The main legal point established is that the constitution of an External Expert Committee must adhere to UGC regulations and the Jadavpur University Act, and any violation of these provisions can vitally affect the rights of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT

Harish Tandon, J. - The aforesaid two appeals are filed by separate respondents challenging the order dated 9th December, 2021 passed by the Single Bench in WPa 17905 of 21 constituting the External Expert Committee for re-evaluating the academic Performance Indicators (aPI) of the candidates, their Ph.D. Credentials and other criteria which may be required for selection to the post of assistant Professor in the International Relations Department of the Jadavpur University. In order to avoid the prolixity of repetition of facts both the appeals are taken up together for final disposal.

2. a preliminary point has been taken by the Jadavpur University that the order constituting an External Expert Committee is not a 'Judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and, therefore, the instant appeals are not maintainable.

3. The extensive arguments were advanced on a preliminary issue at the initial hearing of the instant appeal but we invited the counsels appearing for the parties to make submissions on the merit of the impugned order in order to avoid the segregation of the points canvassed before us. Before we proceed to deal with the preliminary point first, it would be necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case and the pleadings made in the writ petition.

4. The Respondent nos. 17 and 18 herein filed the writ petition being WPa No. 17905 of 2021 for issuance of writ of certiorari commanding the respondents to transmit all the records pertaining to recruitment process, more particularly, the documents in relation to evaluation of eligibility of the appellants and the revised list dated 12th December, 2019 for the purpose of quashing the same. The writ of mandamus was also sought upon the respondents to rescind, cancel, recall, revoke and withdraw the revised list dated 12th December, 2019 which includes the name of the appellants herein and to publish the fresh list barring the appellants for the purpose of conducting an interview afresh strictly in terms of the guidelines and statutory regulations applicable in this regard. However, the interim order was also sought for to constitute an External Expert Committee of reputed academicians to re-evaluate the aPI of each candidates featured in the revised list dated 12th December, 2019.

5. The employment notification dated 25.10.2019 was published by the respondent no.3 to fill up the existing vacancy in the different categories of posts in various departments including the department of International Relations of Jadavpur University. The subject 'dispute' pertains to the appointment in the post of the assistant Professor in the department of the International Relations of the Jadavpur University. The said notification would evince that the qualification of the aspirants would be recognised and determined as on the last date of the submission of the application. The modalities of the provision and constitution of the selection committee are undoubtedly regulated and governed by the regulation of the University Grants Commission. Various criterions have been provided in the said regulation concerning the minimum eligibility criteria which need not be detailed as the main writ petition is pending before the Single Bench. The respondent University constituted a screening and selection committee for evaluation of the candidatures of the aspirants and a list was published on 9th December, 2019 containing the names of the aspirants eligible for the interview. The aforesaid aspirants were called/invited in a seminar to make presentation within 15 minutes duration in order to assess the teaching ability. The names of the Writ Petitioner no. 2 i.e., the respondent no. 18, was not featured in the said list which constrained him to make representation and subsequently, a revised list was published on 12th December, 2019 featuring the name of the Respondent no. 18 which according to the said respondent would manifestly admit the erroneous evaluation of aPI and other