( 1 ) PETITIONER, Prakash Chandra, a physically handicapped person with 58% locomotary disability and belonging to Other backward Classes, seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Lecturer in the Management subject, reserved for the physically handicapped persons. A restraint is also sought against the respondents from converting the reserved post into a general or other category post.

( 2 ) PETITIONER holds a first class MBA from the University of Patna. Besides, he has completed Junior Research Fellowship from University Grants commission. Petitioner claims to have 7 years teaching experience in the department of Training and Technical Education and 12 years teaching experience in Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 had advertised, inter alia, for the post of a Lecturer in management as Subject, in March-April, 2002. One post had been reserved for physically handicapped person. Petitioner, being fully eligible, had been given a call letter. As per the advertisement, 2 posts of Scheduled Castes, 1 post of scheduled Tribes and 1 post for Physically Handicapped person had been reserved. Petitioner claims that he was the only candidate in the physically handicapped category, who appeared for the interview but was not selected.

( 4 ) PETITIONER assails his non-selection as a deliberate and mala fide act to keep out the physically handicapped persons from getting selected. It is urged that the ulterior motive of the respondent appears to be to continue with the non-selection of such candidates and thereafter seek de-reservation of the post into the general category.

( 5 ) THE advertisement prescribed the under-mentioned qualification and experience:

"first Class Master s Degree in relevant discipline. For the candidates not having qualification of M. Tech/mba/ll. M. , a Doctoral Degree is a must for the post of Lecturer. For candidates in the non-engineering discipline, eligibility of qualifying NET for Lecturer conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC is madatory. However, relaxation in this regard shall be applicable as per UGC guidelines. "

( 6 ) IT is stated that petitioner, though possessed of the requisite qualification, could not qualify on merits in the assessment of the Staff Selection Committee. With a view to satisfy judicial conscience, records of the Staff Selection committee had been called for and have been perused, to which I shall advert later.

( 7 ) THE second limb of submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the selection Committee was not properly constituted. Learned Counsel relies on a letter dated 12. 4. 1998, issued by the Secretary, University Grants Commission to the Vice-Chancellor of all the Universities, Education Secretaries of all the states and Union Territories. The said letter enclosed a copy of the UGC notification, 1998, which was to be notified as Regulations. The said letter, carried as an attachment, UGC Notification on revision of pay scales, minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards, 1998. The said Notification provided with regard to the Selection Committees as under:

"5. 0. 0 Selection Committees university Grants Commission has separate guidelines on constitution of selection Committees, which may be referred to by Universities/colleges (copy enclosed as Appendix V ). A representative of the SC/st, women and physically handicapped persons, should be in the Selection Committee whenever a candidate from any of these categories appears for the interview. It is optional for the University or College to untilise the Seminar or colloquium as a method for the selection of Lecturer, Reader or Professor. "

( 8 ) MR. Narula submits that there was no member from the SC, ST or physically Handicapped Category in the Selection Committee, which had interviewed the petitioner. Accordingly, he urges that since there was