The basic qualification as prescribed in Statute No. 5 is mandatory and cannot be diluted by Statute No. 20 in the context of promotion to the post of Reader.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; T.M. Bhagalpur University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) and respondent no. 5.

Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 2896 of 2015

2. The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief’s :

“(i) Issuance of an order, direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari Quashing Notification No. 48/2015 dated 14.03.2015, whereby and where under, the authorities concerned of the respondent T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur has appointed the Respondent No. 4 (Reader, Department of I.R.P.M., Sabour College, Sabour) as the Head of the Post Graduate Department of I.R.P.M. in place of the petitioner and the petitioner has been repatriated to Sabour College, Sabour, in a complete illegal and arbitrary manner.

(ii) Issuance of an order, direction or an appropriate declaration that the Respondent no. 5 being junior to the petitioner in the rank of Reader was rightly not made the Head of the Post Graduate Department of I.R.P.M. of the respondent T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur vide Notification No. 175/2014 dated 15.11.2014, and the order of the University in hand in issuing Notification No. 48/2015 dated 14.03.2015, appointing the Respondent No. 5 as the head of Head of the Post Graduate Department of I.R.P.M. of the respondent T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur is out rightly illegal, arbitrary, malafide, malicious and unsustainable in the eye of law and on facts both and is fit to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) To hold and declare that the Petitioner is senior to the Respondent No. 5 in the Rank of Reader, as such, the petitioner is fully entitled for continuing as Head of the Post Graduate Department of I.R.P.M. of the respondent T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur till the expiry of its term.

(iv) To hold and declare that the action of the Respondent University in granting promotion to the Respondent No. 5 in the Rank of Reader under “Merit Promotion Scheme” w.e.f. 19.02.1993, vide Notification No. 17/2013 dated 02.03.2013 (Ann-2) is wholly unsustainable in the eye of law, since at that point of time, when the Respondent No. 5 was promoted, he was not holding requisite Qualification, as has been laid down under “Revised Statute in Respect of the Qualifications of Teachers of Universities/ Colleges” approved by the Chancellor on 12.12.1983 and amended on 09.09.1988 & 15.12.1990 respectively.

(v) For grant of any other relief or relief’s to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

3. However, the present Interlocutory Application has also been filed seeking a specific relief of quashing part of the Notification No. 17 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013, by which the respondent no. 5 was granted promotion on the post of Reader in the Department of I.R.P.M. of the respondent University w.e.f. 19.02.1993.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition having been filed on 23.03.2015, though there was a relief sought at paragraph no. 1(iv) with regard to Notification No. 17 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 for holding and declaring the action of the University to be unsustainable in the eyes of law, but inadvertently, a specific prayer for quashing of such part of the notification having been omitted, realizing the same, immediately thereafter, the Interlocutory Application has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submitted that the said is a separate cause of action and, thus, the prayer in the Interlocutory Application deserves to be rejected.

6. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the amendment sought is only by way of a clarification, as substantially the challenge to the portion of the notification has already been made in the main writ petition itself, though technically, quashing of the said part has not been sought. However, the same having been made immediately thereafter within about two weeks of the filing of the writ petition, the Court finds no laches on the pa