Syeda Humra Amtul Quadeer vs Government of A.P. and Others

Noushad Ali, J.—Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner is pursuing Ph. D. She and the Respondent No. 5 are aspirants for the post of Assistant Professor in the Linguistics Department pursuant to the notification dated 20.02.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent, Osmania University. The petitioner attended the interview held on 26.04.2013.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in identifying the Respondent No. 5 as a suitable person for the post as illegal, and consequently to issue a direction to the respondents to appoint her to the post.

The petitioner has approached this Court, even before the Executive Council has taken a final decision on the selections, on the premise that certain irregularities were committed during the interview, as such it is not proper to process the selections further.

The specific allegation of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is being favoured for appointment, though he is not meritorious. According to her, the 5th respondent has secured only 55% marks in the Post Graduation and does not possess good academic career. The petitioner states that injustice would be caused to her in case the 5th respondent is appointed ignoring her merit.

In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4, the aforesaid allegation is denied. It is stated that interviews were conducted in a fair manner by a duly constituted Committee for selection. In fact, the committee verified certain complaints received with regard to the selection process. The Committee has submitted its report on 03.09.2013 and no decision has been taken in the matter so far.

From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that though interviews were completed, no final decision has been taken so far. u/s 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act 1991, it is the Executive Council which is competent to finalize the selections and make appointments. The Writ Petition is, therefore, premature. Hence, the relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be straight away granted at this stage.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

However, the Executive Council shall look into the complaint of the petitioner before finalizing the selection. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court, if she is aggrieved by the final decision of the Executive Council. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order dated 03.09.2013 is vacated and W.P.M.P. No. 31817 of 2013 and W.V.M.P. No. 3036 of 2013 shall stand closed.