HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11936 Of 2011 ORDER: The Dravidian University, 1st respondent herein, issued notification, dated 18-03-2008, inviting applications for various posts, including one post of Professor and two posts of Associate Professors in Tamil & Translation Studies. One of the posts of Associate Professors were reserved in favour of OC Woman and other post was reserved in favour of SC candidate. The petitioner submitted application for the post of Associate Professor. However, the University appointed the 2nd respondent as Associate Professor through order, dated 31-05- 2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. It is urged that the 2nd respondent was not at all an applicant for the post of Associate Professor and the 1st respondent committed serious irregularity and has shown undue favouritism in appointing the 2nd respondent as Associate Professor. 3. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a counter – affidavit is filed. It is stated that for the post of Associate Professor none of the applicants were found to be suitable and in that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent, though he was an applicant for the post of Professor, was appointed. The 2nd respondent filed the counter – affidavit on the same lines. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. It is not in dispute that the applications were invited for two categories of posts, viz., Professor and Associate Professor. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Associate Professor, whereas the 2nd respondent applied for the post of Professor. To be more specific, the 2nd respondent did not apply for the post of Associate Professor at all. In case, the Selection Committee, for the post of Associate Professors, did not find any of the applicants, the course open to the University is to re-notify the vacancies. Further, if the 2nd respondent was not found fit to be selected as Professor, the matter ought to have ended at that. However, the University has chosen to appoint the 2nd respondent for the post of Associate Professor. He is not the SC candidate and obviously, the other vacancy was for OC Woman. He did not fit into either of them, even if it is to be treated that there was application of the 2nd respondent for the post of Associate Professor. Viewed form any angle, the appointment of the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained in law. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is seta side. The 1st respondent is directed to take steps for filling up of the posts in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 14, 2011. KTL