1. This writ petition was filed on 20th November 2002, initially, by seeking directions by way of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 to treat the candidature of the petitioner equally on par with the candidates, by allowing him to face the Selection Committee for the purpose of selections to the posts of Reader and Lecturer in the University of Hyderabad.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, in view of the selections and appointment orders issued in favour of respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner sought permission for amendment of the prayer by filing WPMP.No.3673 of 2003, which is allowed on 27th of August 2003. In terms of the amended prayer, the petitioner seeks a declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the selection of respondents 3, 4 and 5 to the posts of Reader and Lecturers pursuant to the Notification No.RECTT/P-I/2/99, dated 08.11.1999 in the 1st respondent University, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The University of Hyderabad is a Central University, established in 1974, by an Act of Parliament. It has issued Notification No.RECTT/P-I/2/99, dated 08.11.1999, inviting applications in prescribed format, to fill up various faculty posts. In the said notification, respondents have notified the vacancies of 11 posts of Professors, 26 posts of Readers and 56 posts of Lecturers. In this petition, the dispute relates to the appointments made to the posts of Reader and Lecturer in the department of History. In the aforesaid notification, at Serial No.39, respondents have notified two posts of Readers i.e. one post in Ancient Indian History and the 2nd post in any area of historical research, and two posts of Lecturers i.e. first post in Medieval Indian History (Desirable with research interest in Medieval Deccan) and the 2nd post in any area of Historical Research. The 1st respondent-University also issued written instructions to candidates and instruction No.12 reads as follows :

“University will make a preliminary selection of candidates on the basis of information furnished by the candidates in their applications. Possession of minimum qualifications prescribed will not automatically entitle a candidate to be called for the test or interview, if better qualified candidates are available. Summoning of a candidate to a test or interview merely indicates that the University thinks it possible that he will be selected or recommended along with other candidates.”

4. In response to the notification, number of candidates have applied for various posts in the faculty positions. All the applications were placed before the Screening Committee to restrict the candidates to be called for interview on the basis of qualification, experience in accordance with the norms laid down by the University. Among the applicants, keeping in view the ratio of 1:5, the Screening Committee shortlisted the candidates. The petitioner herein, claiming specialization in modern history, has applied to the post of Reader and also to the 2nd post of Lecturer in History, but he was not called for interview on the ground that he was not fulfilling the criteria adopted by the Screening Committee to be called for interview. At that stage, he filed the writ petition, seeking directions to the respondents 1 and 2, to interview him and to consider his candidature along with the other candidates, and this Court, by an order dated 17th of August 2000, passed in WPMP. No.19211 of 2000, issued directions to the 1st respondent-University to permit the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee for interview to the post of Lecturer. Pursuant to such directions, the petitioner was interviewed and his candidature was considered to the vacancy of Lecturer, but he did not come up for selection. The Selection Committee, after interviewing the candidates, who fulfilled the eligibility criteria in the screening test, recommended respondent No.3 herein to the post of Reader and respondents 4 and 5 to the post of Lecturer. Based on the recommendations