B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) RULE D. B. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of a Lecturer in History inthe evening shift of Moti Lal Nehru College (Respondent No. 2 ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 and other candidatesbad applied for the post of Lecturer in History, pursuant to an advertisementwhich was published in the newspaper. The relevant portion of the saidadvertisement reads as follows : "motilal Nehru College (Evening) (University of Delhi)Boento Juarez Marg, New Delht- 21 Applications on plain paper are invited for the posts of Lecturersin the following subjects in the grade of Rs. 2200-4000. 00 plusallowances admissible under Delhi University rules : (1) *history-Two (Permanent) (2) Political Science-One (Permanent)*essential for posts of Lecturers in History :the candidates are required to teach History of China and Japan,history of United States of America, Modern India and Rise ofmodern West. Qualifications: (a) A Doctorate s degree or Research work of an equally highstandard; and (b) Good academic record with second class (C in the seven-pointscale) Master s degree in a relevant subject from an Indianuniversity or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinaryprogrammes, the degree in (a) and (b) above may be in relevantsubjects. . . . . . " ( 3 ) IN the interview which was conducted on 28th of September 1992,respondent No. 5 has been selected for being appointed to the said post oflecturer in History. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 was not qualified to be appointed to the post of Lecturer in History. According to thepetitioner, respondent No. 5 had obtained B. A. Degree in Sociology withthird division marks. Thereafter, he did M. A. in Buddhist Studies which,according to the petitioner, is not a part of the subject of History. Thesubmission which is being made on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 did not fulfill the essential qualifications which were prescribed inthe aforesaid advertisement. A number of other contentions have also beenraised in the writ petition but we do not intend to deal with them because, inour opinion, the challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 5 on theground of his being ineligible is well-founded. A number of other contentions have also beenraised in the writ petition but we do not intend to deal with them because, inour opinion, the challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 5 on theground of his being ineligible is well-founded. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that respondent No. 5 did his B. A. in Sociology and only obtained third division marks. It is also not in dispute that thesaid respondent No. 5 did his M. A. in Buddhist Studies. It is admitted by all, including by Counsel for the University of Delhi, that under the Universityof Delhi, the Department of Buddhist Studies is distinct and different fromthe Department of History. Each of the two Departments has its own Head. The courses which are prescribed for M. A. in Buddhist Studies and M. A. inhistory are also different. The degrees which are conferred on a candidateafter his success in doing Master s Course is also different in the sense thatpersons who do M. A. (History) will be known as having done M. A. inhistory whereas the subject which is mentioned in respondent No. 5 scertificate would be that of Buddhist Studies. ( 6 ) IT is contented by learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 4 and 5that the petitioner was eligible for appointment to the said post in view ofthe requirement of Ordinance XXIV, the relevant portion of which reads asfollows: "lecturers : (Other than those in Foreign Languages, Education,management Studies and Law) : (a) A Doctorate s degree or research work of an equally highstandard; and (b) Good academic record with at least second class (C in theseven point scale) Master s degree in a relevant subject froman Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreignuniversity. Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary Programmes, the degree in (a) and (b) above may be in relevantsubjects. " ( 7 ) IT is contended by Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 that the words"relevant subject" occurring in Clause (b) above would mean the subjectwhich is relevant to History and it need not be the subject of History itself. Ordinarily, we would have commented that we are surprised by such asubmission but in the academic world, which exists today, one is used tosurprises. The relevant subject must mean the subject which a lecturer issupposed to teach. It can not be a subject other than that. Ordinarily, we would have commented that we are surprised by such asubmission but in the academic world, which exists today, one is used tosurprises. The relevant subject must mean the subject which a lecturer issupposed to teach. It can not be a subject other than that. In the presentcase, the petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement which waspublished wherein the college had required candidates to apply for Lecturerposts in two different subjects, namely. History and Political Science. It wasin relation to that that it was mentioned that the candidates must havemaster s Degree in a relevant subject. What this would imply is that acandidate who would be applying for the post of Lecturer in Politicalscience, the Master s Degree should be in Political Science whereas thecandidates who want to apply for the post of Lecturer in History, therelevant subject would be History. Counsel for respondent No. 2, however. submitted that the advertisement also states that "having regard to the needfor developing interdisciplinary Programme, the degree in (a) and (b) abovemay be in relevant subjects". He submits that this shows that a candidatecan hold a Master s Degree in a subject other than the one for which he isrequired to teach. ( 8 ) WE are unable to agree with this. The aforesaid sentence, in ouropinion, means that the Doctorate s Degree or the research work specified inclause (a) must be in a subject which is relevant to or with the subject in themaster s Degree. In other words, the subjects of Clauses (a) and (b) must berelevant to each other. This does not mean that the applicant need not havestudied the subject for which he desires to be appointed as a Lecturer. ( 9 ) THE matter may be viewed from another angle. The requirementof the college was that the Lecturer who is to be appointed, should be ableto teach History of China and Japan, History of United States of America,modern India and Rise of Modern West. This was described as essential forthe post of Lecturer in History. The under-graduate (Hons.) Course of thedelhi University providing for various papers being taken by the candidates,each Faculty of the college would consist of more than one History teacher,each being specialist in different aspects of History. The requirement ofthe college was clearly spelt out in the advertisement which was published. This was described as essential forthe post of Lecturer in History. The under-graduate (Hons.) Course of thedelhi University providing for various papers being taken by the candidates,each Faculty of the college would consist of more than one History teacher,each being specialist in different aspects of History. The requirement ofthe college was clearly spelt out in the advertisement which was published. Respondent No. 5 who has been selected, does not answer to this requirement at all. He did not fulfill any of these essential conditions. What is moresurprising is that respondent No. 5, as a student in B. A. or M. A. , and evenin M. Phil, has not studied any of the topics which he was required toteach. Merely because respondent No. 5 had done M. Phil and M. A. inbuddhist Studies, he does not fall in any of the topics mentioned in the saidadvertisement. For example, the compulsory papers which are studied by astudent of M. A. (Buddhist Studies) are Pali. Buddhist Sanskrit, History ofbuddhism in India and abroad, Buddhist Philosophy and either Chineselanguage or Tibetan language. The optional paperswhich are available fora candidate also have nothing to do with any of the topics mentioned in theadvertisement. In M. Phil, the courses which are required to be undertakenalso do not cover the topics of History of China and Japan or History ofunited States of America or History of Modern India or Rise of Modernwest. At no point of time has respondent No. 5 studied any of thesetopics as a part of his M. A. or M. Phil. courses. ( 10 ) WE are conscious of the fact that M. Phil. Course II refers tohistoriography of Indian History but this pertains to historical writings onancient, medieval and modern India and the emphasis is not on the subjectitself. In any case, the requirement as per the advertisement was for acandidate to know History of China and Japan plus History of Unitedstates of America plus Modern India plus Rise of Modern West. It is onlysuch a candidate who would have been in a position to teach the numerousstudents who would be studying and doing B. A. (Hons.) Course in Historyin the college. ( 11 ) IN our opinion, respondent No. 5 was not eligible for being evenconsidered for appointment to the post of Lecturer in History. It is onlysuch a candidate who would have been in a position to teach the numerousstudents who would be studying and doing B. A. (Hons.) Course in Historyin the college. ( 11 ) IN our opinion, respondent No. 5 was not eligible for being evenconsidered for appointment to the post of Lecturer in History. The mere factthat he was called for interview not only by this college but by other collegeswould not make him eligible when, on the face of it, he is ineligible. Respondent No. 5 may be a very competent teacher in Buddhist Studies butbe was certainly not qualified for being appointed to the post of Lecturer inhistory. ( 12 ) COUNSEL for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 has placed before us theminutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee. The said minutes disclosethe names of the candidates in the panel and against the name of respondentno. 5, there is an asterick mark and the remark in respect thereof is asunder : "the question whether Shri Dinesh Chandra Varshney can beappointed as Lecturer as he did not appear to fall in any of thecategories specified in the Delhi University Circular No. CB-111/91. 0072789 dated the 27/06/1991 was raised. However, it was pointed out there was nothing in the ordinances which would make him ineligible. There were similarlyqualified persons who have been appointed in many cases. Further, it was pointed out that he had been already appointedon adhoc and temporary positions through properly constitutedselection Committee earlier in other colleges. " ( 13 ) IT is also mentioned in the said minutes that. The Head, Department of History, University of Delhi did not agree with the inclusion ofrespondent No. 5 in the above panel on the ground that, in addition to thequestion of his eligibility, he would not also be able to teach the advertisedcourse for B. A. (Hons. ). He and others with similar qualifications were notshortlisted by the Head of the Department. However, he was called for interview by the college authorities. ( 14 ) IN our opinion, the Head of the Department of History of theuniversity of Delhi was fully justified in the views which are reflected inthe said minutes of the Selection Committee. Respondent No. 5 was neitherqualified to be appointed as a Lecturer of History nor was he eligible toteach the advertised courses for B. A. (Hons. ). ( 14 ) IN our opinion, the Head of the Department of History of theuniversity of Delhi was fully justified in the views which are reflected inthe said minutes of the Selection Committee. Respondent No. 5 was neitherqualified to be appointed as a Lecturer of History nor was he eligible toteach the advertised courses for B. A. (Hons. ). The decision of the Selectioncommittee, over-ruling the objection of Head of the Department of thehistory of University of Delhi, was clearly misdirected and was arrived aton irrelevant considerations. Th fact that respondent No. 5 had beenappointed on ad-hoc basis in other colleges would not make him eligible forappointment to teach the courses which were advertised. ( 15 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we issue a writ of mandamus quashingthe appointment of respondent No. 5 as a Lecturer in History in Moti Lalnehru College (Evening Shift ). We further issue a writ of mandamus directing the college to re-advertise the post and to select a fresh candidatefor one post of Lecturer (History) answering the requirement which wasadvertised. ( 16 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Petitioner will be entitled to costsagainst respondent No. 2. Counsel s fee Rs. 2. 500. 00.