The selection of a candidate for a teaching position in a University must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, adhering to the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Chancellor has the power to review the decisions of the University authorities and to ensure that the selection process is conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought the following reliefs through this writ petition:

" (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16. 7. 1986 passed by the Chancellor respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexure 8 to this writ petition; (ii) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamuss directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners functioning as Lecturer in Rig-Veda. (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; and (iv) to award costs. "

( 2 ) THIS writ petition is coming up for hearing after the petitioner obtained a stay order on 23rd august, 1986 by which the operation of order of Chancellor dated 15. 7. 1986 was stayed by virtue of which petitioners appointment as a Lecturer in Rig-Veda in the Sampurnanand Sanskrit vishvavidyalaya was found to be illegal as he lacked basic qualification and also on other grounds which are of vital importance i. e. the petitioners application was entertained much after the lapse of last date mentioned in the advertisement and he was also selected through a back door entry. The Chancellor gave a direction to the University to make fresh appointment after readvertisement of the post. In this writ petition two questions are to be considered. What is the effect of entertaining the application of the petitioner after the advertisement date has been issued and selecting him without readvertising the post in all fairness and not complying with the provisions-of Article 14 of Constitution of India for not giving a chance to the candidates who were qualified for consideration.

( 3 ) THERE is Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the vishvavidyalaya) in Varanasi. It appears that the said Vishvavidyalaya; advertised a post of lecturer in Rig-Veda. Provision of Statute 11. 01 of the Statute of Vishvavidyalaya is quoted here for ready reference:

"11. 01. In case of the Faculties of Veda- Vedanga, Sahitya - Sanskrit, Darshan Shraman Vidya and Adhunik Jnana- Vijnana, the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of lecturer in the University, namely (a) A doctorate in the subject of study, concerned or a published work of a high standard in that subjected (b) Consistently good academic record (that is to say (the overall record of all assessment throughout the academic career of a candidate), with first class or high second class ( that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 percent marks ) Masters Degree in the subject concerned or equivalent degree of a foreign university in such subject. 2. Where the Selection Committee is of opinion that the research work of: a candidate, as evidenced either by his thesis or by his published work, is of a very high standard, it may relax any of the requirements specified in Sub-clause (b) of Clause (1 ). 3. If a candidate possessing a qualification prescribed in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) is not available or is not considered suitable a person possessing a consistently good academic record (Due weightance being given to M. Phil, or equivalent degree or research work of quality) may be appointed in the condition that he will attain the prescribed qualification (namely doctorate or published work aforesaid) withing five years, from the date of his appointment; provided that where, the teacher so appointed fails to attain the prescribed qualification within the said period of five years, he shall not be entitled to yearly comments after such period, until he attains such qualifications. "

( 4 ) IT is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application much after the advertisement date was over and selection was made on the basis of advertisement which was old one at the time of meeting of Selection Committee. In other words this is not disputed that he did not apply in pursuance of the advertisement at all.