Anil Kumar Sinha, J. – The petitioner has preferred this writ application for quashing the appointment of the respondent no. 6 namely, Dr. Umesh Sharma, who was appointed on the post of Professor in Vyakaran (Sanskrit Grammar) vide letter no. 1356 dated 02.03.2009. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent-University to appoint him on the post of University Professor in Vyakaran.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ application is that that Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanaga (in short “ the University”) issued Advertisement No. 01 of 2008 for direct appointment on various teaching posts including the single post of Professor in Vyakaran. The advertisement laid down the eligibility criteria / essential qualification, which are as follows: –

“An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research, with 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching, and / or experience in research at the University/ National Level institutions, including experience of guiding research at Doctoral level in the relevant traditional subject.

Or

An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.

In exceptional cases, the teachers with 15 years of undergraduate teaching/ research experience could also be considered.

3. The petitioner along with seven other candidates participated in the interview held by the University for appointment on the post of Professor in Vyakaran. The merit list of successful candidates was published on 01.03.2009 having the name of the respondent no. 6 at the first place who obtained 87 marks followed by Dr. Bodh Kumar Jha with 86 marks and Dr. Ramkrishna Pandey Paramhansa with 84 marks. The petitioner was placed at fourth position in the merit list with 72 marks. The appointment of the respondent no. 6 was made after recommendation of the Selection Committee vide appointment letter dated 02.03.2009 and the respondent no. 6 submitted his joining on 05.03.2009.

4. The petitioner filed representations on various dates starting from 17.03.2009 and after 1 year filed the present writ application challenging the appointment of respondent no. 6.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent no. 6 does not possess essential eligibility conditions. Relying upon the terms of advertisement he submits that qualification prescribed by the advertisement can be categorized into three limbs as follows: –

“The First Limb

An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research, with 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University / national level institutions, including experience of guiding research at Doctoral level in relevant traditional subject.

So the first limb has three parts

(i) An eminent scholar with published work of high quality,

(ii) 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University / national level institutions.

(iii) Experience of guiding research at Doctoral level in relevant traditional subject.

The Second Limb

An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.

The Third Limb

This is an exceptional clause, which says that

In exceptional cases, the teachers with 15 years of under graduate teaching/ research experience could also be considered.

6. The respondent no. 6 was not eligible to be appointed as University Professor and the petitioner was the only candidate who was eligible for the said appointment.

7. With regard to the qualification of the respondent no. 6, learned counsel submits that upon own showing in the counter affidavit of the University the respondent no. 6 had no P.G. teaching or research experience at the time of appointment. This was essential minimum eligibility requirement which the respondent no. 6 did not fulfill.

8. In the counter affidavit of the University there is no denial of the fact t