AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Koshy, J.—In all these cases, appointments made by Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady in pursuance of notification dated 5-9-1997 are challenged. Writ Appeal No. 477 of 2001 and O.P.No. 5599 of 1998 relate to non-teaching staff and other petitions relate to teaching staff including Readers, Lecturers, Instructors etc. In all these cases, power of the University to make appointments, constitution of the Selection Committee and method of selection are challenged.
Before going into the details of the case, we may narrate some facts. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit was established on 25-11-1993 by Ordinance No. 11/93 which was replaced by the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). To begin with, appointments to non-teaching staff were made on daily wages. Thereafter, regular appointments were made to teaching posts by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The above appointments were challenged. By judgment in O.P.No. 15752 of 1994 those appointments made to the teaching staff were set aside by a learned Single Judge. However, appointments specifically challenged were only set aside. The above decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. State 1996 (2) KLT 378. The Division Bench held that all appointments made by the University are illegal as Selection Committee was not constituted in the manner prescribed by the Statute. It is not disputed that no Statutes were framed in 1994.
Section 31(1) of the Act provided as follows:
"31. Appointment of teachers, officers an staff:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the teachers, officers and other employees of the University shall be appointed by the Vice Chancellor on the advice of appropriate Selection Committee constituted in the manner prescribed by the Statutes."
First Vice-Chancellor was also empowered to exercise the powers of the Syndicate and Academic Council till they were duly constituted. This Court held that Section 31 specifically stated that appointments can be made only on the advice of the appropriate Selection Committee constituted in the manner prescribed by the Statutes and since no Statutes were mae, no proper Selection Committee was constituted and all appointments made are invalid.
The powers of the Syndicate are mentioned in Section 14 of the Act. The relevant provisions are as follows:
"14 (2) (a) to make Statutes in accordance with the provisions of this Act and submit for the assent of the Chancellor.
.....
(j) to appointment teachers and other employees of the University, to prescribe their duties and to fix their terms and conditions of services in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes to entertain, adjudicate upon and if thought fit, to redress any grievance of officers of the University, the teaching staff, other employees of the University and the students who may for any reason feel aggrieved."
The power of appointment of teachers and other employees was vested with the Syndicate. The power to prescribe their terms and conditions in accordance with the Statute was also vested with the Syndicate. Admittedly, when Selection Committee was constituted, there was no Statutes and, therefore, the Division Bench found that the entire appointments were not made properly and the Academic Council has to advise the Syndicate in all academic matters especially in respect of qualification of teachers in conformity with the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. The contention of the University was that since the Vice-Chancellor was entrusted with the powers of the Syndicate as well as the Academic Council, the Selection Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor is correct.
Section 24 (5) (b) of the Act is as follows:
"The first Vice-Chancellor shall exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of all the authorities of the University also until they are duly constituted within two years from the date of his appointment."
But, the Court held that even then, the appointment of teachers and other officers and staff can be made only by a Selection Committee constituted in the manner prescribed by the Statute and in the absence of Statute, all appointments made by the University are illegal.
The Syndicate was constituted on 18-4-1996. The Syndicate at first decided on 4-5-1996 to regularise the services of non-teaching staff appointed on daily wages in 1994. But, that decision was cancelled on 23-3-1997 and the decision to cancel the services of non-teaching staff engaged on daily wages were upheld by the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 892 of 1998 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 6398/2000. The University forwarded a draft of the First Statute to the Government. The Government returned the draft of the First/Statute on 8-7-1996 stating that the Syndicate is the authority to make the Statutes by letter dated 8-7-1996 (Ext.R2(b) in O.P.No. 21894 of 1997). Thereafter, the Syndicate of the University framed the Statute and forwarded the same to the Chancellor for assent. The Chancellor accorded assent to the Statute on 6-5-1997 and it was published as per notification dated 15-5-1997". By corrigendum notification it was corrected as "Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Statutes, 1997" deleting the word "First" from the above. The impugned notification was issued for recruitment to teaching and non-teaching posts and Selection Committee was constituted in the manner prescribed by Statute. Readers were appointed in November, 1997 and other teaching staff were appointed in May/August, 1998 and they are functioning thereafter. With regard to the non-teaching staff, there was no interview. But, a written examination was conducted by an independent body, the Institute of Management in Government. They valued the answer scripts and drew up the select list. The select list was approved by the University without any modification and appointments to the non-teaching staff were made on the basis of the rank list prepared.
Now, we may consider the contentions raised by the petitioners in seriatum. The first contention raised was that since the First Statute was not published, the University cannot appoint any person, either as teaching staff or as non-teaching staff, as the Select Committee and Syndicate have to make the appointments as per the Statutes and the very same defect as pointed out by the Division Bench in 1996 (2) KLT 378 while quashing all the appointments made by the University in 1994 is applicable in this case also.
We have already seen that appointments have to be made by the Select Committee and the Syndicate in accordance with the Statutes. The power of appointment is vested with the Syndicate in accordance with the Statute. The contention is that First Statute is not made so far. Section 53 of the Act reads as follows:
"53 First Statutes and Ordinance: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the First Statutes and the First Ordinances of the University shall be made by the Government."
It is an admitted case that First Statute is not made by the Government at all. The Government alone can make the First Statute. But, apart from the First Statute, other Statutes have to be made by the Syndicate. Powers of the Syndicate are mentioned in Section 14 which reads as follows:
"14. Powers and functions of the Syndicate: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and Statutes, the executives powers of the University shall be vested in the Syndicate; and the Syndicate shall have the control, management and administration of the properties and funds of the University.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely:-
(a) to make Statutes in accordance with the provisions of this Act and submit for the assent of the Chancellor;
.....
(h) to create teaching and non-teaching osts in the University with the prior approval of the Government;
.....
(j) to appoint teachers and other employees of the University, to prescribe their duties and to fix their terms and conditions of services in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes, to entertain adjudicate upon and if thought fit, to redress any grievance of officers of the University, the teaching staff, other employees of the University and the students who may for any reason feel aggrieved; ....."
Therefore, it shows that apart from the First Statutes to be made by Government, other Statutes should be made by the Syndicate and the Syndicate has to appoint teachers and other employees in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes. Ext.R2(c) (O.P.No. 21894/97) is the Statute made by the Syndicate in accordance with the powers vested with the same. In fact, draft was sent to the Government for making the First Statute. But, the Government was of the opinion that since the Syndicate was formed, only the Syndicate can make the Statutes. Section 12 of the Act provides that the Syndicate shall be the chief executive body of the University. In this case, unlike the other Acts constituting Universities, there are detailed provisions for constituting the Syndicate. The Syndicate was validly constituted by notification published on 18-4-1996.
In All Kerala Private College Teachers Association Vs. Nair Service Society and others, it was held that only one-time power is conferred on the State Government for framing the First Statutes. Under the Kerala University Act, the Senate had the power to frame the Statutes. Here, in this Act, the Syndicate is vested with the power to frame the Statutes. While considering the provisions of the Senate, the Supreme Court in the above case held as follows:
"10. .... The Universities could not have started functioning unless there were statutes in existence immediately after the enforcement of the Two Acts providing for the constitution of the Senate other bodies of the universities and other regulator provisions necessary for the functioning of the universities. To meet this eventuality, the legislature has given one time power to the State Government to frame the "First Statute" u/s 83 of the Two Acts. When the Senate is constituted and becomes functional then it is the only authority under the Two Acts to frame the statutes. We fail to understand how the State Government can frame the statutes when the Senate is functioning. There cannot be two parallel authorities to make subordinate legislation on the same subject-matter. In view of the scheme of the Two Acts it is not possible to contend that the Senate has no power to make statutes on a subject for the first time. We do not agree with the learned counsel of the appellant that the State Government has the power to keep on making "First Statutes" till it exhausts all the subjects/topics on which statues could be framed under the Two Acts. This argument goes contrary to the very object and purposes of the Two Acts.
We, therefore, hold that the State Government has only one time power to frame "First Statutes" u/s 83 of the Two Acts. The statutes framed by the State Government may be in respect of one subjects or various subjects but once the State Government has framed the statutes itsm power u/s 83 gets exhausted and it cannot framed the statutes for the second time. We make it clear that the interpretation given by us to Section 83 of the Two Acts is prospective, except in relation to the impugned statutes, and will be operative from the date of this judgment."
Even though the position of law was stated, in order to avoid confusion and upsetting of the entire system, the Court made the judgment prospective. 1979 and 1988 Statutes made by the Government after framing of First Statutes were held to be valid and operative. In this case, the Act gives various provisions to constitute the Syndicate and the Syndicate was constituted. After constituting the Syndicate, only the Syndicate can make the Statutes. We have also seen that the University was constituted in 1993. First Statutes was not made by the Government. In the absence of Statutes when a Syndicate was not formed earlier, selections made by the Selection Committee was set aside by this Court, as the selections were not made by the Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes. Later, the Syndicate was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and draft sent to the Government was returned (see Ext.R2(b) in O.P.No. 21894 of 1997) without making First Statutes in view of the Supreme Court decision in Kerala University''s case (supra) on the ground that Government cannot make any Statutes after the formation of the Syndicate. The Syndicate framed the Statutes which was assented to by the Chancellor (Governor) and published in the Gazette. Therefore, merely because First Statutes was not made by the Government, this time selection cannot be set aside, as the selections were made in accordance with the Statutes validly made by the Syndicate. If another view is taken, it will create utter confusion and chaos as the University was started in 1993 and all appointments made hitherto, whether their selections are challenged or not, have to be set aside. Admittedly, no First Statutes was made by the Government so far and about ten years have passed after the formation of the University and all Departments of the University became functional. Several centres are established by the University and since the Syndicate has made the Statutes as prescribed under the Act, it cannot be stated that merely because Government did not make the First Statutes, all the appointments are invalid.
Next point to be considered is that the constitution of the Selection Committee was bad and there was no outside subject experts. The Syndicate constituted the Selection Committee and for example, the Selection Committee members for selecting candidates for the post of Reader in Malayalam were as follows:
"1. V.C. (ex-officio Chairman).
Principal Dean of Studies.
Dr. Jamal Muhammed (one member of the Syndicate nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. )
Dr. Sukumar Azhikode (outside subject experts chosen by by the
Dr. O.M. Aniyan Syndicate as per Statute 4 (1) (iii ) (b). )
Dr . Prabhakara Wariyar (outside subject experts in the place of the Head r of the Department as pe
Dr .Chathanath Achuthan Unni U.O. No. SSUS/Admn/AZ/107/97 dated 24-10-1997 nominated by the V.C. ) "
The contention that there was no outside subject expert is wrong. For the selection of Lecturers in Malayalam, Dr. O.M. Aniyan, Retired Professor and Head of the Department of Malayalam, University of Delhi, Dr. K.M. Prabhakara Warriyar, Retired Professor and Head of the Department of Malayalam, Madras University etc. were members. A contention was taken that the Selection Committee was not validly constituted as the Syndicate did not have an elected member as contemplated in the Act. Except one, all the other 16 posts in the Syndicate were filled up duly as per the provisions of the Act and the Selection Committee was constituted by the Syndicate and that Selection Committee conducted the selection and, therefore, we see no ground in the attack against the constitution of the Selection Committee. There is no dispute that the outside members of the Committee were experts in the concerned subjects.
Another important ground urged by the petitioners was that highest marks that can be awarded in the interview was not fixed and the selection which gives more importance to interview marks should not have been accepted. It was contended that appointment based on interviews and group discussions cannot be the basis for selection as held by the Supreme court in Munindra Kumar and others Vs. Rajiv Govil and others, . In Kiran Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others Etc., it was held that selection based on interview is not per se illegal. All depends upon the facts of the case, nature of the post etc. Factually also, this contention is to be rejected in this case. Only 25 marks were awarded in the interview. 75 marks were for the index marks. Index marks for the posts of Readers was:
Academic qualification (percentage of marks secured at the Master decree examination (reduced to 40), i.e. percentage of marks x 2/5 : 40
Publication in approved Journals - 2 marks for each paper : 10
Teaching experience at P.G. Level @ one mark per year : 10
Experience in Guiding Research at Doctorate Level - 2 marks for one candidate who had been awarded Ph.D under the teacher : 6
Participation and presentation of papers at National/International Conferences - 2 each : 4
Additional marks for consistent academic excellence - 1 mark for 1st class and above for P.D. exam. 2 marks for 1st class and above for degree exam. 2 marks for 1st class and above for P.G. exam. : 5 ---- Total 75 ----
With regard to Lecturers also, index marks were as follows:
"Noms for selection of teaching staff in the University:
Lecturer Total marks : 100 Academic qualification (percentage of marks secured at the P.G. examination reduced to 50) Maximum 50
Additional qualifications : M.Phil. - 5. Ph.D. - 10; (subject to a maximum of 10 for candidates having M.Phil. and Ph.D.) 10
Publications in approved Journals (2 marks for each paper - Subject to a maximum of 6) 06
Teaching experience (at the rate of 1 mark per year subject to a maximum of 6) 06
Additional marks for consistent academic excellence 03
Performance in the interview (while awarding marks adequate consideration should be given to co-curricular activities also) 25."
Detailed modalities for computing the marks for teaching experience was also mentioned. It is as follows:
"1. Teaching experience:
The six marks for teaching experience shall be awarded as:
Complete year or part thereof not less than 6 months One mark.
Upto six months 0.5 mark
Academic excellence:
The three marks awarded for academic excellence shall be distributed as:
First class and above at SSLC 0.5 mark
First class and above at Pre-degree or equivalent 0.5 mark
First class and above at Degree level 0.5 mark
First class and above for P.G. in the relevant subject One mark
Additional P.G. 0.5 mark"
Fixation of 25 marks for interview for the post of teaching staff cannot be held to be arbitrary. Mere academic qualification without efficiency in teaching or skill for imparting learning may be insufficient for appointment as teaching staff in the University.
Another contention raised by the petitioners in this regard was that granting of one mark each for teaching experience at P.G. level (with maximum of 10 marks) for the post of Reader in arbitrary as some of the petitioners were working in colleges where there were no P.G. classes. For the post of Reader in Universities where P.G., M.Phil. and Doctorate courses are there, ti cannot be stated that fixation of one mark per year subject to the maximum of ten marks for teaching experience at P.G. level for the post of Reader is arbitrary or illegal in any respect.
Another contention raised is that reservation principles were not stated in the notification and post-wise, faculty-wise and communal rotation was not followed. It was argued that in Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and others Vs. The Chancellor, Nagpur University and others, , it was held that when employment notice inviting applications for three categories of posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers for different subjects are published, it must indicate number of reservations post-wise/subject-wise and not category-wise. It was also held in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla and another, that rules of reservation should be indicated in the advertisement. IN this case, it was stated in the notification that "reservation rules as prescribed in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 as amended from time to time will be followed". Alongwith the notification, instructions to applicants for the posts of teaching faculties were printed and published and also sent alongwith the application forms. There also, it was mentioned that reservation rules as prescribed by the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 as amended from time to time will be followed in the selection process. The Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 provides how reservations should be made and how communal rotation has to be made. Roaster points are also listed therein. The Kerala Public Service Commission also follows the same method. In fact, in none of the petitions it is stated or illustrated how communal rotation or reservation principles were not followed. In fact, the rotation and roaster as envisaged in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules were observed. There is no definite plea in any of the cases that in any particular case or in any subject, the rotation rule was violated. Therefore, we see no substance in the above contention when there is no actual violation of reservation principles.
Another contention raised was that qualification as per the UGC norms were not insisted and exemptions were granted arbitrarily. But, petitioners were not able to prove the same. All the persons appointed were having requisite qualifications as per the UGC norms. Candidates in respect of which relaxation of UGC norms were alleged have filed counter affidavits showing that they had the requisite qualifications. Apart from that, all such persons were working in colleges or universities or institutions affiliated to Universities before 1991 and entitled to exemption from the strict UGC norms. Further, wherever there were doubts, before appointment, University had cross-checked with the University Grants Commission and appointments were made only after satisfying about the qualifications. For example, one of the candidates, 3rd respondent in O.P. No. 21894/97, was working as Reader in Sanskrit (Sahithya) in the Guruvayur Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth which comes under the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, Government of India before he was appointed as a Reader in the University and he is M.A. degree holder of Madras University in the subject ''Sanskrit'' and, therefore, the allegation that he has no Masters degree is not correct. He had Ph.D. in Sahithya and Ph.D. in Sanskrit and received higher grade in UGC refresher course. Ext.R3 (c) shows that on enquiry it was informed by the UGC that he has got the prescribed qualification. So, wherever instances were pointed out, counter affidavits were filed showing their qualifications and it can be seen that no relaxation outside the UGC norms were given.
It was also pointed that age relaxation was given to teachers working in the University which is a malafide action and there is difference between Statutes as well as instructions. The advertisement/notification as well as the Statutes provided that relaxation of upper age will be allowed as per rules to eligible candidates. Note (1) to Statute 6.01, Chapter III, reads as follows:
"The usual relaxation in the upper age limit shall be allowed in respect of candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes. Relaxation in the upper age limit may also be allowed in the case of persons already in the teaching service of the University."
In Ext. R2 (a) instructions in O.P. No. 19839/97 issued alongwith the notification, it is stated as follows regarding upper age limit:
"The upper age limit is relaxed in respect of the following categories by the number of years shown against each.
Scheduled Caste 5 years
Scheduled Tribe
Other Backward Communities 3 years
Relaxation in the upper age limit may also be allowed in the case of persons who were already in the teaching service of the University."
Relaxations were given only to teachers who had teaching service in the University. There is no merit in the contention that such a provision was made only to help the teachers appointed earlier which was set aside by this Court. Many candidates got selection in the earlier selection were not given appointment this time and some of them are petitioners here. According to the petitioners as per the Statute, only those who are working at the University were entitled to get relaxation, but that was extended to teachers appointed earlier by the instructions issued. It is true that earlier a selection committee has made the selection in 1994. That was set aside on technical reasons that the Statutes were not framed at that time. But, the teachers who were working in the University had been given relaxation. We also note that some of the respondents got other jobs while working in the University, but when selection was set aside on technical ground they reached overage also. We see no ground to set aside the appointment on the ground that relaxation was given in the upper age limit to the candidates who were already in the teaching service of the University.
Next contention raised was that no rank list was published. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kaushal Kishore Singh and Ors. JT 1997 (5) SC 1489 held that selections made on pick and choose method without making a select list or merit list or rank list is illegal. Here, the position is different. The Selection Committee prepared the merit list and appointments were made only on the basis of merit list and on the basis of merit. Index mark as well as interview marks were clubbed together and merit list was prepared. It is true that in the case of Reader (malayalam) five expected posts were mentioned in the instructions. But, only four were selected from the merit list as four candidates were only found suitable. Since merit list was prepared, it cannot be stated that appointments were made on a pick and choose method and that contention also fails.
It is contended that number of posts required in each posts were not published in the notification. But, number of posts, specific requirements, educational qualifications etc. were clearly mentioned in the instructions to the applicants which was printed and published and supplied alongwith the application forms. In the notification itself it is stated that the details can be had from the University and in the instructions to the applicants, details of the vacant posts, details of the qualification proposed and University regulations, 1997 relating to qualifications etc. were printed and sent. The branches in which Readers and Lecturers are required are also mentioned in the notification.
It is argued that this court has got powers to set aside the entire selection notwithstanding; the fact that some of them were appointed and working. Petitioners relied on the decision reported in Krishan Yadav and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, . There was a CBI report finding that there was favouritism. Selections were vitiated by fraud, nepotism, favouritism and arbitrariness. It was also found in the CBI enquiry report that selections were made without an interview on the basis of fake or ghost interviews tampering with final records. In such circumstances, the Court set aside the selections. In this case, there is no evidence to show that there is any malpractice or malafides or fabrication. Index marks were filled up by the applicants themselves. Then, it was corrected in their presence after discussion with them and index marks were calculated as agreed to by them. Thereafter, interview marks were added. Interview was conducted by an expert selection board which was constituted by the Syndicate in accordance with the Statute. We have seen the selection file and records also. We see no infirmity in the selection so as to warrant setting aside the entire selection after long number of years on the basis of vague allegations and insinuations.
In O.P. No. 20719/97, it was contended that there was personal bias on the Selection Committee members. It was alleged that the Research Guide of 5th respondent Dr. K. Abdul Jaleel was Dr. P.V. Vijayan (6th respondent), member of the Selection Committee and other subject expert Dr. N.E. Viswanatha Iyer (not made a party in the case) who was a member of the selection committee and was also coming from the same area and district. 5th respondent filed an affidavit stating that his Research Guide was not Dr. P.V. Vijayan. But, his Research Guide for Ph.D. was Dr. T.V. Viswambharan, Professor and Head of the Department of Hindi, Calicut University. Allegation of bias are very serious in nature and once bias is found, selections are liable to be set aside. But, unfounded allegation of bias is not a ground for setting aside the selection. For alleging bias, the parties should be made eo nominee parties. Here, we have seen that even though 6th respondent has made as a party, he was not the Research Guide of 5th respondent. Other person against whom bias was alleged was not made a party to the O.P. and merely because a person is hailing from the same district and had worked for sometime in a college at Ernakulam is not enough for alleging bias. In some of the petitions, it is also contended that some of the candidates appointed were related to ruling party officials. Exact relations were not disclosed. In any event, they were not members of the Selection Committee. Mere unsubstantiated allegation of bias is not a ground to set aside the selection validly made by the duly constituted Selection Committee which consisting of experts having great reputation. None of the grounds urged in the petitions are valid enough to set aside the selection and appointment of teaching staff.
If the contentions of the petitioners are accepted, all appointments made in the University for about last 19 years have to be unsettled. But all appointees were not made parties. Despite specific direction to implead all affected parties, nobody was impleaded in a representative capacity. Further, we have seen that a validly constituted Selection Committee, very competent persons with expertise, has done the selection. Selected candidates were appointed. Files regarding appointment show that merit was the only criteria for appointment. They were working in the University thereafter. Even if there is irregularity on a hyper technical view, in the absence of any malpractice, we see that no grounds are made out to interfere with the appointments already made, especially when there is no proved malafides or substantiated bias. See H.C. Puttaswamy and others Vs. The Hon''ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others, ; Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others, ; Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh AIR 1998 SC 331 and Ajet Kumar v. K.V. Sunil Kumar ILR 1993 765. There is no merit in the petitions challenging the appeals of teaching staff.
With regard to the non-teaching staff, the learned Single Judge while disposing of O.P. No. 33118/2000 held that after participating in the interview, petitioner cannot challenge the same. (See also N.S. Kanjoonjamma v. V. Vasudevan 1997(2) SLR 606. But, if there is inherent defect in the whole proceeding or there is malpractice in the selection process, such persons also can challenge the same. But, here, we have already held that there are no inherent defects. Syndicate had already framed Statutes and appointments were made validly in terms of the Act and Statutes. With regard to the selection of non-teaching staff, the selection was entrusted with the Institute of Management in Government. Competency of that body or conduct of the test are not challenged. That body conducted a written test, valued the answer scripts and drew up a select list. That list was approved without any modification by the University. The University had fairly entrusted the entire selection process to an independent agency and there are no malafides or flaw in the selection process. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Appeal as well as in O.P. No. 5599/98 regarding the selection of non-teaching staff.
In the above circumstances, all the original petitions and the writ appeal are dismissed.