By the Court.—Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Advocate for respondent No. 6, Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Seemant Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 5, Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yash Tandon, Advocate for respondent No. 4, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and perused the record.

2. Petitioners who are two in number, were already working as lecturer in Lajpat Rai Post Graduate college, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, when respondent No. 6 was appointed in the institution under the letter of appointment dated 3rd January, 1983, enclosed at page 76 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’).

3. Petitioners seek writ of quowarranto requiring respondent No. 6 to demonstrate before this Court as to under what legal right he is holding the post. Writ of quowarranto is prayed for on the following facts:

Lajpat Rai Post Graduate College, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Degree College’) is a Degree College affiliated to the University. An advertisement was published by the Degree College on 16th September, 1982, calling for applications for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. The advertisement contemplated that vacancy was up to 30th June, 1983, likely to be made permanent, minimum qualification for the post were the same as provided for under the First Statute of the University.

4. Respondent No. 6 is stated to have submitted application in response thereto. On the last date of making of the application, highest qualification possessed by respondent No. 6 was post graduation in the subject of Chemistry. He did not have degree of M.Phil or a recognized degree beyond masters’ level or published work indicating his capacity for independent research work.

5. According to petitioners, 21 candidates participated in the process of interview. Selection Committee recommended respondent No. 6 to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry, ignoring the fact that he did not have a degree of M.Phil or a recognized degree beyond masters’ level or published work indicating his capacity for independent research work. Recommendation of Selection Committee were put up before the Vice Chancellor of the University, who vide his order dated 3rd January, 1983, approved the appointment for the period up to 30th June, 1983 only. Subsequent to the approval of the Vice Chancellor, Committee of Management issued appointment letter to respondent No. 6 and it was for the first time recorded therein that if the respondent No. 6 did not obtained degree of PHD within the prescribed period, he shall not be entitled to annual increment.

6. The petitioners before this Court, submit that it is admitted on record that respondent No. 6 did not satisfied the essential requirement for the post of Lecturer in the subject of Chemistry as per First Statute 11.13 Clause (b) of the First Statute framed under Section 49 of the State Universities Act. They further submit that respondent No. 6 has no right to hold the ost for want of essential qualification. It is stated that if a person is appointed on a post in absence of his being possessed of prescribed minimum qualifications, then such appointment would be nonest. Accordingly the Court may issue a writ of quowarranto, calling upon respondent No. 6 to vacate the post. For the purpose they have placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, (2008) 7 SCC 153, wherein it has been held that appointment made in contravention of Statute/Statutory Provisions should be void and illegal and cannot be legalised.

7. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate and Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondents submitted before u