Karnataka High Court
Shri Babu Rajaram Mohan Ray, M.Sc. ... vs University Of Agricultural Sciences By ... on 5 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 887 (KAR.) = 2007 (5) AIR KAR R 349, 2007 (5) AIR KAR R 349
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
Page 1371
1. Writ Petitions by persons who had applied to the posts of Assistant Supervisors in the subjects of Agricultural Engineering, Land Pathology and Agricultural Entomology; in Writ Petition No. 4343/2006, Agricultural Engineering in Post Harvest Processing and Food Engineering (Grafts), in Writ Petition No. 5568/2006, Post Harvest Processing and Agricultural Engineering (Craft), in Writ Petition No. 11935/2006 Agricultural Plant Pathology, in Writ Petition No. 11041/2006, first petitioner in Agricultural Entomology and second petitioner in Agricultural Plant Pathology and in Writ Petition No. 11741/2006 in Agricultural Engineering (Post Harvest Technology/Farm, Power and Machinery/Soil and Water Conservation Engineering) are all before this Court even before the process of selection is through in terms of the two notifications Annexure-W dated 13.7.2006 in ` 4343/2006, Annexure-W dated 13.7.2006 in WP. No. 5568/2006, Annexure-H dated 12.6.2006 in WP. No. 11041/2006, Annexure-C dated 12.6.2006 in WP. No. 11741/2006 and Annexure-F dated 12.6.2006 in WP. No. 11935/2006.
2. Petitioners are all aggrieved by the prescription of eligibility/qualification as prescribed by the University in respect of the applicants to the posts. While in Writ Petition No. 4343/2006 and 5568/2006 the contention is Page 1372 that the prescription of the qualification particularly, the requirement of having acquired NET certificate, called National Eligibility Test, conducted by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (Board for short), a unit of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR for short) is not realistic; that the prescribing of the qualification of a certificate in a test so conducted by the Board is one impossible of achievement and therefore, persons like petitioners who are otherwise duly qualified to apply to the posts are eliminated from participating in the selection process.
3. The grievance urged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11041/2006 and 11741/2006 is essentially one of the University of Agricultural Sciences (University for short) discriminating as between applicants who had PHD qualification before the year 2002 and after the year 2002 and likewise making a distinction between M.Phil holders before the year 1993 and after 1993, in the sense, persons in the former category while are allowed a concession of exemption from having passed NET and a certificate therein and the persons of the latter category i.e., those who have acquired M.Phil alter 1993 or who have acquired Ph.D after 2002 are being insisted to have a NET certificate notwithstanding their higher qualification. It is contended that a classification brought about with reference to a particular date as the cut off date for extending the concession and not extending concession is not a rational classification but is discriminatory and therefore, the notification prescribing such qualification but allowing affording concession in favour of the former category is discriminatory and the selection process, involving such discriminatory, eligibility cannot be permitted to go on.
4. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11935/2006 is concerned, it is that the petitioner though qualified by having acquired a certificate in NET conducted by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR for short) another Scientific Research Organisation, which is also recognised by the University for conducting such tests, the petitioner is apprehending that he may be kept out of the selection process for want of NET certificate from ICAR. It is under such apprehension and such contentions, the present writ petitions.
5. The respondent University in terms of the two notifications referred to above, had notified several posts of Professors, Readers and Assistant Professors to be filled up by persons who have the prescribed qualification in terms of the prescription indicated in the notifications and it is in this context, the present writ petitions have been filed before this Court.
6. While the notification dated 12.6.2006 is a notification issued for the purpose of filling up of posts in General, the other notification, namely, the notification dated 13.7.2006 is one issued for the purpose of filling up of backlog vacancies exclusively meant to be filled up by the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe categories.
7. While the University is the common respondent in all the petitions, the State of Karnataka is also roped-in in some, in some more, the Indian Council Page 1373 of Agricultural Research is also a respondent and so also, the University Grants Commission. Notices having been issued to the respondents in these writ petitions, the University is represented by Sri. Sreenivas, learned Counsel, State of Karnataka is represented by Sri. Khureshi, learned Additional Government Advocate, ICAR is represented by Sri. P.R. Ramesh. In Writ Petition No. 11041/2006 there are additional respondents added in terms of the order dated 28.3.2007 passed by this Court, who are applicants who had sought to get themselves impleaded in the writ petition on the premise that they are also applicants to the posts that they are eligible candidates, but nevertheless, the selection process having been withheld because of the interim order passed in these writ petitions they would like to join the proceedings for the purpose of seeking the modification of the interim order. Sri. Siddappa, learned Counsel has appeared for these newly added respondents. The University Grants Commission is represented by Sri. P.S. Dinesh Kumar only to point out that it is not a necessary parry to the proceedings before this Court.
8. Though the application for vacating stay has come up for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the main matter itself is taken up for disposal.
9. The University has filed its statement of objections as also additional statement of objections. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research has also filed its statement of objections.
10. Sri. N. Devhadass, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 4343/2006 and 5568/2006, Sri. Dinakar, learned Counsel for petitioner Writ Petition No. 11741/2006, Sri. Papi Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11041/2006 and Sri. Siddaiah, learned Counsel who has appeared for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11935/2006, Sri. Sreenivas, learned Counsel for University, Sri. P.R. Ramesh, Counsel for ICAR, Sri. Siddappa, learned Counsel who has appeared for the private respondents in Writ Petition No. 11041/2006 and Sri. Dinesh Kumar, who has appeared for University Grants Commission and has made the sole submission, have all been heard.
11. The University in the statement of objections filed has sought to defend its action and has urged that the writ petitions are without merit and in fact has come up with an application for vacating the stay order contending that the said order has virtually held up the selection process and has affected the functioning of the University and therefore, the interim order is required to be vacated and it was at this stage the matter was taken up for disposal, instead of passing orders on the application for vacating stay order. That is how all the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have been heard elaborately.
12. The stand of the University in its statement of objections is that prescription of passing NET has a laudable object to be served; that it is a national policy as evolved by the combined efforts of the University Grants Commission, ICAR and CSIR to prescribe the passing of NET as an eligibility Page 1374 criterion for all persons who apply for teaching posts in universities and affiliated institutions; that the professional bodies like UGC, ICAR and CSIR are to conduct NET in different subjects with which they are concerned; that the University has been uniformly following this eligibility criterion as a compulsory requirement for all persons who apply for teaching posts in the University; and that the posts advertised being teaching posts, the prescription of NET certificate is justified, relevant and cannot be questioned. It is also urged that the University has taken a decision to prescribe equivalent NET certificates in respect of subjects with which the scientific bodies like ICAR and CSIR are concerned, and wherein the Board is not conducting the tests to indicate the possible NET certificate which could be possessed by persons having the post-graduate qualification in the particular subject in respect of which the professional body is not conducting a test; that pursuant to a recommendation made by the Academic Council in its 152nd meeting which had occasion to examine this question of the professional bodies not conducting the tests in respect of some subjects, such as Sericulture, Horticulture, Agricultural Marketing and Cooperation and Post Harvest Processing and Food Engineering, in respect of which, NET is not being conducted, the possible NET test which the applicants for the posts in such subjects could have acquired was indicated; that pursuant to the recommendation, the Board of Regents of the University in its 316th meeting has approved the same and this has been prescribed to be the eligibility criterion. It is submitted that insofar as acquiring the NET certificate is concerned, in the two notifications published for filling up of the posts, this equivalent NET is indicated; that such prescription is perfectly in order, as it has the effect of maintaining the standards in the University particularly, as persons who are selected to teach the students should be having sufficient qualification for which evaluation of such test is conducted and therefore, no complaint can be made against the prescription of such eligibility just because the petitioners do not possess this qualification. It is also submitted that prescribing such pass in NET had been questioned before this Court even earlier in Writ Petition No. 49522/2004 connected with 22376/2004 and that this Court in terms of the order dated 2nd August 2005, copy produced at Annexure-L to the Writ Petition No. 4343/2006, repelled an such contentions and had dismissed the writ petitions but, had nevertheless observed that it was for the University to seek relaxation from the ICAR; that the University had in fact made such an attempt to seek relaxation from the requirement of teachers in Universities having passed NET, particularly in favour of candidates who apply for filling up of backlog vacancies, but the ICAR having not acceded to this request, it became inevitable for the University to adhere to the requirement; and that while there was an attempt on the part of the University to provide some relaxation in favour of persons who apply in respect of backlog vacancies as the University had found it was hard to get applicants having such qualification, the effort on the part of the University was not fruitful and therefore, it had become inevitable to prescribe the same as a qualification both for filling up of the vacancies in General and backlog categories.
Page 1375
13. Insofar as the distinction made on behalf of the Ph.D holders who have acquired prior to 2002 and after 2002 and so also M.Phil qualified persons before 1993 and after 1993 is concerned, the stand of the University is that this concession or relaxation had been made by the University Grants Commission itself which in fact was the one which was also instrumental in indicating that NET test is a must for teachers in the Universities; that this being a decision which had been taken at the National level by all the professional bodies like UGC, ICAR and CSIR, the University has merely followed the same and therefore, no exception can be taken in the university extending the concession; that while earlier it was thought that a higher qualification in itself was a guarantee of the standard or the skill of a person applying for the teaching post, that view having been reconsidered and particularly, the ICAR which is the professional body which looks into the research activities and in fact funds the University in respect of the subjects taught by the University having opined that NET qualification is a necessary qualification irrespective of the higher qualification like Ph.D or M.Phil on and after the year 2002, the requisition of acquiring the NET certificate is being uniformly insisted upon and the University having followed the guidance of the professional bodies and that the eligibility criterion having been prescribed on the basis of past experience in the functioning of the Universities and particularly, in imparting education to teachers, the distinction made is valid, justified etc., and the petitioners cannot make a grievance of the same.
14. Submission of Sri. N. Devhadass, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 4343/2006 and 55682/006 is that the prescription of NET test as an eligibility criterion for persons applying to the posts of Assistant Professors in the subjects of Post Harvest Technology and Agricultural Engineering (Craft) is not at all realistic; that no corresponding NET examination is conducted by either ICAR or CSIR; that there is no possibility of persons having Post Graduate Degree In Agricultural Engineering in the subject of Post Harvest Technology and Agricultural Engineering (Craft) acquiring a commensurate NET certificate and while applicants coming from other subjects such as Land pathology, Agricultural Entomology can equip themselves with a NET certificate, persons like petitioners are not enabled to acquire the qualification of NET certificate and therefore, that would amount to discriminating against persons like the petitioners vis-a-vis persons having post-graduate qualification in other subjects, which amounts to the University not according an equal opportunity to an the persons having requisite qualifications i.e., persons holding Post Graduate Degree in the subject amounts to discriminatory act on the part of the University and therefore, their notification is not sustainable insofar it relates to the prescription of NET qualification to the post of Assistant Professors in Agricultural Engineering (Post Harvest Technology and Craft).
15. In response to this, the contention of Sri. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the University is that while it is a fact that ICAR or its unit, the recruitment Page 1376 board, is not conducting a test corresponding to these subjects and it is because the University realised this difficulty, the University had the matter examined through its Academic Council and therefore, a realistic possibility is prescribed in terms of the very notification calling for application indicating as to the NET certificate which can be acquired by the persons who had Post Graduate Degree in these subjects and that will be sufficient to consider their applications.
16. It is also submitted that as ICAR is the controlling body insofar as the financial aspects is concerned and in respect of the teaching posts which are directly under the patronage of ICAR, the professional body having not acceded to the relaxation of the requirement of the applicants holding NET certificate, it became necessary for the University to devise a way under which persons who were unable to acquire an NET certificate in such subject could at least acquire NET certificate in the nearest subject in respect of which the Board is conducting an NET or the other so that the insistence on the part of the ICAR is also met.
17. In the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the ICAR what has been pointed out is that the tests are conducted for the purpose of evaluation of the quality and standards of persons who have completed post graduate education in science subjects; and that the test is one which is designed to evaluate the aptitude of such persons for teaching and the test having been designed by a professional body ensures that persons with sufficient teaching skill and aptitude are given the certificate and get in to teaching jobs. The post graduates in the subject who are also interested in teaching job can pass the test and acquire the necessary eligibility; and that the prescribing of the eligibility test is fully justified and warranted. It is also pointed out in the counter and submitted by Sri. P.R. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for ICAR that the recruitment board itself has indicated as to the NET examination which can be attempted by persons with what qualification i.e., the particular NET for the particular subject is also indicated and it is for such persons who have qualification in the subject to acquire the corresponding NET to appear and pass in the corresponding NET examination. If a person is not one who had the commensurate qualification for appearing in that corresponding NET examination, such a person win not be permitted to write the NET examination.
18. It is also averred in the counter filed by the ICAR that in so far as persons having Post-graduate Degree in Agricultural Engineering (Post Harvest Technology) are concerned, NET examination conducted by the Board every year in approved disciplines of agriculture, animal science, fisheries and allied sciences, including disciplines of agricultural engineering and technology, agricultural structure and process engineering, enabling such persons who have Post-graduate Degree in Agricultural Engineering (Post Harvest Technology) and also such persons who wanted to write any of the NET examinations, perhaps they would have been allowed to write NET, the petitioners have not made any attempt to obtain such possible NET certificate, cannot complain. However, nothing Page 1377 is mentioned as to the availability or non-availability of any NET examination in respect of Agricultural Engineering (Craft).
19. It is also indicated that NET being prescribed as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of teachers in universities ever since 1984, and such being the position all these years, the petitioners cannot complain that they are taken by surprise on the insistence of acquiring this qualification and therefore contended that there is no merit in these petitions and should be dismissed.
20. The research organization has also indicated that it is not possible to relax the requirement of acquiring NET certificate in favour of persons selected for filling the posts advertised as backlog vacancies, as the qualification prescribed is in respect of the post of the post of Assistant Professor and not because it is to be filled up as backlog vacancies or otherwise and the prescription being one to improve and to ensure maintenance of commensurate academic standards, courts have consistently refrained from interfering with such prescription and therefore no direction can be issued to relax the requirement in favour of the petitioners.
21. Apart from attacking the validity of the two notifications, on the ground of being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, learned Counsel for the petitioners have also urged for issue of a positive direction to the respondent-university not to insist upon the applicants having post-graduate qualification in such subjects also to have passed NET, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
22. Sri N Devhadass, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP Nos. 4343 of 2006 and 5568 of 2006, submits that the other universities in the country having realized that NET examination being not conducted in respect of some of the subjects/ disciplines by the professional bodies, they have not insisted on NET certificate being an essential qualification for filling up teaching posts in the universities; that in the case of G P Pant University, NET examination in respect of such subjects, is not insisted as a qualification and therefore such a direction should be issued to the respondent-university also not to insist NET being an essential qualification in respect of subjects of Agricultural Engineering (PHT/SWCE/FPM) and Agricultural Engineering (Craft).
23. Sri C Dinakar and Sri G Papi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No 11741 of 2006 and 11041 of 2006 respectively, have submitted that the university be directed to extend the concession of exemption even in favour of persons like the petitioners who also have PhD qualification or M.Phil qualification as has been done by the university in favour of persons who had such qualifications prior to 2002 and 1993 as the case may be.
24. In so far as petitioner in WP No 11935 of 2006 is concerned, Sri Siddaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the university be directed to consider the application of the petitioner by accepting that the Page 1378 petitioner has requisite NET qualification, as the petitioner has passed NET conducted by the CSIR in Life Science and having the qualification of postgraduate degree in Plant Pathology.
25. Responding to such contentions, submission of Sri Sreenivas, learned Counsel for the university is that in so far as the submission of Sri Siddaiah is concerned, while the university would treat even an NET certificate issued by CSIR on par with the NET issued by the ICAR, the university has to examine whether the applicant had passed such NET in the particular subject and if necessary certificate had been placed before the university.
26. It is suffice to hold for the purpose of this writ petition that the university should treat the NET certificate issued by the CSIR on par with the NET certificate issued by the ICAR. Whether it is a valid certificate in the subject concerned or otherwise, are all matters for the university to examine, but so long as the petitioner has the requisite qualifications, the university is bound to consider his application on merits.
27. In so far as the request for the direction to be issued to the University for relaxation, either for grant of total exemption as in the case of petitioners in WP no 4343 and 5568 of 2006 or for directing the university to extend the concession in favour of the petitioners in WP No 11041 and 11741, is concerned, the prayer for directing the university to grant such relaxation cannot be issued by this Court. While examination by this Court in respect of the action taken by the university, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is for the purpose of scrutinizing as to whether the university has met the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and has been according equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, and if not, the action of the university is to be declared as bad in law, a positive direction to compel the university for extending any concession, relaxation or exemption cannot be issued by this Court for more than one reason.
28. The entire examination by this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review in writ jurisdiction in matters of this nature is as to whether equal opportunity is being provided to all similarly situated persons in the matter of employment under the State. In the case of petitioners in WP No 4343 and 5568 of 2006, it is noticed that while they are also holders of Post-graduate degrees in the respective subject for which applications are called for, one thing lacking in them will be the requirement of having passed in NET. Though it is urged by Sri Puthige R Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the ICAR that the petitioners in these two petitions could have positively taken up an NET test, as the subjects which they have studied are on par with other notified subjects and therefore they could have taken such test, which the examining body would have permitted to take up, the question is not whether they could have been permitted or otherwise, as submitted before the court, but was the board conducting an examination to the knowledge of the interested persons in a particular subject vis-a-vis the qualification the persons holding. While it is indicated that for persons holding Post Graduate Degree in Agricultural Engineering Page 1379 (Post Harvesting Technology), Agricultural Structure and Process Engineering was a possible test to which such persons could have been permitted to appear, it is not clear from the notification issued by the examining body that there was a test corresponding to the qualifications which these persons had acquired in MSc Agricultural Engineering.
29. May be the Board might have permitted them if they should have sought for, but in the absence of any prior publication or intimation by the Board itself, the possibility of acquiring such a qualification was not to the knowledge of all persons who had Post Graduate Degree in Agricultural Engineering (Post-Harvesting Technology). Therefore, the situation is that in respect of persons who had acquired Post Graduate Degree in Agricultural Engineering (Post-Harvesting Technology), there was no real possibility of such persons having acquired NET qualifications.
30. The alternative submission of the university in this regard that in terms of the very notification, the alternative qualification in NET has been indicated and it was open to the applicants to acquire such qualifications perhaps should have been a good answer to this challenge provided there was sufficient enabling opportunity to the applicants to have acquired this qualification, after the qualification was prescribed as an essential one, as is done under the two notifications. It is the case of the University that the academic council of the university recommended an equivalence only in its resolution in the meeting that took place in the month of January 2006 and the Board of Regents approved it in its subsequent meeting held in the month of March 2006. Assuming that such a resolution can be taken to be to the knowledge of public or at any rate to interested persons like the petitioner who may be conversant with the prescription by the University and the Board, the whole idea being to enable such persons who have post-graduate qualification vis-a-vis the Board was not conducting NET examination to sit in an alternative NET examination and pass it, it should necessarily be one enable them to acquire the same or it should have provided them an opportunity to acquire the same before it was prescribed as a compulsory qualification. Between the resolution of the Board of Regents and the publication of the two notifications, the interval being merely about three months, it is urged at the Bar that there was no possibility of such persons having sat in the examination to acquire the qualification.
31. This non-possibility assumes significance particularly as in respect of the post of Asst Professor (SWC/PHT/FPM), while a post graduate degree holder in any of the three disciplines is eligible to apply to the post, in respect of other two disciplines, persons while are able to acquire an NET certificate even before, it is not so in the case of applicants with Post Graduate Degree in Agricultural Engineering (Post-Harvesting Technology) and this anomaly brings about an element of discrimination in the sense, all the three categories are not accorded equal opportunity to compete.
32. On the overall examination of the situation as it prevails at the level of Page 1380 ICAR, which is the examining body or as it prevails at the University level in the matter of prescribing the minimum qualification in terms of Statute 30(3) of University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, which reads as under:
30. Teachers: Grades, qualifications, Selection, Duties, Salary:
XXX (3) The qualification of teachers, scientists and extension specialists shall be as stipulated by the UGC/ICAR from time to time.
it is found that on the date of issue of the two notifications inviting applications, acquiring NET in respect of these two disciplines was not a real possibility. May be some persons even otherwise might have acquired such a qualification, but that will be a fortuitous situation and that cannot be the test for determining as to whether equal opportunity is accorded to all similarly situated persons or not.
33. While it is open to the university to prescribe the standards and also commensurate qualifications for filling up the posts, so long as the qualifications are having nexus to the job notified and to be filled up and no fault can be found with the UGC or other national level academic bodies prescribing NET test as an essential qualification or the university incorporating the same as an essential qualification in terms of its Statute No 30(3) or even the university by itself prescribing an alternative standard or qualification in exercise of its power under State 30(3) and this Court will not interfere with such prescription unless it is totally irrelevant or irrational and while the present prescription is not termed fault on this premise, the very possibility that some of the applicants could not have possibly acquired the qualifications and therefore are kept out of the competition, is a very formidable ground not only to invalidate the proceedings initiated for filling up of these posts with reference to these disciplines, but also to direct the university to accord equal opportunity to all similarly situated persons even while prescribing the qualifications. Perhaps if there was a possibility that the applicants could have competed by writing one examination in between the date of making known the requisite qualification and the date of notifying the posts, that could have saved the day for the university, but unfortunately that is not the situation.
34. The university being not in a position to defend on any rational basis the distinction it has made between persons who acquired PhD before 2002 and after 2002 and likewise between persons who acquired M.Phil before 1993 and after 1993, extending a concession/ relaxation only in favour of one section of PhD or M.Phil holders amounts to discrimination, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
35. Though it is submitted by Sri Sreenivas, learned Counsel for the university that the university has merely followed the earlier directions issued in this regard by the University Grants Commission, a professional body which had itself made such a distinction, that by itself cannot be the Page 1381 answer by the university as the requisite qualification is now made part of the qualification as prescribed under the Statute of the University itself. It is necessary for the university to defend such action of the university and not merely to pass it of as an action of following the stipulations of a national level scientific research body.
36. It is also relevant to notice in this regard the submission made by Sri C Dinakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No 11741 of 2006 that in fact the UGC has by itself done away with the requirement of NET pass for the purpose of fining up of teaching posts in the universities by amending the University Regulations in the year 2006 and it is no more an essential qualification.
37. Though there is a possible distinction between the action of the university and the action on the part of the professional scientific research bodies like ICAR and CSIR and the action on the part of the UGC by itself may not be conclusive, it nevertheless remains that the UGC - an apex body at the national level - has now thought it fit not to insist this qualification in respect of teachers imparting teaching in humanistic or non-science subjects. While it is still open to the respondent-university to nevertheless prescribe NET as a requisite qualification for filling up of teaching posts in the university, which is an agricultural university and particularly in scientific subjects involving engineering and technology also, even while doing so, the university is required to act in a uniform, non-discriminatory manner and as it is found its action is not such, it is on this premise that the action of the university in making a distinction between the two classes of PhD holders and M.Phil qualifiers fails.
38. In the result, these writ petitions inevitably have to be accepted, the notification as issued by the University indicating the essential qualification of NET certificate in respect of subjects in Agricultural Engineering (SWC/PHT/FPM) and Agricultural Science (Craft) fails due to irrationality and impracticability and as one denying equal opportunity to all the qualified persons.
39. Likewise, the condition or to say otherwise, the concession extended to the PhD holders and M.Phil qualifiers prior to 2002 and 1993 respectively, at the cost of other persons like the petitioners who acquired the qualification after the cut off dates stipulated by the university also fails as discriminatory. To this extent, the impugned notifications are held to be bad in law being violative of Article 14/16 of the Constitution of India. It is ruled that the university cannot make a distinction between two classes of PhD holders and M.Phil qualifiers and the university should extend equal opportunity to all those who have post graduate qualification in corresponding subjects for competing with others being like qualification, particularly in the matter of acquiring the NET certificate. The university is required to re-notify the posts in terms of the orders and the directions in these writ petitions, but not so necessary in respect of the subject for which the petitioner in WP No 11935 of 2006 had applied. The selection process in this subject and post can be continued on the basis of the Page 1382 observations herein above made in this order while discussing the case of this petitioner.
40. Writ petitions are allowed accordingly. Rule issued and made absolute.
41. It is submitted at this stage by Sri Sreenivas, learned Counsel for the university that the university has gone ahead with the process of selection and has selected candidates and they are also working in terms of the two notifications; that only in respect of the posts for which the petitioners herein had applied for, the process of selection has not been finalized and this order should not unsettle title finalization of selection process in respect of other posts, with which the petitioners are not interested or have not applied for and wherein selection process has already been completed and appointments made and the selected persons are working, particularly when such persons are not parties before this Court.
42. While the law declared is to be applied uniformly by the university and conform to the law, the interim order having been confined to the case of the petitioners and finalization of the selection process in respect of other posts to which the petitioners herein had not applied for, had not been stayed and such process of selection in respect of other posts, having not been questioned and in the absence of any prohibitory order, the university having gone ahead and having selected the persons to such posts, it is clarified that in terms of this order, the university is required to re-notify the posts in respect of which the petitioners in WP No 4343 of 2006, WP No 5568 of 2006, WP No 11041 of 2006 and WP No 11741 of 2006 had applied for and to proceed with the matter in terms of the directions contained herein above and this order will not affect the selection to other posts which had been notified and for which selection process has already been completed and which are not questioned in these petitions.