THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 160 of 2000 31-01-2008 Between: Dr. B. Rajagopal Petitioner And Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Public Gardens, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Registrar others. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 160 of 2000 Oral Order: The petitioner assails the proceedings dated 30-12- 1999 of the first respondent. By this order, the earlier order dated 23-02-1999 notionally promoting the petitioner as Assistant Librarian with effect from 04-04-1989, has been cancelled. In the first respondent-University there was one post of Deputy Librarian required to be filled by direct recruitment by soliciting applications by publication in the newspapers. On 10-11-1988 the first respondent notified in the newspapers one post of Librarian. No Deputy Librarian post was advertised. It would appear that in response to the above advertisement, eight (8) persons applied including one Mr. M. Shanker Reddy and the writ petitioner. Only four persons were found eligible and were sent call letters for an interview scheduled on 28-12- 1988. At the interview only two persons are stated to have attended including Mr. M. Shankar Reddy. Pursuant to the interview, Mr. M. Shankar Reddy was selected, but appointed to the post of Deputy Librarian on 04-04-1989, though the post of Deputy Librarian was not advertised. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent is silent on the reason why when the post of a Librarian was advertised and not a Deputy Librarian and Mr. M. Shanker Reddy had applied to the post of Librarian, his appointment was made to the post of Deputy Librarian to which he has neither applied nor the post advertised. Be that as it may. The counter affidavit however asserts that the petitioner did not apply for the post of Deputy Librarian pursuant to the notification dated 10-11-1988. This is wholly a reckless assertion in the counter affidavit. The post that was advertised was that of a Librarian and the petitioner did apply for the post of Librarian. Nobody could have applied for the post of Deputy Librarian, which was not advertised. It is not the case of the respondent- University that direct recruitment is resorted to by following a process other than by a notification calling for applications published in the daily press. It would appear that after the above vagrant process followed by the first respondent in appointing Mr. M. Shanker Reddy as a Deputy Librarian in the manner aforestated, the petitioner was also embolded to stake a claim to the post of a Deputy Librarian. This expectation of the petitioner was engendered by the emulatory example set out by the respondent-University. The petitioner petitioned to the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Atrocities and Social Problems of SC/Sts, New Delhi and other institutions dealing with the welfare of Scheduled Caste persons apart from the Lokayuktha, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. It would appear that pursuant to the remarks called for from the Parliamentary Sub-Committee, the first respondent by a resolution of the Executive Council dated 02-01-1999 and pursuant to the orders of the second respondent, granted the petitioner notional promotion as Deputy Librarian with effect from 04-04-1989, the date with effect from which Mr. M. Shanker Reddy was so appointed. It requires to be noticed that the sole post of Deputy Librarian in the University was by then filled up by Mr. M. Shanker Reddy. The appointment/promotion of the petitioner as a Deputy Librarian and with effect from 04- 04-1989 was therefore a wholly illegal and unauthorized act. The petitioner also appears to have been paid salary, emoluments and increments and arrears with effect from 04-04-1989. Thus, has the University ravaged the public exchequer. On the basis of the above and other vagrant administrative practices of the respondent-University other employees harbored aspirations of career advancement to non-existent posts. It would appear from the averments in paragraph No. 6 of the counter affidavit that one Mr. C. Murali Kirshna, Assistant Librarian filed W.P.No. 18636 of 1999 in this Court seeking a direction to the University to consider him for appointment as a Deputy Librarian in a vacancy caused by the writ petitioner joining the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University on 20-01- 1997. This Court is stated to have directed the University to consider the case of Mr. C. Murali Krishna. At that point of time, the University administration woke up from its millinery slumber and proceeded to track back to a legal process of administration. The Executive Council of the first respondent- University at the meeting held on 17-11-1999 reviewed the state of affairs and concluded that the grant of notional promotion to the writ petitioner in 1999 with effect from 04- 04-1989 was illegal and should be rescinded. Consequent thereupon, the impugned order was issued canceling the petitioner’s notional promotion. The order impugned is assailed on several grounds including that it was issued without notice and opportunity to him. It is also urged that if the respondent-University could have appointed Mr. M. Shanker Reddy to the post of Deputy Librarian without an advertisement, then the University could as well appoint the petitioner to a non-existent vacancy in the post of a Deputy Librarian. It now transpires that the petitioner has been absorbed in the post of Deputy Librarian in the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad to which he initially went on deputation from the first respondent- University. The petitioner’s lien in the respondent University thus stood determined. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the appointment of Mr. M. Shanker Reddy. Mr. Shanker Reddy is also not a party to this writ petition. The petitioner therefore cannot be heard to complain about the process of appointment of Mr. M. Shanker Reddy as a Deputy Librarian. Insofar as the petitioner’s appointment/promotion as Deputy Librarian by the order dated 08-01-1999 is concerned, it is a wholly illegal order as there was neither a post of a Deputy Librarian in existence and vacant nor was an advertisement issued since this post in the University could only have to be filled up by direct recruitment. The petitioner was also not qualified to be appointed as a Deputy Librarian. The required qualification to hold the post of Deputy Librarian in the first respondent are: i) Master’s Degree in Library Science/Information Science/Documentation with at least fifty five per cent marks or its equivalent grade and a consistently good academic record; (ii) One year specialization in an area of information technology/Archives and Manuscript keeping or Master’s Degree in an area of thrust in the institution; (iii) Eight years experience as an Assistant University Librarian/College Librarian and (iv) Evidence of innovative Library services, published work and professional commitment. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Librarian in 1987. Therefore as on 04-04-1989 he evidently did not have the requisite qualification to hold the post of a Deputy Librarian. He did not also have the qualification to hold the post of Librarian for which the essential qualifications are (i) Master’s Degree in Library Science/Information Science/Documentation with at least fifty five per cent marks or its equivalent grade and a consistently good academic record; (ii) One year specialization in an area of information technology/Archives and Manuscript keeping Master’s Degree in an area of thrust in the institution; (iii) At least ten years as a Deputy Librarian in a University Library or fifteen years experience as a College Librarian and (iv) Evidence of innovative library service and organization of published work. The petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. So on three counts – lack of qualification; lack of vacancy in the post of Deputy Librarian and absence of a notification of the post of Deputy Librarian by the first respondent-University, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. There was also no power, authority or jurisdiction in the first respondent- University to have issued an order promoting or appointing the petitioner as a Deputy Librarian, in 199 for the above reasons. It is unfortunate that the first respondent did so, but such error cannot be canonized in perpetuity. On principle or authority, this order suffers from no illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The complaint of the petitioner that he was not issued a notice or afforded an opportunity before the impugned order was issued is also not a contention that deserves serious consideration. It is no doubt true that the impugned order visits the petitioner with potential civil consequences but on his own showing the petitioner has no rational response or legitimate defence to the wholly illegal and unsustainable nature of his promotion as a Deputy Librarian. Pursuit of principles of natural justice viz., audi alteram partem is not a vacuous ritual. If the petitioner has suffered no prejudice on account of the failure to follow this principle of natural justice and it is apparent that the petitioner has no defence, mere violation of a principle of natural justice would not translate into invalidation of the impugned order. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court discerns no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 31-01-2008 pvks