ORDER :

1. Assailing the Annexure P-1 & P-2 i.e. the Order of appointment of Respondents No.4 & 5 respectively, on the post of Lecturer (Economics) and also seeking for a direction to the Respondent University to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on the said post, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

2. Facts, in brief, which led to the filing of the instant Writ Petition are that, an Advertisement inviting applications for various faculties in the University Teaching Department was published on 23.9.2006. Initially, the last date for submission of the application was 31.10.2006, however, it stood extended up till 30.1.2007. The post, in dispute, from the said recruitment is the post of Lecturer (Economics). Petitioner and Respondents No.4 & 5 had applied for the said post. For the said recruitment process, a Selection Committee was constituted consisting of four Members with the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent University being its Chairman. After the assessment being made, interviews were held on 21.6.2007 and thereafter appointment orders were issued on 24.7.2007 in favour of the Respondents No.4 & 5.

Subsequently, the Petitioner is said to have obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act from the concerned Departments. It was revealed that the selection was based on the marks to be awarded on academic merits i.e. 80% marks and the marks to be awarded for interview was 20% marks. It was then revealed to the Petitioner that less meritorious candidates have been given appointment. It was also revealed that the candidates whose applications were incomplete at the time of applying, were also permitted to participate in the selection process and as such undue favour has been shown towards them. This led to the filing of the present Writ Petition by the Petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the Selection Committee showed undue favour to the Respondents No.4 & 5 both in the academic qualification & experience as also in the interview. The allocation of marks have been erroneously made and the Respondent No.4 has been awarded marks much more than which could be awarded. The Respondent No.4 has also been awarded extra marks for her experience, whereas she was not entitled for it because she had only worked as a Guest Faculty which could not fetch her any marks towards experience. Similarly, extra marks have also been allotted to the Respondent No.4 for her publications so also for the National and International Workshops/Seminars. Even in the interview, the Respondents No.4 & 5 have been given exorbitant marks, i.e., 19/20, as compared to 3/20 awarded to the Petitioner. The Respondents No.4 & 5 were in fact permitted to submit the application even after the cut off date. Further, the Respondents No.4 & 5 were also permitted to produce documents in support of their candidature in piecemeal at regular intervals. This would also have made the Respondents No.4 & 5 disqualified from being considered.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent University opposing the Petition submits that there was no discrepancy in the entire selection process. The entire selection has been under the Chairmanship of the vice Chancellor and a team of highly qualified Members. There is no allegation of any mala fides alleged against any of the Members of the Selection Committee. There has been no favour whatsoever shown to the Respondent No.4 or Respondent No.5. Each of the candidates were assessed on their individual merits and credentials. There were no documents which the Respondents No.4 & 5 had submitted beyond the last date of applying. It is not in dispute that all the information disclosed by the Respondents No.4 & 5 in their application form submitted at the time of applying for the said post were not incorrect. All these credentials were verified and scrut