ORDER

An advertisement was issued by Kurukshetra University (hereinafter referred to as the university ) inviting applications for appointment to several posts, including that of a university librarian. The prescribed qualification thereto reads as follows:

"Librarian, university library (i) Master s degree in library science/information science/documentation with atleast fifty five percent (55%) marks or its equivalent grade and a consistently good academic record.

(ii) One year specialization in an area of information technology/archives and manuscript keeping, master s degree in an area of thrust in the institution.

(iii) At least ten years as a deputy librarian in a university library or fifteen years experience as a college librarian.

(iv) Evidence of innovative library service and organisation of published work.

DESIRABLE : M. Phil/Ph.D degree in library science/information science/documentation/archives and manuscript keeping.

2. Appellant and the first respondent in each of these two appeals along with others, filed their applications and after the selection committee interviewed the candidates in question, the appellant s name was recommended and he was appointed to the post by an order made on 4.11.1997. The respondents filed two writ petitions challenging the appointment of the appellant on various grounds. The High Court examined the same and found that the appellant had obtained 54.8 marks in the master s degree which is not the same as 55 per cent of the marks fixed in the requisite qualification, as indicated by the advertisement and, therefore, he could not have been appointed as he did not possess the necessary qualification. The High Court incidentally noticed that in assessing whether any of the candidates have consistently, good academic record did not round off 49.7 percent marks in B.A. to 50%, obtained by one of the candidates while such exercise had been done in case of the appellant. Although the High Court has noticed that the two respondents did not possess the necessary experience and the respondents were ineligible to be appointed, still the matter has to be examined whether any illegality had been committed by the university.

3. In challenging this order made by the High Court on behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that-

(1) a court could examine the legality or otherwise of a matter only at an instance of a person who is qualified and eligible and has a locus standi and not the one who has no eligibility and drew our attention to the decisions of this Court in S.C. Bajaj v. Kamal Singh Singhmar, 1998(6) Scale (SP) 3, A.P. Public Service Commission v. G. Sankar & Ors., 1999 SCC (L & S) 993, Jit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1979 (1) SLR 604);

(2) that, appropriate approach to the case should have been by examining the qualification prescribed in the advertisement itself and if the prescription thereto is carefully read as a whole, the appellant had fulfilled the necessary qualification and when in view of the selection authority he had fulfilled such qualification, it is not open to the court to interfere with the same as such matters fall within the realm of academic matters and this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, 1964(4) SCR 575), Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar., 1994(1) SCC 169 and Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, JT 2000(8) SC 459, has consistently taken the view that on such questions, pertaining to qualifications which is an academic matter should be left to the wisdom of university authorities;

(3) that certain notifications had been issued by the University Grants Commission explaining that insistence upon 55 per cent marks in the case of the appellant, was not necessary at all in view of the fact that he was already in the service of the university and such relaxation had been given in case of readers earlier and that was the practice followed by the university throughout;

(4) that