ORDER :

1. Every significant case has an unwritten legend and indelible lesson. The instant writ petition is no exception, whatever its result. The message that will be given by this Court at the end of this decision is that “appointment has to be made strictly as per statutory rules; and a person not possessing requisite qualification and appointment made dehors of the rules without following procedure, such appointment is illegal since inception, non est, nullity and no legal right to continue or right over the post and the length of continuous service of such illegal appointment will not help him in any manner [Refer: Yogesh Kumar v Government of NCT Delhi and others (2003) 3 SCC 548]”.

2. Calling in question the appointment given to the second respondent as Assistant Technical Officer (Library) and his consequential promotion to the post of Technical Officer, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition. A mandamus has also been sought to the first respondent to consider the enquiry report dated 13.04.2017 and remove the second respondent from the post of Assistant Technical Officer (Library).

3. The succinctly stated facts are as under:

3.1 Initially, the second petitioner was appointed on 30.07.2001, the first and third petitioners were appointed on 30.04.2007 as Assistant Technical Officer (Library) in the services of the first respondent University. All the petitioners are fully qualified and they have all the requisite educational qualifications as stipulated under the statute of the Bharathiar University for appointment to the said post. Subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Technical Officer by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 10.02.2017, 19.05.2012 and 15.05.2017 respectively.

3.2 While so, the petitioners came to know that the second respondent, who was appointed as Assistant Technical Officer, by order dated 30.04.2007 like that of the second and third petitioners, did not have the essential qualification for appointment to the said post. Hence, the first petitioner gave a representation dated 07.03.2017 to the first respondent with a request that the second respondent may be removed from service by quashing his order of appointment as he is completely ineligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Technical Officer (Library).

3.3 For appointment to the post of Assistant Technical Officer (Library), a person should possess a degree in any subject along with a degree in Library Science and also should have completed Typewriting Lower Grade in English and Tamil. Whereas, the second respondent did not possess the requisite qualification of having a degree in any subject nor did he possess a degree in Library Science at the time of his appointment to the said post, as evident from his order of appointment, which lays down a condition that “He should complete B.Lib.Science Course within a period of one year. Otherwise his further increments will be stopped”. It is also evident from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Syndicate of the first respondent held on 30.04.2007 that since there was no qualified candidate for the post of Assistant Technical Officer (Library) in the category of SC/ST vacancies, the University had considered the appointment of the second respondent, though he did not possess the essential qualification.

3.4 Based on the representation submitted by the first petitioner, enquiry was conducted and a report dated 13.04.2017 was filed by the Enquiry Committee of the University, which confirms the fact that even as of now, the second respondent is ineligible for the post of Assistant Technical Officer (Library), as he does not possess the essential qualifications for the same i.e., he does not have the qualification of either HSC (+2) or any degree much less in 10+2+3 pattern as required for appointment in any Government Institution.

3.5 On the basis of the Enquiry report, it was anticipated that the 2nd respondent would certainly be removed from service and his appointment as