The first respondent Bharathiyar University called for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Technical Officer (Library) in the local Tamil Daily dated 10.09.2008. The last date for submission of application for the said post as per the advertisement was 06.10.2008. The essential qualifications for making application for the said post as per the advertisement are as follows:-
(1)Bachelors degree in any subject with certificate in Library Science;
(2)Typewriting Lower in English and Tamil (3)AGE:Should not exceed thirty three years Desirable:Previous Experience in any recognized Library Relaxation applicable as per Government norms to the respective community.
2.According to the petitioner, she has got Masters Degree in Library Science, Typewriting Lower in English as well as Tamil. She satisfies the other qualification also such as age, etc.
3.The second respondent also made application to the said post. Admittedly, she has possessed Bachelors Degree in Library Science and Typewriting Lower in English and she also falls within the age limit. But she does not possess Typewriting Lower in Tamil.
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner satisfies all the required qualifications, instead of selecting and appointing her, the first respondent has selected and appointed the second respondent who is not at all qualified even to make application to the said post. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief.
5.The first respondent has not filed any counter. But, on instructions from the first respondent, the learned counsel for the first respondent would oppose the writ petition. According to her, totally six candidates made applications to the said post including the petitioner and the second respondent. All the six candidates were called for interview. At the time of interview, it was found that the petitioner had Bachelors Degree in Library Science obtained from Madurai Kamarajar University, through Distance Education Programme. It was also found that the petitioner has got Typewriting Lower in English as well as Tamil. The learned counsel would further submit that the second respondent has got Bachelors Degree in Library Science by having undergone regular course. She would further submit that the second respondent has Typewriting Lower in English but she does not have Typewriting Lower in Tamil. But, the first respondent selected and appointed the second respondent to the said post because, she has got knowledge in computer. According to the first respondent, the knowledge in computer operation was considered to be equivalent to Typewriting Lower in English as well as Tamil and therefore, the second respondent was found to be eligible for appointment to the said post.
6.In so far as the petitioner is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the first respondent, since the Bachelors Degree in Library Science was not obtained by undergoing regular course but the same was obtained by undergoing Distance Education Programme, the same was not preferred by the University. That is the reason why the petitioner was rejected though, she has got not only Bachelors Degree in Library Science but also Masters Degree in Library Science together with Typewriting Lower in English and Tamil.
7.Though notice has been served on the second respondent and though her name was printed in the cause list, she has not made any appearance. It appears that the second respondent is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, this Court proceeds to dispose of the writ petition after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.
8.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.
9.A perusal of the advertisement would go to show that one of the essential qualifications is Typewriting Lower in English and Tamil. Admittedly, the petitioner was the only candidate who had Typewriting Lower in English and Tamil. However, the other five candidates including the second respondent do not have Typewriting Lower both in English and Tamil. More particularly, the second respondent has got Typewriting lower in English alone and not in Tamil. Thus, all the five candidates including the second respondent, except the petitioner, should have been rejected as they do not satisfy the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. But, curiously, the first respondent has called all the six candidates for attending the interview. At the time of interview, the petitioner has produced not only Bachelors Degree certificate in Library Science but also Masters Degree Certificate in Library Science. But she has been rejected on the ground that the Bachelors Degree Certificate obtained by her was by undergoing distance education programme and not by undergoing regular course. A perusal of the advertisement would go to show that there was no such classification or distinction made between the Bachelors Degree obtained by undergoing regular course and by distance education programme. Thus, the only reason stated for rejecting the petitioner cannot be accepted.
10.It is not the case that the petitioner does not satisfy the other qualifications. From the records, it could be seen that, as I have already stated, the petitioner is the only candidate who is fully eligible for appointment. But, for reasons which are not at all germane to the selection process, the petitioner has been rejected and instead, the second respondent has been appointed. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said exercise should be termed as highly arbitrary requiring interference at the hands of this Court.
11.The learned counsel for the first respondent would rely on a judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University (2009 (4) SCC 555) wherein, it has been held as follows:-
It is the University authority which knows best as to what is their requirement. If it was necessary for the University to fill up the post from the stream of Industrial Chemistry, it would have so indicated in the advertisement itself, for in subsequent years specific advertisement was issued by the University for filling up the post of Lecturer in Industrial Chemistry by issuing an advertisement specifically in that regard. The University, according to its Statues 22, 21, 19 and 17(2)(i), under takes multitier exercise for laying down essential qualification for a particular post and then it is advertised. It is also established from the records that Pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different subjects. The post advertised was meant for a person belonging to Pure Chemistry Department for if it was otherwise, then it would have been so mentioned in the advertisement itself that a person holding a Masters degree in Industrial Chemistry should only apply or that a person holding such a degree could also apply along with other persons.
The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself. In the matter of selection of candidates, opinion of the Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection process midstream. There could have been intending candidates who would have applied for becoming candidate as against the said advertised past, had they known and were informed through advertisement and Industrial Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the said post. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement.
12.In my considered opinion, the said judgement, instead of helping the first respondent, it supports the case of the petitioner only. As observed by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case on hand also, if it was the intention of the University to prefer the candidates having computer knowledge, nothing would have prevented the University to make it abundantly clear in the advertisement itself and to say that Typewriting Lower English and Tamil is not required. Had it been done, several other candidates who do have computer knowledge would have made applications. Perhaps, they have been mislead by the advertisement, that Typewriting Lower in English and Tamil are essential and that is why there were only minimum number of applicants. Having issued such an advertisement, now it is not open for the University to deviate from the same and to prescribe a fresh qualification. It is like changing the rules of the game after the game has started which is impermissible under law.
13.The learned counsel for the first respondent would further submit that in the affidavit, the petitioner has not alleged any mala fides and therefore, the selection cannot be interfered with. In my considered opinion, absolutely there is no substance in the said argument. To challenge the selection process, it is not always necessary that mala fide is to be alleged. Even in the absence of any mala fides, if it is found that the selection has been done either illegally or irregularly, then the Court can interfere with the same. In the case on hand, as I have already stated, a person who is fully qualified as per the advertisement has been rejected and instead, a person who does not have the basic qualification as per the advertisement has been selected and appointed. This is a classic example as to how in an arbitrary manner, the selection could be conducted.
14.The learned counsel for the first respondent would further submit that in the event of this Court setting aside the appointment of the second respondent, liberty may be given to the first respondent to make fresh advertisement and to make fresh selection. I find no justification at all in the said submission made by the learned counsel. Having made an advertisement; having undertaken the process of selection and having found that the petitioner is fully qualified, it is not at all open for the first respondent at this length of time to seek such a liberty to make a fresh advertisement. Incidentally, if the petitioner is not qualified, then this Court would have no hesitation to give such liberty to the first respondent to issue fresh advertisement. But indisputably, the petitioner has fully qualified to the said post and when that be so, I hardly find any reason as to why the University should have hesitation to appoint the petitioner in the said post. Therefore, the said request made by the learned counsel for the first respondent is also to be rejected. Therefore, I do not have any hesitation to set aside the order of appointment of the second respondent and with a further direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner to the said post.
15.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of the second respondent is set aside and the first respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as against the said vacancy forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
jbm To Bharathiyar University, Rep. By its Registrar, Coimbatore 641 046