested with the power to finalize the qualifications. I am unable to agree with the contention of the respondents since the Vice-Chancellor of the 2nd respondent-University is only the Chairman of the Governing Council. Though he is the appointing authority of the Director of the 1st respondent-institution, such appointment can be made on the basis of the recommendations of the Governing Council. Similarly, the eligibility criteria has to be fixed by the Governing Council which consists of four other members apart from the Vice-Chancellor (Chairman). The Vice-Chancellor is not competent to alter the eligibility criteria on his own is clear from the fact that the eligibility criteria was initially fixed by the Governing Council on 04.05.2006 and the subsequent alteration reducing the experience from 17 years to 15 years was done as per the resolution of the Governing Council dated 31.05.2007. However, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-University sought to justify the impugned action by placing before this Court the minutes of the Governing Council of the 1st respondent dated 19.12.2009. Under the said minutes, the Governing Council approved and ratified the action taken by the Chairman in initiating the process for appointing Professor Bhupathi Rao as in-charge Director and releasing the notification for appointment to the post of Director. It was also resolved authorising the Chairman to conduct the interviews at the earliest for the appointment of regular Director. The said ratification in my opinion does not in any way validate the impugned action. It is clear from the minutes dated 19.12.2009 that the approval and ratification was only to the extent of appointment of the in-charge Director and issuance of the notification for appointment to the post of Director. Nothing was mentioned about the alteration effected by the Chairman on his own in the eligibility criteria. Clause 6 of the MOU between the Osmania University and Ministry of Urban Affairs in clear terms specified that the Director shall be appointed on all India basis by the Chairman on the recommendations of the Governing Council. Section 13 (8) (a) of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 relied upon by the learned standing counsel for the University is also of no assistance to justify the impugned action. Though clause 8 (iv) of MOU empowers the University to extend the rules of Osmania University in the matters of emoluments, promotions, work norms, discipline etc., to the staff of the 1st respondent, in the absence of an express provision in the MOU to extend the Vice-Chancellor’s powers as provided under Section 13 of the Act to the 1st respondent, the Vice-Chancellor cannot exercise such powers with regard to the affairs of the 1st respondent. In the light of the above conclusion, it is not necessary to go into the other contention raised by the petitioner that it was not open to the 2nd respondent-University to issue the impugned notification without placing the recommendations of the selection committee dated 20.12.2007 before the Governing Council. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notification containing the eligibility criteria which was prescribed by the Vice-chancellor on his own without placing it before the Governing council is illegal and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned notification dated 21.10.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notification for appointment to the post of Director and finalize the selection following due process of law as expeditiously possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 03.03.2010 Klp