In case of glaring injustice right of a person on ground of res judicata cannot be defeated.

1. The facts leading to these writ petitions are as follows: The petitioner, who is common to both the writ petitions (Dr. S. Mahadevan), is now working as Special Veterinary Officer, Animal Experimental Laboratory, Madras Medical College, Madras-3. He joined Government Service in 1959 as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the Department of Animal Husbandry. He became Assistant Professor of Parasitology on the 1st of June, 1974. Thereafter, he became Special Veterinary Officer in the same cadre of Assistant Professor and was employed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, the second respondent and the same is represented by its Registrar.

2. An advertisement in the English daily “The Hindu’ appeared on 8.2.1984, inviting applications inter alia for various faculties In the University, including that of Associate Professor. This advertisement was made by the second respondent. The prescribed qualifications for the post of Associate Professor were (1) Ph.D.degree and (2) Five years experience in teaching/ research in the subject concerned. The petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor in Parasitology, in due form, on 15th of February, 1984, together with his bio-data, certificates and other relevant information. The application was also forwarded through proper channel.

3. The petitioner was called for an interview by the Selection Committee on 21.4.1985. The Selection Committee did not select the petitioner. However, it selected the first respondent who took charge as Associate Professor on 30.4.1984. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a writ of quo warranto against the first respondent. That was dismissed by this Court. An application to review was also dismissed. It is thereafter, the present Writ Petition No.8226 of 1985 has been filed to quash the order dated 28.4.1984, by which the first respondent came to be appointed. A further prayer is also asked for to direct the second respondent to conduct a fresh selection for the post of Associate Professor in accordance with law. There is yet another Writ Petition No.7938 of 1985 in which the prayer is to prohibit the second respondent from continuing to pay the revised scale of pay to those persons who have not acquired the qualifications, prescribed by the University Grants Commission.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Raman in support of the prayers in these writ petitions are as follows: The qualifications that were required as per the advertisement, were as per G.O.Ms.No.62, Agriculture, dated 10.1.1979. The said G.O. was only for a period of five years. On the date of advertisement that G.O. was not operative at all, that having come to an end by the efflux of the five years period on 9.1.1984. Therefore, first of all, to state, as stated in the advertisement, that the qualifications will be governed by G.O.Ms. No.62, Agriculture, dated 10.1.1979 itself is wrong. Then what happened was the statute came to be amended. It is true that it was done without time limit of five years, though while amending the statute with regard to qualifications, this G.O.Ms.No.62, Agriculture, dated 10.1.1979 formed the basis of the amendment. However, the files of the University, throughout disclosed that the University never considered the amendment as timeless, or to govern for all time to come, disregardful of the five years limitation. On the contrary, the files clearly show that throughout, the University was conscious of the five years period and, in fact, was requesting the Government to pass fresh orders on the same lines, having regard to certain difficulties experienced by the University. It is only thereafter G.O.Ms.No.1633, Agriculture dated 23.8.1984 came to be passed. The resultant position is, between 10.1.1984 and 23.8.1984, only persons, who had obtained Doctorate (Ph.D. Degree), with requisite other qualifications, alone could apply. The first respondent being, admittedly, a possessor, on the relevant date, of M.Sc. degree