Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.
1. The petitioner, Dr. Gayatri Sen Majumdar, moved this writ petition against the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta and others for quashing the letters of interview already issued in respect of the posts of the Lecturers in the Department of Pali in the Calcutta University for appearing before the Selection Committee on 1st September, 1989. Her main grievance is that though qualified she was excluded from the interview for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Pali of the said University. Though the interview has already taken place on the aforesaid date still the High Court granted ad interim order of injunction on 1st September, 1989 to the effect that though the interview would take place but no steps would be taken for selection of candidates without the leave of the Court.
2. The application was invited by the University of Calcutta on the basis of Advertisement No. East/3/88 published in 'The Statesman' of 4th May, 1988 relating to several appointments in various departments including one post of Lecturer in the Department of Pali, and by another advertisement one more post of Lecturer in the said Department and this is the admitted position. The said advertisement marks out certain Essential Qualifications and Experience for various departments, as for example, uniformly good academic career with the Masters and Bachelor's Degree with Honours of this University or equivalent; evidence of continuing research interest as manifest in published work in reputed research journals or Doctoral degree of a recognised University; teaching experience of five yean, etc. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of having a good academic career she has been denied interview, by the University Authorities. She was the Research Fellow of the U.G.C. for five years, got Second Class Honours in Pali; M.A. with First Class in Pali as well as B.C. Law Gold Medal. She obtained Ph.D. in 1975 and has several papers of Research Value published in the different Journals and Books in India and Bangladesh including the Journals of Ancient Indian History of the Calcutta University. She had also the opportunity to attend several International Seminars including one on Bangladesh Archaeology at Rajshahi. Her further case is that apart from Smt. Manikuntala Haider (De) two more i.e. Sm. Shukla Barua (Mutsuddi) and Subhra Barua were also invited for the interview though the last two do not possess any doctorate Degree and as such discrimination has been done with her by not inviting her in the interview by the University Authorities.
3. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the Calcutta University, placed before me the proceeding of the Selection Committee held for the posts of two Lecturers if the Department of Pali on 1st September, 1989. It consisted of six members headed by the Vice-Chancellor with the Pro Vice-Chancellor for the Academic Affairs as his Deputy, but two members were absent. The very first paragraph of the proceeding runs as under: 'The Selection Committee endorses the short listing of applicants drawn up by the Chairman in consultation with the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Dean, Arts on the basis of academic records from available records, it appears that they are the best amongst the applicants in so far as academic attainments are concerned.' The proceeding is signed by all the four members of the Committee who were present on the occasion. This proceeding of the Selection Committee indicates that the Vice-Chancellor with the help of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Affairs) made the selection of applicants from among the applications received on some criteria of their own, based on the academic qualification as indicated therein according to their policy, but the criteria for sorting out the applications were not placed before the Court.
4. Now, the whole question revolves round the point whether the advertisement made in the 'Statesman' containing the aforementioned essential qualifications and experience were approved by any authority of the University in accordance with law or not. It has been stated by the learned Advocate for the University that the essential qualifications and experience as mentioned in the Advertisement were duly approved by a Resolution at the meeting of the Syndicate held on 19th April, 1988 and placed before me a copy of the said Resolution. The Resolution No. 10 runs as follows :
'(i) That the draft Advertisement for appointment to the post of Readers and Lecturers in different Departments of the University be approved.'
Immediately thereafter there is a note under bracket to the effect. 'The members are requested to send their suggestions, additions/alterations if any, to the Vice-Chancellor within a week.' This not indicates very clearly that the Resolution passed in the Syndicate on 19th April, 1988 was not final and though approved it was kept open for further suggestion, addition and alteration and as such its implementation cannot be taken for granted or acted upon in the eye of law. The learned Advocate Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the University could not satisfy me whether any further suggestion, addition or alteration were suggested or made and those were incorporated in the said Resolution No. 10 because the door was open and the Resolution was not finally approved in spite of using the word 'approved', it cannot be taken as approved.
5. Now, I come to the Calcutta University Act, 1979 as published in 1986. Section 54 relating to Regulations says that subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes and the Ordinances, Regulations may be made to provide for all or any of the following matters and under Clause (f) thereof it is made clear that Section 54 covers the 'minimum qualifications' for Principals, other Teachers and Teachers of the University. Section 55(1) of the said Act describes the way as to how to make Regulations. It says that the Syndicate or a Committee appointed by it shall take into consideration drafts of Regulations, consistent with this Act and the Statutes and the Ordinances after notice of the proposed Regulations has been given . to the members of the Syndicate etc. Sub-section (2) of Section 55 says that a Regulation shall be deemed to be passed by the Syndicate if it is agreed to at a meeting of the Syndicate by a majority of the total number of members of the Syndicate existing at the time. I must be very frank to say that the University has failed to impress upon me as to how Section 55 was implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. No paper has been placed before me to show that the essential qualifications ever undergone the process of Sections 54 (f) and 55(1) and (2) of the Act. Sub-section (f) of Section 54 speaks of 'minimum qualifications' whereas the advertisement refers to 'essential qualifications'. In my opinion the Resolution No. 10 of the Syndicate dated 19th April, 1988 does not in any way satisfy the Court that it is finally approved by the Syndicate as the same is attached with the condition and the learned Advocate for the University could not explain the developments thereafter. Further, the said resolution refers to the 'draft advertisement' only and not to the Essential Qualifications required for the purpose of recruitment which the Syndicate must approve in accordance with the statutes and the regulations. It was also made clear on behalf of the University that it has no guideline from the U.G.C. for such appointments.
6. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate for the University, has taken a point that the petitioner has only challenged the interview by the Selection Committee and did not challenge the procedure adopted by the Calcutta University for the recruitment of the candidates for Lecturership of Pali and as such something which has not been asked for cannot be granted to the petitioner. I am sorry I cannot agree with the contention of the learned Advocate because the High Court in this extra ordinary Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction has the right to probe into all the matters relating to a case and can grant relief for the ends of justice. The High Court, of course, cannot appoint by itself anybody in the post of Professor, Reader or Lecturer which is the function of the University but can certainly look into the fact whether the University authorities and/or the Selection Committee has acted in accordance with law with particular reference to rules and regulations and then made directions accordingly. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate for the University, has placed a Supreme Court decision reported in : (1990)IILLJ470SC (Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. v. Dr. B. S. Mahajan and Ors.). Here, it was held by the Supreme Court that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject and the Court has no such expertise. In the Supreme Court case under reference the Selection Committee was constituted in due compliance with the relevant statute and selected candidates after going through the relevant materials and the High Court went wrong in sitting in appeal over the selection. But in the instant case the position is just reverse. Here, it is the duty of this Court to go into the merit of the case and see whether the advertisement made was in accordance with the statute and the conditions laid therein were complied with. This Court is not going to decide who should be called for the interview and who should not be and who should be appointed as Lecturer and who should not. The question is not before me whether the Selection Committee is right or wrong but point is whether the conditions laid down in the advertisement has got the statutory sanction, otherwise the entire exercise is bad and invalid. I am satisfied, from the papers produced and submission made on behalf of the University, that the statutory provisions were not complied with.
7. I find that the University has not complied with Sections 54 and 55 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 and also I find that the Resolution No. 10 adopted at the meeting of the Syndicate on 19th April, 1988 is not a final one. I feel sympathy for the added respondent Smt. Manikuntala Haider (De) but I cannot help because the entire process was not in accordance with law.
8. In the circumstances, in the light of discussion made hereinbefore, the selection made by the Selection Committee, constituted by the University of Calcutta, at its meeting held on 1st September, 1989 for the selection of two Lecturers in the Department of Pali is hereby quashed. Liberty is, however, given to the University to make fresh Advertisement in compliance with the provisions of the Statutes and relevant Regulations to fill up the post of Lecturers in question.
9. The Selection Committee Report which was produced before me in original is returned back to the learned Advocate for the University.
10. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
11. After the judgment is delivered Mrs. Monika Ghosh, the learned Advocate for the added respondent, prays for stay of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case such prayer is refused.
Let xerox copies of this judgment be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of the necessary formalities.