THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2270 OF 2009 DATED: 07.04.2010 Between : Shah Aqueel Ahmed … Petitioner And 1. Maulana Azad National Urdu University, rep. by its Registrar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad., and 3 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2270 OF 2009 ORDER: In response to the Employment Notification, dated 3.8.2008, issued by the 1st respondent University inviting applications for filling- up the teaching posts, including three posts of Principal - Polytechnic, the petitioner herein applied for the post of Principal - Polytechnic. He appeared before the Selection Committee on 3.1.2009 along with six other persons including the respondents 2 to 4 herein. As the petitioner had satisfied the eligibility criteria, he was confident about his selection. However, on 30.01.2009 it was found that the respondents 2 to 4 herein were selected for the posts of Principal - Polytechnic. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in selecting the respondents 2 to 4 to the posts of Principals – Polytechnic even though they did not have the qualifications prescribed in the notification as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside their selection. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent University, and perused the material available on record including the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent University. I have also pursed the counter–affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 and heard the learned counsel appearing for him. Despite notice, respondents 2 and 4 did not choose to appear. The qualifications prescribed in the notification dated 3.8.2008 for the posts of Principal – Polytechnic are as under: “Master’s Degree in appropriate branch Engineering/Technology with First Class Master’s or Bachelor’s Level. 15 years experience in teaching out of which at least five years shall be at the level of Head of the Department or equivalent. OR Ph.D in appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology/Technical Education. 10 years experience in Teaching out of which at least three years shall be at the level of Head of the Department or equivalent. Note: Candidates from Industry with First Class Bachelor’s Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology and with Industrial experience which is equivalent to Master’s Degree, with total fifteen years of experience of which at least five years would be at a level comparable with Head of Department, will also be eligible.” The notification also made it clear that it shall be compulsory that the candidate should be able to clearly demonstrate his/her knowledge of reading, writing, understanding and teaching in Urdu language for all teaching posts. The petitioner claims that he had studied upto X Class in Urdu Medium and in Intermediate also he studied Urdu as second language. It is also claimed that he had completed B.E. and M.E. (Instrumentation) from S.G.G.S. College of Engineering and Technology, Nanded and pursing Ph.D. from J.N.T.U., Hyderabad and was working as a Professor and Head of the Department (Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering) in Royal Institute of Technology and Science, Chevella since September, 2004. He also had teaching experience as Lecturer and Associate Professor for about 17 years and out of that 10 years he worked as Head of the Department. So far as the respondents 2 to 4, it is alleged that the 2nd respondent was having only 10 years of teaching experience and he did not have experience as Head of the Department and had no knowledge of Urdu subject. It is further alleged that the 3rd respondent did not have 15 years of teaching experience and the required five years experience as Head of the Department. It is also alleged that the 4th respondent was from Industry and did not have knowledge in Urdu as required. Thus it is alleged that the respondents 2 to 4 did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed in the notification and they did not have the required experience and the knowledge in Urdu subject and therefore they were not eligible for appointment in the posts in question. On behalf of the 1st respondent University, the Registrar filed a counter-affidavit denying the petitioner’s allegation that the respondents 2 to 4 had no knowledge of Urdu. It is stated that the Urdu skills of the respondents 2 to 4 was ascertained by the members of the Selection Committee during the course of interview. So far as the teaching experience of respondents 2 and 3, it is stated that the said condition was relaxed by the University in exercise of the powers under Clause 14 of Ordinance No.1 and the other eligibility criteria as prescribed in the notification was fulfilled by the respondents. It is explained that the Selection Committee, exercising its power under Rule 10 of the Ordinance No.1, evaluated the performance of the candidates and the selection was purely based on their performance. The selection of the respondents 2 to 4 was in accordance with law and there was no violation of Rules or Regulations as alleged by the petitioner. It is clear from the notification dated 3.8.2008 that so far as the posts of Principal – Polytechnic, the eligibility criteria included experience in teaching. If the candidate possesses the Master’s Degree, 15 years experience in teaching out of which at least five years at the level of the Head of Department or equivalent is necessary. In the case of the candidates possessing Ph.D., 10 years experience in teaching out of which at least 3 years at the level of Head of the Department or equivalent is necessary. Though the fact that the respondents 2 to 4 did not satisfy the requirement of teaching experience has not been denied by the 1st respondent University, it is contended that the condition regarding experience was relaxed by the University in exercise of the powers under Clause 14 of the Ordinance No.1, which was also reiterated as Clause (v) in the General Information annexed to the notification as under: “The University will have the right to relax any of the qualifications, experience and age excepting those relating to the knowledge of Urdu as given in Section 6, etc., in deserving cases for all the posts on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.” The 1st respondent University is empowered to relax the requirement relating to experience in deserving cases as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee could not be disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner did not even challenge the power so conferred under the law. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent University has placed before this Court the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated 3.1.2009. The proceedings revealed that out of 8 candidates appeared for the selections, the Selection Committee had recommended the names of the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 for appointment and the petitioner’s name was shown in the waitlisted candidates. At column No.12, it was recorded by the Selection Committee as under: “Selection by consensus of the Selection Committee. The required experience is relaxed keeping in view their sound knowledge of subject and capabilities.” Thus it is clear that the requirement of experience was relaxed in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 only on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in PRAMOD KUMAR v. U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION[1], contended that the prescribed eligibility conditions, particularly experience ought not to have been relaxed by the 1st respondent. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in the said decision that any appointment in violation of the qualifications laid down for a post under a statute is a nullity. However, this is a case where the 1st respondent University was conferred with the power to relax the prescribed qualifications and experience and the said power was exercised in the manner in which it was provided under the statute. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has never challenged the validity of the power conferred on the University. Hence, the impugned action of the 1st respondent University cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 07.04.2010 gbs [1] (2008) 7 SCC 153