* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM + WRIT PETITION NO. 6852 of 1997 %WEDNESDAY, 23RD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT # Dr. B.Krishna Reddy s/o late B. Rami Reddy, Research Associate, Department of Anthropology, S.V.U. College of Arts & Sciences, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati-2. … Petitioner versus $ Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati represented by its Registrar. And others … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. P.V.Snjay Kumar ^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B.Adinarayana Rao, for R1 and R2 Government Pleader for Higher Education for R3 Mr. O. Manohar Reddy for R4 Mrs. G. Jhansi, for R5, R7 to R10, R12 & R14 Mr. B.Narayana Reddy for R15 < Gist : >Head Note: ? 1. 1995(1) ALD 627 2. (1998) 3 SCC 88 3. 2006(1) ALT 785 4. 315 US 535 5. (1975) 3 SCC 503 6. (1975) 1 SCC 421 7. (1979) 3 SCC 489 8. AIR 1993 SC 2606 9. AIR 1996 SC 976 10. (1985) 4 SCC 417 11. JT (1989) 4 SC 130 12. (1994) 1 SCC 126 13. (1994) Supp 2 SCC 591 14. (1994) Supp 3 SCC 308 15. (1995) 3 SCC 486 16. (1996) 4 SCC 319 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 6852 of 1997 Between: Dr. B.Krishna Reddy s/o late B. Rami Reddy, Research Associate, Department of Anthropology, S.V.U. College of Arts & Sciences, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati-2. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati represented by its Registrar. 2. The Executive Council S.V.University, Tirupati, represented by its Vice Chancellor 3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad. 4. Dr. P.Sreenivasuula Reddy, Reader, Department of Bio- Technology, S.V.U.College of Arts and Sciences, Tirupati-2 5. Dr. M.Dhananjayula Naidu, Lecturer, Department of Bio- Technology, S.V.U. College of Arts & Sciences, Tirupati-2 6. Dr. C.Varadarajula Naidu, Lecturer, Department of Bio- Technology, S.V.U. College of Arts & Sciences, Tirupati-2 7. Dr. V.Ravi Naidu, Asst. Director-cum-Lecturer, Directorate of Distance Education, S.V.University, Tirupati-2. 8. Dr. G.Janaki Ramaiah, Asst. Director-cum-Lecturer, Directorate of Distance Education, S.V.University, Tirupati-2. 9. Smt. S.Thavvamani, Asst. Director-cum-Lecturer, Directorate of Distance Education, S.V.University, Tirupati-2. 10.Mr. K.Purnachandra Rao, Coordinating Officer, Directorate of Distance Education, S.V.University, Tirupati-2. 11. Mr. B.Sudheer, Senior Project Leader, Entrepreneurship Development Cell, S.V.U. College of Engineering, Tirupati-2. 12. Dr. B.Amaranath, Project Leader, Entrepreneurship Development Cell, S.V.U. College of Engineering, Tirupati-2. 13. Miss. T.Bharathi, Senior Research Assistant, Entrepreneurship Development Cell, S.V.U. College of Engineering, Tirupati-2. 14. Dr.Bhupathi Naidu, Asst. Director-cum-Lecturer (Mathematics), SV University, Tirupati. * 15. Mrs. T. Vijaya, Plant Biotechnologist, Department of Biotechnology, SVU College of Arts & Sciences, Tirupati * .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the ﬁrst respondent of the University in issuing and acting upon advertisement No. E II(2)96 (Temporary) dated 20-11-1996 and Advertisement No.E II/ADVT/IASE/CSS/97-(1) dated 22-2-1997 as illegal and arbitrary and unjust, consequently declare the appointments of respondents 4 to 13 as illegal and void; **and also declare the appointments of respondents 14 and 15 in the above W.P. are null and void and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.SANJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2: Mr. B.ADINARAYANA RAO, Standing Counsel Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: Government Pleader of Higher Education Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mr. O. MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5,7,8,9,10,12&14: Smt G. JHANSI Counsel for the Respondent No.15: Mr. B. NARAYANA REDDY * Impleaded as respondents by order in WPMP No.6822 of 1998 dated 23.07.2008 ** Prayer amended by order in WPMP No. 6823 of 1998 dated 23.07.2008 The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WPMP NOS.6822 AND 6823 OF 1998 IN/AND W.P.No. 6852 of 1997 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the 3rd respondent. Sri O.Manohar Reddy for the 4th respondent and Smt.G.Jhansi for respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 to 10, 12 and 14 have appeared and put forth their respective contentions on behalf of these respondents. Notices have been served on respondent Nos. 6, 11 and 13 also as per the record. No counter-aﬃdavits have been ﬁled on behalf of respondent No.4, 6, 11 and 13. Sri B.Narayana Reddy, Advocate has ﬁled vakalat on 28-04-1998 for respondent No.15 but no counter has been filed. In WPMP NO.6822 of 1998, the petitioner sought to implead Dr. Bhupathi Naidu and Smt. T. Vijaya as party respondent Nos. 14 and 15 to the writ petition, alleging that these respondents were subsequently appointed, pursuant to the selection consequent on the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, illegally without notiﬁcation for recruitment and in violation of the norms. He ﬁled another application i.e. WPMP No.6823 of 1998 for amending the relief in the writ petition to seek invalidation of the appointments of respondents 14 and 15. As per the court record, on 5.3.1998 the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out notices on these proposed respondents by registered post, acknowledgment due and to ﬁle proof of service into the court (in WPMP Nos. 6823 and 6822 of 1998). These respondents have been served and have also appeared through counsel in the proceedings. The 14th respondent has also ﬁled a counter. In the circumstances WPMP Nos. 6822 and 6823 of 1998 are formally ordered. The petitioner assails the conduct of the 1st respondent- University in issuing and acting upon an Advertisement Nos. E II (2)/1996 (Temporary) dated 20.11.1996 and E.II (2)/ADVT/IASE- CSS/97- (1) dated 22.2.1997, as illegal and arbitrary and seeks a declaration that the appointment of the respondents 4 to 15 is illegal and void. At the hearing of the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no appointments were made, pursuant to the 2nd advertisement dated 22.2.1997 and that in respect of the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, the respondents 4 to 13 and some others (respondents 14 & 15), were appointed. The challenge is thus conﬁned to the appointments of respondents 4 to 15. Against the advertisement, selection and appointment process followed by the 1st respondent-University, the petitioner has a catalogue of grievances. The 1st respondent has, in defence to the writ petition and the reliefs claimed therein, contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to claim reliefs in the writ petition. Therefore a few facts relating to the petitioner must also be recorded. The petitioner has a master’s degree in Sociology and a doctoral qualiﬁcation in Social Anthropology. He claims impressive academic achievements, including research associateship granted by the UGC, on the basis of a National level selection. He has eight years of post-doctoral research experience in the department of Anthropology in the 1st respondent-University’s College of Arts and Sciences. In response to the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, he applied for the posts of Project Leader and of Senior Research Assistant, in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell in SVU College of Engineering, Tirupati. He pleads that though eligible for both posts, he was denied a call letter as regards the post of Project Leader and was called only for the post of Senior Research Assistant. The petitioner however did not appear for interview for the post of Senior Research Assistant apprehending that would disentitle him to challenge the selection process, on a plea that he had acquiesced or waived threshold challenge to the selection process by appearing at the selection. The writ petition is ﬁled in March 1997. According to the petitioner, the advertisement dated 20.11.1996 is wholly irrational, incoherent and illegal. The advertisement is impeached on several grounds. The advertisement invites applications from qualiﬁed candidates for certain teaching and non-teaching posts in the 1st respondent-University. The advertisement speciﬁes that the teaching and non-teaching posts are purely temporary. Since the contents of the advertisement are also impeached, the advertisement is extracted: SRI VENKAT ESWARA UNIVERSIT Y Advertisement No. E 11(2)/1996(T emporary) Dated: 20-11-1996 Application in the prescribed form are invited from the qualified candidates for the following teaching and non-teaching posts in the S.V.University. The teaching, non- teaching posts mentioned below are purely temporary. Sl. Name of the post held No. of Vacancies No. Department/Institution ______________________________________________________________________________________ I. DEPARTMENT OF BIO-TECHNOLOGY S.V.U.COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE a) READER : ONE b) LECTURERS : TWO II. DIRECTORATE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION : THREE a) Asst.Director-cum-Lecturers to handle (One post B.Ed., Courses with specifications in reserved for S.C) i) Biological Sciences : 1 ii) Mathematics/Social Sciences : 1 iii) English Methods : 1 b) Co-ordinating Officer : ONE III. ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT CELL S.V.U COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING a) Senior Project Leader ONE b) Project Leader ONE c) Senior Research Asst. ONE d) Steno-typist ONE e) Peon/Attender ONE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- The posts mentioned under Item Nos. I and II above are created by the Executive Council of S.V.University and the salaries of the staﬀ appointed for the said posts shall be met from self-generated funds under respective heads of accounts, and the services rendered by the incumbents shall not be counted as University Service. The posts mentioned at Item No. III are sanctioned by the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India and are temporary. The services rendered by the incumbents shall not be counted as University Service. The scale of pay and the qualiﬁcations prescribed for the Reader and the Lecturers posts mentioned under Item No.1 above are similar to those prescribed for the regular U.G.C. posts. Details of specializations required to be possessed by candidates and the experience are furnished in the PROSPECTUS. For the posts mentioned under Item No.II the qualiﬁcations and the scale of pay prescribed are as follows: QUALIFICATIONS General: a) For Asst.Director-cum- i) M.A./MSc.(with not less Lecturer than 55% marks or equivalent Grade) ii) M.Ed/B.Ed. Desirable: M.Phil/Ph.D in the basic P.G Degree Scale of pay : Rs.2200/- - 4000/- b) Co-Ordinating Officer: Qualifications & i) P.G.Degree (at least second Experience class) with about 2 years Experience, Distance Education in any of the University Institutions) ii) Knowledge in Computer handling and not above 34 years Scale of Pay: Rs. 3310-6840 (similar to RPS 1993 Scale) For the posts mentioned under Item No. III the qualiﬁcations, experience and scale of pay are as follows: Senior Project Leader: M.Tech in Mech.Engg. or B.Tech with M.B.A. At least 5 years experience in teaching in teaching/ research/Industry/Entrepreneur- ship Development. Scale of pay: : Rs. 3700-5700 Project Leader : Ph.D. in Commerce/Economics/ Psychology/Sociology. OR A Master’s Degree in Management/ Engineering. Scale of pay: : Rs.2200—4000 Senior Research : Master’s Degree in Commerce/ Assistant. Economics/Psychology/ Sociology/M.B.A Desirable : Ph.D Scale of pay : Rs.3300/- consolidated Steno-typist : A Degree from a recognized University. Typewriting and Shorthand both In English-Higher Grade Desirable: Certificate or Diploma in Computer Language. Scale of pay : Rs. 2195-4560 Peon/Attender : A pass in 5th class and knowledge In cycling. A pass or fail in SSC is desirable Scale of pay : Rs. 1375-2375 All the posts carry D.A. and H.R.A as applicable to the respective posts. The prescribed application forms (for each post separately with Demand Draft) and prospectus can be had from THE REGISTRAR, S.V. UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI-517502, A.P. FROM 2-12-1996 onwards on payment of Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten only) for the posts mentioned under II (b) and III (d) and (e) and Rs.25/- (Rupees Twenty ﬁve only) for the remaining categories of posts by crossed Demand Draft payable at Andhra Bank/State Bank of India, S.V.U.Campus, Tirupathi-517 502, drawn not earlier than 25-11-1996 in favour of the REGISTRAR, S.V.UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI-517 502. The requisition for the application form must be accompanied by a self addressed envelop of the size of 20 cm x 30 cm duly affixing postal stamps worth Rs.5/-. The ﬁlled in application together with the attested educational qualiﬁcation/experience certiﬁcate along with a crossed Demand Draft for Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) for the posts mentioned under II (b) and III (d) & (e) snf Td.40/- (Rupees Forty only) for the remaining categories of posts, towards registration fee for each post applied for, drawn in favour of the REGISTRAR, S.V.UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI-517 502, not earlier than 25-11-1996 should reach this office on or before 4-00 p.m on 31-12-1996. NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY BHAVAN, TIRPUATI-517 502 DATED: 20th NOVEMBER, 1996 REGISTRAR.” The grounds of challenge, in brief :- The petitioner’s challenge to the advertisement and the subsequent process of selection qua the advertisement dt. 20.11.1996, in brief is as under: (A) The respondent-University failed to provide for reservation to the extent mandated by law and to specify the posts to which reservation is applicable. Though ten teaching posts were notiﬁed only one post in the category of Assistant Director- cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education is speciﬁed to be reserved for Scheduled Caste. As per the roster at least 5 of the ten posts should have been reserved. Further, pursuant to the judgment (23.12.1994) of a Division Bench of this court in Dr. N. Chandrayudu v S.V.University, Tirupati( [1] ) the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 420 Education Department, dated 18.11.1995 directing that reservation be applied groupwise (i.e., Group-I – Arts, Commerce, Business Management, Law, Social Sciences and Education including all languages; Group-II – Sciences and Group-II – Engineering and Technology), with a condition that vacancies must be notiﬁed department/subject-wise, as directed by this court in the judgment. The order of the Government further mandated that subjects within a group must be arranged in an alphabetical order for the purpose of roster points. In a subsequent order, in G.O.Ms. No.456 Education Department, dated 21.12.1995 the State Government ordered that in each of the 3 groups the roster should be maintained arranging the subjects in alphabetical order within that particular group and the vacancies computed in each particular group should be distributed amongst different categories as per the 100 point roster. According to the petitioner, the University failed to follow the orders of the Government as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court and this court and despite pointing out the shortcomings the University went ahead and issued the 2nd advertisement dated 22.2.1997 replicating the same errors. (B) The University unlawfully constituted Screening Committees and entrusted them the task of evaluating the eligibility of candidates for sending interview call letters. Such committees are not authorized by law. Even in the composition of the several committees, no experts from the concerned disciplines were involved. Eligible candidates such as the petitioner were denied even the threshold opportunity to participate in the process of selection. (C) The post of Project Leader in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell (EDC), SVU College of Engineering, required, inter alia, a Ph.D in Sociology. The petitioner had applied for this post with the qualiﬁcation of Ph.D. in Socio- Anthropology, a species of the genus Sociology. The relevant Screening Committee which had no expert from Sociology, did not comprehend this academic reality and failed to issue the petitioner a call letter. In the case of the department of Bio- Technology, the Screening Committee did not have the coordinator of the Bio-Technology course while the Screening committee in the Directorate of Distance Education did not have the Dean of Education but included the Director of Distance Education, a person who did not have even a B.Ed. qualification. (D) The issuance of call letters was also arbitrary. A chosen few candidates received call letters by 18/20.2.1997 while highly and fully eligible candidates, including in-service candidates were ignored. For the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology, of the 15 Post-doctoral Research applicants from the Department of Zoology, only the 5th respondent was sent a call letter, while others such as Dr. Venkateswara Rao and Dr. K.Kondandarami Reddy, who were in-service candidates in Bio-Technology, were ignored. Dr. Venkateswara Rao, thereafter, employed his political clout to secure a call letter on 25.2.1997, three days prior to the interviews. For the post of Coordinating Oﬃcer in the Directorate of Distance Education (one of the advertised posts), only 3 of the 63 applicants were called for interview. The 10th respondent, who is admittedly over-aged, was selected. Telegraphic call letters were also sent by the University to inﬂuential candidates who could pressurize the University administration. Several ineligible candidates were also sent call letters by the incompetent Screening Committee. For instance, call letters were sent to Ms. T.Nirmala and Mr. Lokanath. These candidates were however sent away at the time of interview for the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology, when their ineligibility was exposed by protesting Post- Doctoral Research applicants, including the petitioner. The selection process was scandalous and newspapers had predicted names of the prospective appointees including respondents Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12, in advance. (E) Of the ten selected candidates for the teaching posts, eight belonged to OC and of them six to a single community. The interviews were rushed through and completed by 4.3.1997 and the Executive Council of the University met at Hyderabad (not at Tirupati) on 5.3.1997 for ratifying the selection. (F) The 7th respondent was appointed as Assistant Director-cum- Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education, though he does not have the basic qualiﬁcation of B.Ed. Though his application was rejected by the Screening Committee, the University authorities were thereafter inﬂuenced by the Chairman of the State Council for Higher Education, Hyderabad, who certiﬁed that a certiﬁcate in teaching English language, issued by the CIEFL, Hyderabad (a certiﬁcate produced by the 7th respondent), was equivalent to the B.Ed. Degree. Why the University solicited a clariﬁcation from the Chairman, State Council for Higher Education (to beneﬁt the 7th respondent) when there were clearly qualiﬁed and eligible candidates available, is not clarified. (G) The 10th respondent was appointed as the Coordinating Oﬃcer in the Directorate of Distance Education, though he was over-aged. (H) The University also resorted to making appointments in excess of the posts notiﬁed. Only one post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics/Social Sciences, Directorate of Distance Education, was notiﬁed. However two appointments were made. The 8th respondent was ﬁrst appointed as an Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Social Sciences and thereafter Dr. Bhoopathi Naidu (R-14) was also appointed as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics in excess of the notified vacancies. (I) Without any notiﬁcation of a post of Plant Bio-technologist in the impugned notiﬁcation the 15th respondent was illegally appointed as such. The Defense of the 1st respondent-University :- On behalf of the 1st respondent-University, the Registrar ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit on 30.6.1997 and an additional counter aﬃdavit on 26.6.1998. The case of the Registrar of the University, in brief, is : (A) A single writ petition challenging two advertisements/ notifications is not maintainable. (B) The petitioner applied for the posts of Project Leader and Senior Research Assistant in EDC in the SVU College of Engineering. A Ph.D. in one of the speciﬁed disciplines including Sociology is the prescribed qualiﬁcation for the post of Project Leader. Since the petitioner was not eligible he was not called for interview for the post. The petitioner was eligible for the post of Senior Research Assistant. He was sent a call letter to the interview to this post but he failed to attend the interview. (C) While the challenge to the post of Project Leader and Senior Research Assistant is barred including for latches and delay, the challenge to the other posts advertised is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi. Only applicants for a particular post can challenge a notiﬁcation and not a third party. (D) The EDC is a project sanctioned by the Government of India, Department of Science and Technology. The Government of India temporarily sanctioned one post of Senior Project Leader, one post of Project Leader and one post of Senior Research Assistant. Thus, these posts are not a part of the University service and are also temporary. Since these posts are neither regular, permanent nor budgeted teaching posts of the University and are also single posts, the rule of reservation or applying the roster does not arise. In any event the petitioner is an OC candidate and cannot claim that the selection process was illegal for not applying the rule of reservation. He cannot also claim that the roster intended to be applied for permanent posts must be applied to temporary posts also. (E) The department of Bio-technology was temporarily created by the Executive Council (EC) of the University. The teaching posts in the department of Bio-technology were sanctioned on a temporary basis by the EC of the University. The posts were not sanctioned by the State Government. The salaries for these posts are from the funds generated by the University and not from the block grant sanctioned by the State Government. The services rendered by these Teachers is not University service. The reservations prescribed by the State are applicable only to posts sanctioned by the State within the budgeted teaching posts and are inapplicable to the temporary teaching posts in the department of Bio- technology. The roster meant for permanent posts is not applicable to temporary posts. For the above reason, the teaching posts in the Bio-technology department, being not regular and permanent or budgeted, are outside the purview of reservations. (F) For the posts of Reader and Lecturer the required academic qualiﬁcations are speciﬁed in the advertisement notiﬁcation. According to the past experience of the University for teaching posts in advanced Science and Engineering Disciplines candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes category were not available. Even if a temporary roster is to be applied to ﬁll up the temporary posts in the Bio-technology department the ﬁrst point goes to the “O.C.” and the second point for “S.C.”. Two posts of Lecturers were advertised in the notiﬁcation dated.20-11- 1996. Five candidates belong to the “S.C.” category submitted applications. None were however found eligible, as they did not possess the prescribed qualiﬁcations. Therefore they were not called for interviews. No Scheduled Caste candidate could therefore be appointed to ﬁll up the second roster point. No “S.C" candidates raised any grievance regarding the notiﬁcation and appointments. Lecturer posts cannot be kept unﬁlled for want of “S.C.” candidates as the salary is drawn from self-generated funds i.e., amounts contributed by private agencies. Further, as the department is newly created with very limited teaching staﬀ (of one Reader and two Lecturers), the students cannot be made to suffer for want of teachers. (G) There is only one post of Reader in the Bio-technology department, which is also temporary. Therefore the rule of reservation was not followed. Three candidates, two belonging to the O.C. and one belonging to B.C.(D) applied for the Reader’s post. The Selection Committee recommended the name of P.Srinivasulu Reddy (R4), and he was appointed. (H) Of the two posts of Lecturers in the Bio-technology department, for one post the required specialization is Plant Biotechnology/Cell and Tissue Culture/Food and Industrial Biotechnology/Micro Biology and Immunology. For the second post the required specialization is Molecular Biology/Molecular Genetics/Genetic Engineering/Bio processing and Bio chemical Engineering. (I) On the recommendations of the selection committee Sri C.Varadarajulu Naidu(R-6) was appointed to the ﬁrst post and M.Dhanunjaya Naidu(R-5) for the second post. Though the two posts are in the same department, they have distinct specializations and for either of the posts no qualiﬁed SC and ST or B.C candidate was found suitable and recommended by the selection committee. None of the applicants for these posts have challenged the notiﬁcation and appointment. (J) In the Directorate of Distance Education three posts of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer were advertised, with one earmarked for SC. This is in accordance with the roster point since the roster point Nos.1 and 3 are for OC and the 2nd for SC. (K) The post of Coordinating Oﬃcer in the School of Distance Education is also temporary and a non-teaching post