JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in both these writ appeals is to the common judgment dated 19th March, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of two writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) No.848 of 2016 filed by one Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda (Respondent No.6 in W.A. No.202 of 2019) and W.P.(C) No.4008 of 2016 filed by one Dr. Bibhuti Bhusan Acharya (Respondent No.4 in W.A. No.209 of 2019).

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has set aside the appointment of the present Appellant as a Lecturer in Odia in the Berhampur University pursuant to an advertisement issued under a notification dated 22nd April, 2015.

3. The learned Single Judge has in the impugned judgment, come to the conclusion that as far as Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda is concerned, although he did not possess the NET qualification, he had, in terms of the amended UGC (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in universities and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2009 ('UGC Regulations, 2009') possessed a Ph.D. degree and, therefore, the exclusion of his name from the list of 44 eligible candidates was unsustainable in law.

4. As far as Dr. Bibhuti Bhusan Acharya is concerned, the finding of the learned Single Judge in his petition challenging the Appellant's appointment, was that although the Selection Committee had recommended his case for appointment as a Lecturer under the Unreserved (UR) Category, the Syndicate of the University appointed the present Appellant. It was held by the learned Single Judge that if the Syndicate was going to differ from the recommendation made by the Committee then the matter ought to have been referred to the Chancellor of the University. Further, although no minimum qualifying mark for the viva-voce test had been fixed, the Syndicate appears to have passed a resolution prescribing such minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce. This prescription of minimum qualifying mark was after the selection process had commenced and, particularly, without communicating the above criteria to the candidates.

5. The second ground on which the present Appellant was held disqualified for being appointed was that the Ph.D. guide of the Appellant, one Dr. D.P. Pattnaik, was a member of the Selection Committee which recommended the candidature of the Appellant. It appeared that Dr. Pattnaik did not dissociate himself from the Committee although he did not sign the proceedings.

6. For all of the above reasons, the selection of the present Appellant as a Lecturer was held to be unsustainable in law. As consequential directions, the learned Single Judge remitted the matter to the University to prepare a fresh list of the eligible candidates pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement by including the name of Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda. Thereafter, a fresh selection was to be conducted by a Selection Committee to be constituted by the Syndicate and from out of the eligible candidates, a fresh merit list had to be prepared and placed before the Syndicate for its approval. The selection process was to be confined to the list of eligible candidates prepared and published by the authorities on 9th January, 2016 including the name of Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda.

7. In the present writ appeals, an interim order was passed by this Court on 24th July, 2019 while directing notice to issue.

8. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in both these appeals, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 (in W.A. No.209 of 2019), Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 (in W.A. No.202 of 2019) and Mr. Satya Ranjan Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Berhampur University.

9. At the outset, it must be mentioned that the University itself had filed two writ appeals being W.A. Nos.179 and 180 of 2019 which, however, were dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court on 5th September, 2019.

10. Mr. Pati, learned counsel appearin