JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Special Appeal No. 17 of 2023 and Special Appeal No. 18 of 2023 are against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2022 of the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2011 filed by Dr. Alok Kumar whereas Special Appeal No. 19 of 2023 is against the judgment and order of the same date in Writ Appeal No. 45120 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition filed by Dr. Rashmi Ranjan as infructuous in light of the judgment and order in Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011. As common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these three appeals, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order.

FACTS

2. Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 was filed by Dr. Alok Kumar (the respondent) seeking following reliefs:

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari after calling the relevant records from the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi quashing the entire short listing qua petitioner’s post which has been done by applying the shortlisting guidelines which became effective from 02.11.2010.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-University and its authorities to conduct the entire selection as per the University Grants Commission guidelines, regulations and the eligibility qualifications mentioned in the advertisement for the purpose of short-listing.

(iii) Pass such other and further order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award cost.”

3. The case of the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) in a nutshell was that the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (for short ‘University’) issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts including that of Assistant Professor in Sociology (Post Code 3712). The last date for receipt of application form to participate in the selection process was 21.09.2010. The advertisement specified that:

“Mere eligibility will not entitle any candidate for being called for interview. More stringent criteria may be applied for shortlisting the candidates to be called for interview. Applicants having higher qualification and merit will be given preference. For teaching positions short-listing shall be done as per guidelines approved by Executive Council of the University.”

General Instruction No. 2 of the advertisement stated as follows:

“Eligibility of a candidate and satisfaction of any other shortlisting criteria shall be considered as on the last date of the receipt for application.”

4. According to the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) a shortlisting guidelines, dated 10.04.2010, approved by Executive Council of the University existed but, instead of applying those guidelines, revised guidelines framed pursuant to the resolution dated 02.11.2010 of the Executive Council, made effective from 02.11.2010, were used to shortlist 12 out of more than 200 applicants to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Sociology. As the writ petitioner was not among those shortlisted, Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 was filed. The grievance of the writ petitioner (Dr. Alok Kumar) was that the short-listing guidelines made applicable from 02.11.2010 should not have been pressed into service as the last date for receipt of the application, as per the advertisement, was 21.09.2010, whereas the revised shortlisting guidelines became effective from 02.11.2010, therefore, in view of General Instruction No. 2, any shortlisting criteria adopted later, could not have been applied.

5. In Writ Appeal No. 4963 of 2011 on 28.01.2011 an interim order was passed, which is reproduced below:

“Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.K. Awasthi appearing for the petitioner submit that though the petitioner is eligible with Ph.D as essential qualification, the additional qualifications of NET/SLET have been given 20 marks in the guidelines for shortlisting made e