IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10976 of 2002 Keshvendra Choudhary, Son of Govind Narayan Choudhary, Resident of Village Ranipur, P.O. Vashudeopur, ‘Bira’, Police Station Darbhanga Town, District Darbhanga. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. University Grant Commission through the Secretary Bahadurshah Jaffar Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University through the Registrar, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The Bihar College Service Commission through the Secretary ? Boring Canal Road, Patna. 6. The Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 7. The Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission Boring Canal Road, Patna. ------- Respondents ----------- 3 25.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the University’). In this writ application, the petitioner had initially made a prayer to the following effect:- “1(i) For issuance of an appropriate order, direction or writ the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to hold the interview of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer of Sanskrit for 2 Gurukul Sanskrit College, Bairgania Sitamarhi. (ii) For commanding the respondents to keep the post reserved for the petitioner in Sanskrit subject or alternatively await the selection for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit for Gurukul College, Bairgania, Sitamarhi. (iii) For holding and declaring that the petitioner is eligible in all respect and entitled for the aforesaid post of lecturer as per the advertisement issued by the Bihar College Service Commission, Boring Canal Road, Patna (herein after referred as Commission). (iv) For further holding and declaring that for non holding of the petitioner’s interview even after fulfilling all the criterias laid down under the aforesaid advertisement is arbitrary, malafide and whimsical action of the respondent concern.” Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards I.A. No. 4664 of 2002, wherein the petitioner had made prayer for additional relief in the following terms:- “It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to stay the appointment process quash the earlier advertisement for lecturer ship by the respondent commission and may be pleased to issue necessary direction to the respondent commission to issue a fresh advertisement on the basis of the 3 U.G.C.’s latest regulation (Annexure-8).” With regard to the aforementioned prayer, the limited grievance of the petitioner seems to be that though he was called for interview, he was not allowed to appear in the interview purportedly on the ground that he did not fulfill the qualification as laid down in the advertisement. This grievance of the petitioner is that it was a rank illegal act on the part of the authority of the Commission who had failed to take into notice that the qualification provided in the advertisement was contrary to the letter of the U.G.C. dated 31st July, 2002. According to the petitioner that was only a verbal communication and nothing in writing was given to him. Counsel would submit that such act of the authorities of the Commission was rank illegal act, inasmuch as, the terms of the advertisement would be deemed to have been amended and/or relaxed in view of the letter of the U.G.C. dated 31st July, 2002. He would further submit that the Commission 4 had adopted an arbitrary standard by practicing discrimination, inasmuch as, one Venkatesh Sharma, who was also not fulfilling the criteria, was allowed to appear in the interview and in fact his name was also recommended by the Commission. This Court would find that the petitioner’s application was in response to an advertisement for the post of lecturer in affiliated college governed by Section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and in terms thereof had contained the following eligibility condition by way of qualification, namely:- “1. The minimum qualification required for appointment to the post of lecturer shall be Master’s Degree in the relevant subject with atleast 55% marks with good academic record or its equivalent grade (B+) from an Indian University or an Equivalent degree from a Foreigh University. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidates should have cleared the Eligibility Test (BET/NET) or have already been awarded Ph.D. Degree in the relevant subject or have already subjected Ph.D. thesis upto 31st December, 1993 or have already been awarded M.Phil. Degree before 31st December, 1992.” 5 The petitioner does not dispute that he did not possesses this qualification, inasmuch as, neither he had passed the eligibility test (BET/NET) nor he was awarded Ph.D. Degree on the date of filing of this writ application nor his thesis had been submitted up to 31st December, 1993. The petitioner’s own case infact is that he had submitted his Ph.D. thesis only on 31st of December, 2002 much beyond the last date of submission of his application for the said post. Once this Court would find that the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum laid down qualification for the post of Lecturer, there was no question of his being interviewed by the Commission and the interview letter issued by the Commission in ignorance of the qualification laid down in the Statute and/or advertisement would not act as an estoppel against the Commission for allowing the petitioner to appear in the interview. The minimum eligibility criteria including publication was fixed by the Bihar State University Act and the statute framed 6 remain thereunder and, therefore, the Commission could not have gone beyond the same. The impact of the U.G.C. letter can also not lead to an interferential conclusion that the statutory qualification laid down under the Act or the statute were automatically changed. Such is not the scope either of U.G.C. Act or the Bihar State University Act, which are two independent Acts operating in two different fields. As a matter of fact, the petitioner ought to have taken into account that the Bihar State University Act had made an amendment with regard to the qualification for the post of Lecturer and the qualifying date of 31st December, 1993 was introduced with a view that any one as aspirant for the post of Lecturer after that day had to appear either in the written examination of Bihar Eligibility Test (BET) or National Eligibly Test (NET). In that view of the matter, once the petitioner was not eligible for the post, the issue either his being not interviewed or not 7 considered will pale in the insignificance which can not also vitiate the recommendation made by the Commission. Moreover, such recommendation made by the Commission has not been assailed in this writ petition nor the person in whose favour such recommendation was made, has been made party and therefore, this Court would not make any comment on that aspect, inasmuch as, neither Venkatesh Sharma Nor Renu Kumari have been impleaded as a party to this writ application. At this stage when the aforesaid arguments of the counsel for the petitioner were noticed and rejected while dictating this order, counsel for the petitioner has got up from his seat volunteering to implead Venkatesh Sharma as a party respondent to this writ application. Such a belated prayer after eight years of accrual of the right to Venkatesh Sharma cannot be allowed to be made at this stage and therefore, such prayer of the petitioner is also rejected. In any event, once the petitioner was not qualified for the post in question, he will have no right to assail the 8 appointment of others and that too in respect of appointment made in affiliated colleges where the Government or the University had no commitment or control except to extend certain facilities on account of its being affiliated to the University. If the petitioner was so aggrieved by the recommendation and/or appointment of either Venkatesh Sharma or Renu Kumari, the effective remedy for him was to move the competent civil court assailing the decision of the Governing Body of the affiliated college who had appointed either of them. The writ application cannot be substitute for such a relief. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court would find no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)