IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 25 of 2009 Dr. (Mrs.) Meena Bisht ……… Petitioner. Versus Vice Chancellor, Kumaon University, Nainital and others .……. Respondents. Mr. Rakehs Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Date of Judgment: 28.08.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) In the writ petition, an advertisement dated 24th December 2008 was challenged. By the said advertisement, it was held out that for the posts of Lecturers in Physics, as advertised, there would be certain desired specialization / branch. It was contended in the writ petition that the University, by stipulating desired specialization / branch, has contravened the provisions of the Statute by which appointments of Lecturers to the University have been prescribed. It was contended that in Chapter XI of the Statute governing the subject, provisions have been made as regards eligibility of the persons, who can be appointed as Lecturers. It was stated that nowhere therein it had been provided that the University can desire to have specialization in any subject. According to us, Chapter XI of the Statute deals with the minimum qualification and does not prescribe the maximum, and accordingly, whereas the University cannot recruit persons having lesser qualifications than prescribed in the said Chapter of the Statute, there appears to be no embargo on the part of the University to fix a higher standard for recruiting Lecturers in the University. Furthermore the advertisement desired specialization / branch as mentioned in the said advertisement. In the writ petition, it has been contended that there is no specialization in the graduation level, and accordingly, there was no just reason for indicating desired specialization 2 / branch. It has, however, not been contended in the writ petition that the branches mentioned in the said advertisement are not part of the syllabus for physics upto the graduation level. Even it was not urged before us, while arguments were advanced, that the branches mentioned in the advertisement do not cover parts of the syllabus of physics at the graduation level. 2. It was also contended that there was no necessity of obtaining more specialized persons in physics department. In law, the petitioner, who had and as yet has no connection with the University, is not entitled to question the wisdom of the University to fill up posts by persons having specialized knowledge in relation to subjects taught to the students at the graduation level in physics. 3. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the challenge thrown to the said advertisement was and is of no avail. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed and thereby a direction was issued to call the petitioner, who appeared to the Court to be qualified as per the Statute for the post of Lecturer in Physics, for interview. It further appears that the petitioner has been called for the interview. 5. Subsequent thereto, yet another advertisement was published for filling up the same posts, whereby and under the desired specialization / branch had been omitted and the same was replaced by specialization / branch. We think, by reason of the subsequent advertisement, which superseded the previous advertisement, and the petitioner, having had responded to the first advertisement, automatically became a respondee to the second advertisement in terms thereof, ought to have had expressed before us that her grievances have been met, but instead the petitioner caused her learned counsel to argue the case. We repeat that what has been provided in the Statute, referred to above, is the minimum. Nowhere in the Statute, the University has been prevented from insisting for more than the minimum prescribed. We also repeat that in the event physics course, at the graduation level, requires teaching of different subjects, and 3 if the University decides to appoint people having special knowledge in those subjects, in addition to minimum qualification, the University is competent to advertise desirability of such special knowledge and a person, though having the minimum qualification prescribed in the Statute, but not having the desired special knowledge, cannot challenge, in law, such decision of the University. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Since the response of the petitioner to the first advertisement automatically became her response to the second advertisement, the interview to be given by her shall be dealt with in accordance with law. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.08.2010 28.08.2010 Amit