THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.5557 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the first respondent in not sending appointment order to the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The first respondent invited applications through a rolling advertisement dated 01.01.2010 and a corrigendum dated 23.03.2010 for appointment of faculty positions. The petitioner is having more than 20 years of teaching experience and he is qualified for the post of Reader in Communication with specialization in Electronic Media Production. One of the three posts was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category and the petitioner belongs to Scheduled caste. He has applied for the post of Associate Professor in Communication in response to the said rolling advertisement dated 01.01.2010. Later the said post was re-designated as Reader in Communication, by reducing the pay scale, through corrigendum dated 23.03.2010. The petitioner was selected by the Screening Committee. But no call letter was sent to him for the reasons best known to the respondents. Then he made representations to both the respondents through e-mails on 12.10.2010 and 13.10.2010 explaining his academic excellence and experience background. Having satisfied with his qualifications, the respondents issued call letter dated 13.10.2010 to attend the colloquium and interview. Accordingly, he has attended the colloquium on 13.10.2010 and interview on 14.10.2010. He has presented himself to the best of his abilities both at the colloquium and the interview and stood as most deserving candidate among others. Though he was selected and recommended by the Selection Committee for the post of Reader in Communication and he was rated 1st among the three selected candidates, the first respondent has not issued appointment order to him till date to join in the said post, whereas all other selected candidates have already joined in their respective posts. Hence, the writ petition The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has not impleaded University of Hyderabad as party to the writ petition; that respondents 1 and 2 are authorities constituted under the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 and that University of Hyderabad has juridical personality of its own and it can sue and be sued in its own name, and therefore, non-impleadment of employer as party respondent is fatal and on this ground alone, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. It is also stated that the University of Hyderabad received 33 applications against the post of Reader. The Screening Committee, which is constituted by the Vice Chancellor for recommending list of candidates to be called for interview, in it meeting held on 18.08.2010, took note of the fact that the petitioner does not have Ph.D and does not possess good academic record, but gave its recommendation to the effect that the petitioner may be called for interview solely on the ground that he possess Media Industry Experience. The Screening Committee is only a recommendary body and the recommendations of it are not binding and the same are subject to the approval of the Vice Chancellor. The Screening Committee’s recommendations were carefully examined by the HR Section, whose duty is to do a due diligence to ensure that all the conditions of the advertisement are fulfilled. HR Section observed that the petitioner and other candidates did not satisfy the essential criteria mentioned in the advertisement and accordingly recommended rejection of their candidature and the same was put up for the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, who has approved the recommendations of the H.R.Section. It is further stated that the initial notification dated 01.01.2010 issued as per UGC Regulations, 2009 mandated holding of Ph.D for the subject post. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied to the subject post despite being ineligible. Subsequently, as per the directives of University Grants Commission (UGC), the University of Hyderabad issued corrigendum dated 23.03.2010, as per the UGC Regulations, 2000. As per the said corrigendum, the applicant shall either hold Ph.D or Published Work of Doctoral Standard or Media Production Work of Excellence. The application of the petitioner did not speak of him possessing the essential qualification of possessing Ph.D or having any Published Work of Doctoral Standard or Media Production Work of Excellence, which means a body of substantial media work which is of exceptional standards, as required under Clause 3.2.5(1). As the petitioner did not possess the basic requirement of a Ph.D degree or Published Work of Doctoral Standard or Media Production Work of Excellence on the crucial cut off date specified in the advertisement and also the good academic record, he was not called for interview. It is further stated that University Grants Commission prescribed that a candidate applying for faculty position should possess Good Academic Record. The fact is that the Good Academic Record as insisted upon by the University is not securing one good performance, but a consistently good performance to have a record of Good Academic Record. Good Academic Record has also been defined by the Executive Council of the University in its Resolution dated 21.04.1993 by stating that the candidate must have obtained an average of 50% of marks in two public examinations immediately preceding the Master’s Degree. In the present case on hand, the petitioner obtained 44% in the degree examination, which is one of the two public examinations preceding Masters Degree. It is further stated that the petitioner through his representations dated 12.10.2010 and 13.10.2010, while admitting that he does not meet the Good Academic Record criteria, requested the University to relax the same on the ground that the University has power to relax the qualifications, experience etc. However, the petitioner forgot to quote that the said clause further reads that the candidate shall not claim it as a right. At any rate, the University did not relax the qualifications or experience to any of the candidates appeared for the subject post. The petitioner was making representations and the same was duly examined and the In-Charge Vice Chancellor vide order dated 13.10.2010 decided that in view of shortage of time the petitioner might be given a benefit of doubt and called for interview. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the interview on 14.10.2010. The Selection Committee, which was also doubtful about the petitioner’s essential qualification, recommended that the petitioner be appointed for the served post (SC) after verifying his eligibility. Thus, a verification of his eligibility is clearly the intention of the committee and not automatic selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Selection Committee selected the petitioner and empanelled him in the first place and that without there being any adverse remarks, no appointment orders have been given to him and therefore, he prays to issue a direction to the respondents to give appointment orders in pursuance of the selection process. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that since the selection of the petitioner is subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria and he has not come within the eligibility as notified for the post, no appointment order was given to him, and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. There cannot be any dispute that the selected candidate or the person who is empanelled has no right to seek appointment, but he has a right to be considered for appointment. For that purpose, there must be eligibility for the post, which is notified by the respondents. It is not in dispute that the respondents issued the notification on 01.01.2010. Thereafter, on 23.03.2010 a corrigendum was issued. The petitioner applied for the post of Reader in Communication. The requisite qualifications for the said post are (1) Ph.D in Communication/Mass Communication from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University or (2) Published Work of Doctoral Standard or (3) Media Production Work of Excellence. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the categories 1 and 2. The entire case of the petitioner is based upon Media Production Work of Excellence. Except stating that he is having P.G Diploma in Acting (Theatre Arts) from University of Hyderabad and for his excellency he was awarded Rs.5,000/- Incentive Cash Award by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and that he was having 20 years of teaching experience, he has not produced any documents in respect of Media Production Work of Excellence. Further, though the petitioner was called for interview, the Selection Committee made a note that selection is subject to eligibility. One of the eligibility criteria for the subject post is Media Production Work of Excellence. As the petitioner has not produced any certificate to show that he has got Media Production Work of Excellence, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for the subject post. Clause 3 of the requisite qualification would go to show that a minimum of five years of experience of teaching and/ or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University/College or Accredited Research Institution/Industry excluding the period of Ph.D research with evidence of published work can also be taken into consideration, but that teaching experience alone cannot be a eligibility criterion unless the candidate possesses a certificate issued by the competent authority in respect of Media Production Work of Excellence. Such certificate is lacking and admittedly the petitioner has not produced any record before the respondents to show about his Media Production of Excellence. Therefore, the petitioner has not come within the guidelines fixed in the notification. In view of the same, the question of appointing the petitioner as Reader in Communication does not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C.BHANU, J Date: 22.06.2011 va