JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddioui, J. The petitioners, unsuccessful applicants for the post of Registrar in the office of the Respondent No. 1, by this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, are challenging the selection of respondent No. 2 to the said post. The petitioners have also filed Writ Petition No. 114/1996 under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the letter dated 22.12.1995 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), approving the retention of lien of respondent no. 2 in Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan to enable him to join the post of Registrar in the office of the respondent No. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition 114/1996 as both the petitions raise common questions of facts and law.

2. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioners are lecturers of the Lal Bahadur Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidayapeeth (hereinafter referred to as 'Vidyapeeth'), which is a deemed University under the University Grants Commission. The petitioners are drawing the pay scale of Reader. Respondent No. 2 is a permanent employee holding the post of a senior Lecturer in the Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Puri, a Constituent body of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (for short 'the Sansthan'). Respondent No. 2 was appointed as a lecturer in 1980 and before joining the post of Deputy Educational Adviser on 7-8-1992 on deputation in the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, he was working on the post of Principal, Chandrasekhar Saraswati Adarsh Sanskrit Mahvidyalaya, Kanchipuram and was in deputation on that post during the period 30.12.1988 to 1-8-92. Respondent No. 2 was reverted to his parent body, i.e. Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Puri from 2.8.1992 to 6.8.1992. He joined the post of Deputy Education Adviser on 7.8.1992.

3. By an advertisement issued on 13.1.1994, respondent No. 1 invited applications from qualified and eligible persons to fill the post of Registrar. Pursuant to the advertisement, respondent No. 2 applied for the said post and a call letter was issued to him. On a representation submitted by the petitioners against issue of call letter to respondent No. 2, the interview for the said post was cancelled. Fresh interview scheduled to be held on 26.12.1994 was notified and the petitioners also applied for the said post. Petitioners were not called for the interview but again a call letter was issued to respondent No. 2. On 21.12.1994, the petitioners through their counsel served a notice on the Vice Chancellor of the Vidyapeetha highlighting certain irregularities in the interview to be conducted on 26.12.1994 for appointment to the post of the Registrar. (Annexure P/3). On 24.12.1994, respondent No. 2 applied to the Sansthan to forward his application to Vidyapeeth for the said post. On 26.12.1994 the Sansthan forwarded the application of respondent no. 2, subject to the conditions that (i) no lien would be granted to him and (ii) he would have to resign from the services of the Sansthan on his selection for the said post. Interview scheduled to be held on 26.12.1994 was cancelled. Thereafter, fresh interview scheduled for 17.4.1995 was notified and call letters were issued to the petitioners and respondent No. 2. On 10.4.1995, the petitioners addressed a letter to the Secretary (Education), Ministry of H.R.D. Govt. of India (Annexure P/5) highlighting mala fides in entire selection process and obvious predetermination for selection of respondent No. 2. On 15.4.1995, the petitioners addressed a communication to the Vice-Chancellor of the Vidyapeeth (Annexure P/6) against composition of the Selection Committee consisting of Dr. Vachaspati Upadhyaya, Chairman; Dr. SB. Raghunathacharya, Vice-Chancellor, Tirupathi Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Prof. Rama Ranjan Mukherjee and Shri D.S. Mukhopadhyaya. On 17.4.1995 the candidates including the petitioners and respondent No. 2 were interviewed by the