( 1 ) WRIT Petitions No. 10037 of 1993, 4464 of 1994 and 10822 of 1994 relate to filling up the vacancy of Deputy Registrar earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidate pursuant to the notification given by the respondent-University on 9-9-1991. While Writ Petition No. 10037 of 1993 was filed by Mr. Rangappa, seeking a direction to the respondent University to appoint him as Deputy Registrar, WP No. 4464 of 1994 was filed by Mr. Krishnam Raju, 2nd respondent in the above writ petition, questioning the very process of selection while Smt. Rajya Lakshmi filed Writ Petition No. 10822 of 1994 seeking a direction to appoint her as Deputy Registrar.

( 2 ) AT the outset, I would like to refer the oft quoted maxim "if you want to kill a dog, call it mad and shoot at it". The case on hand is of that nature. This is neither a solitary instance nor it has happened in this University for the first time. It is a universal feature and no institution is an exception to this phenomena. As long as Merit of an individual has to be judged on the subjective satisfaction of the person sitting in the chair, we cannot expect a better deal to the persons who cannot pull the strings of the administration.

( 3 ) THE prevailing situation in the country was beautifully summed up by Justice K. Ramaswamy as he then was in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress and others, AIR 1991 SC 101 while considering the vires of Regulation 9 (b) of Delhi Transport Corporation which confers powers on the authority to terminate the services of a permanent and confirmed employee by issuing a notice without assigning any reason in the order and without giving any opportunity to hear the employee before passing the impugned order, considered the effect of termination of service and held as hereundcr:"law is a social engineering to remove the existing imbalance and to further the progress serving the needs of the Socialist Democratic Bharat under rule of law. The prevailing social conditions and actualities of life are to be taken into account to adjudging whether the impugned legislation would subserve the purpose of the society. The arbitrary unbridled and naked power of wide discretion to dismiss a permanent employee without any guidelines or procedure would tend to defeat the constitutional purpose of equality and allied purposes referred to above. Courts would take note of actualities of life that persons actuated to corrupt practices are capable, to maneuver with higher echelons in diverse ways and also camouflage their activities by becoming sycophants or chromes to the superior officers. Sincere, honest and devoted subordinate officers (are) unlikely to lick the boots of the corrupt superior officer. They develop a sense of self pride of their honesty integrity and apathy and inertia towards the corrupt and tend to undermine or show signs of disrespect or disregard towards them. Thereby, they not only become inconvenient to the corrupt officer but also stand an impediment to the on-going smooth siphony of corruption at a grave risk to their prospects in career or even to their tenure of office. The term efficiency is an elusive and relative one to the adept capable to be applied in diverse circumstances. If a superior officer develops likes towards sycophant, though corrupt, he would tolerate him and found him to be efficient and pay encomiums and corruption in such cases stand no impediment. When he finds a sincere, devoted and honest officer to be inconvenient, it is easy to cast him/her off by writing confidential with delightfully vague language imputing to be not up to the mark wanting public relations etc. Yet times they may be termed to be "security risk" (to their activities ). Thus they spoil the career of the honest, sincere and devoted officers. Instances either way are gallore in this regard. Therefore, one would be circumspect pragmatic and realistic to these actualities of life while angulating constitutional validity of