THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 10665 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 first 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 Assistant Professor in the Department of Organic Chemistry in the 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 her explanation as to why her appointment should not be cancelled; that, as seen from the impugned order, the second 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 Dr. T.Sobha Rani which is made in contravention to the rules and regulations.” The report insofar it relates to the petitioner is concerned, reads thus: “Appointment of Dr.Sobha Rani as Asst. Professor in Organic Chemistry. As per the Notification No.DU/Estt.(T)/E-2/841/2010, dt.30.06.2010, the Assistant Professor post was advertised in Organic Chemistry. The qualifications fixed for the post are (i) 55% marks in Chemistry / Organic Chemistry with good academic record with Ph.D/ NET/SLET in the relevant subject or similar test accredited by the UGC. On scrutiny of the application, it shows that the individual has M.Sc. degree and Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry and worked on the topic “optimization of the synthesis of silica aerogel powders for industrial application”. The individual was appointed against the above advertised post of Assistant Professor in Organic Chemistry. The post was also advertised against the roster point of Organic Chemistry. As such she was not eligible to be called for interview for post of Organic Chemistry as Assistant Professor.”. 5. In pursuance of G.O. Rt.No.876 HE (UE-I) Dept., dated 12.11.2010, Two Men Committee was appointed by the Government to enquire into certain appointments made in first respondent university, and the Committee submitted its report to the Government. Thereafter, the Government called for remarks on the Committee Report, and the first 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 Assistant Professor in the Department of Organic Chemistry of first 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 Assistant Professor uninfluenced by the fact finding recommendations made by the Two Men Committee. 8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 19.04.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 10665 OF 2011 19.04.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 10665 OF 2011 19.04.2011 Between: Dr.T.Sobha Rani …Petitioner And The Dravidian University, rep. by its Registrar, Srinivasavanam, Kuppam, Chittoor District & another …Respondents