ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the 3rd respondent. Sri O.Manohar Reddy for the 4th respondent and Smt.G.Jhansi for respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 to 10, 12 and 14 have appeared and put forth their respective contentions on behalf of these respondents. Notices have been served on respondent Nos. 6, 11 and 13 also as per the record. No counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No.4, 6, 11 and 13. Sri B.Narayana Reddy, Advocate has filed vakalat on 28-04-1998 for respondent No.15 but no counter has been filed. 2. In WPMP NO.6822 of 1998, the petitioner sought to implead Dr. Bhupathi Naidu and Smt. T. Vijaya as party respondent Nos. 14 and 15 to the writ petition, alleging that these respondents were subsequently appointed, pursuant to the selection consequent on the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, illegally without notification for recruitment and in violation of the norms. He filed another application i.e. WPMP No.6823 of 1998 for amending the relief in the writ petition to seek invalidation of the appointments of respondents 14 and 15. As per the court record, on 5.3.1998 the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out notices on these proposed respondents by registered post, acknowledgment due and to file proof of service into the court (in WPMP Nos. 6823 and 6822 of 1998). These respondents have been served and have also appeared through counsel in the proceedings. The 14th respondent has also filed a counter. In the circumstances WPMP Nos. 6822 and 6823 of 1998 are formally ordered. 3. The petitioner assails the conduct of the 1st respondent-University in issuing and acting upon an Advertisement Nos. E II (2)/1996 (Temporary) dated 20.11.1996 and E.II (2)/ADVT/IASE-CSS/97- (1) dated 22.2.1997, as illegal and arbitrary and seeks a declaration that the appointment of the respondents 4 to 15 is illegal and void. At the hearing of the writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no appointments were made, pursuant to the 2nd advertisement dated 22.2.1997 and that in respect of the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, the respondents 4 to 13 and some others (respondents 14 & 15), were appointed. The challenge is thus confined to the appointments of respondents 4 to 15. The challenge is thus confined to the appointments of respondents 4 to 15. 4. Against the advertisement, selection and appointment process followed by the 1st respondent-University, the petitioner has a catalogue of grievances. The 1st respondent has, in defence to the writ petition and the reliefs claimed therein, contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to claim reliefs in the writ petition. Therefore a few facts relating to the petitioner must also be recorded. 5. The petitioner has a master's degree in Sociology and a doctoral qualification in Social Anthropology. He claims impressive academic achievements, including research associateship granted by the UGC, on the basis of a National level selection. He has eight years of post-doctoral research experience in the department of Anthropology in the 1st respondent-University's College of Arts and Sciences. In response to the advertisement dated 20.11.1996, he applied for the posts of Project Leader and of Senior Research Assistant, in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell in SVU College of Engineering, Tirupati. He pleads that though eligible for both posts, he was denied a call letter as regards the post of Project Leader and was called only for the post of Senior Research Assistant. The petitioner however did not appear for interview for the post of Senior Research Assistant apprehending that would disentitle him to challenge the selection process, on a plea that he had acquiesced or waived threshold challenge to the selection process by appearing at the selection. 6. The writ petition is filed in March 1997. According to the petitioner, the advertisement dated 20.11.1996 is wholly irrational, incoherent and illegal. The advertisement is impeached on several grounds. The advertisement invites applications from qualified candidates for certain teaching and non-teaching posts in the 1st respondent-University. The advertisement specifies that the teaching and non-teaching posts are purely temporary. Since the contents of the advertisement are also impeached, the advertisement is extracted: SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY Advertisement No. E 11(2)/1996(Temporary) Dated: 20-11-1996 Application in the prescribed form are invited from the qualified candidates for the following teaching and non-teaching posts in the S.V. University. The teaching, non-teaching posts mentioned below are purely temporary. Sl. Name of the post held No. of Vacancies No. Department/Institution I. DEPARTMENT OF BIO-TECHNOLOGY S.V.U.COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE a) READER : ONE b) LECTURERS : TWO II. The teaching, non-teaching posts mentioned below are purely temporary. Sl. Name of the post held No. of Vacancies No. Department/Institution I. DEPARTMENT OF BIO-TECHNOLOGY S.V.U.COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE a) READER : ONE b) LECTURERS : TWO II. DIRECTORATE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION : THREE a) Asst.Director-cum-Lecturers to handle (One post B.Ed., Courses with specifications in reserved for S.C) i) Biological Sciences : 1 ii) Mathematics/Social Sciences : 1 iii) English Methods : 1 b) Co-ordinating Officer : ONE III. ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT CELL S.V.U COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING a) Senior Project Leader ONE b) Project Leader ONE c) Senior Research Asst. ONE d) Steno-typist ONE e) Peon/Attender ONE The posts mentioned under Item Nos. I and II above are created by the Executive Council of S.V.University and the salaries of the staff appointed for the said posts shall be met from self-generated funds under respective heads of accounts, and the services rendered by the incumbents shall not be counted as University Service. The posts mentioned at Item No. III are sanctioned by the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India and are temporary. The services rendered by the incumbents shall not be counted as University Service. The scale of pay and the qualifications prescribed for the Reader and the Lecturers posts mentioned under Item No.1 above are similar to those prescribed for the regular U.G.C. posts. Details of specializations required to be possessed by candidates and the experience are furnished in the PROSPECTUS. For the posts mentioned under Item No.II the qualifications and the scale of pay prescribed are as follows: QUALIFICATIONS General: a) For Asst.Director-cum- (i) M.A./MSc.(with not less Lecturer than 55% marks or equivalent Grade) ii) M.Ed/B.Ed. Desirable: M.Phil/Ph.D in the basic P.G Degree Scale of pay : Rs.2200/- - 4000/- b) Co-Ordinating Officer: Qualifications & Experience i) P.G.Degree (at least second Class) with about 2 years Experience, Distance education in any of the University Institutions) ii) Knowledge in Computer handling and not above 34 years Scale of Pay: Rs. 3310-6840 (similar to RPS 1993 Scale) For the posts mentioned under Item No. III the qualifications, experience and scale of pay are as follows: Senior Project Leader: M.Tech in Mech.Engg. or B.Tech with .B.A. At least 5 years experience in teaching in teaching/ research/Industry/Entrepreneur ship Development. Scale of pay: : Rs. 3700-5700 Project Leader ph.D. in Commerce/Economics/ Psychology/Sociology. OR A Master's Degree in Management/ Engineering. or B.Tech with .B.A. At least 5 years experience in teaching in teaching/ research/Industry/Entrepreneur ship Development. Scale of pay: : Rs. 3700-5700 Project Leader ph.D. in Commerce/Economics/ Psychology/Sociology. OR A Master's Degree in Management/ Engineering. Scale of pay: : Rs.2200-4000 Senior Research : Master's Degree in Commerce/ Assistant. Economics/Psychology/ Sociology/M.B.A Desirable : Ph.D Scale of pay : Rs.3300/- consolidated Steno-typist : A Degree from a recognized University. Typewriting and Shorthand both In English-Higher Grade Desirable: Certificate or Diploma in Computer Language. Scale of pay : Rs. 2195-4560 Peon/Attender : A pass in 5th class and knowledge In cycling. A pass or fail in SSC is desirable Scale of pay : Rs. 1375-2375 D.A. and H.R.A as applicable to the respective posts. The prescribed application forms (for each post separately with Demand Draft) and prospectus can be had from THE REGISTRAR, S.V. UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI- 517502, A.P. FROM 2-12-1996 onwards on payment of Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten only) for the posts mentioned under II (b) and III (d) and (e) and Rs.25/- (Rupees Twenty five only) for the remaining categories of posts by crossed Demand Draft payable at Andhra Bank/State Bank of India, S.V.U.Campus, Tirupathi-517 502, drawn not earlier than 25-11-1996 in favour of the REGISTRAR, S.V.UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI-517 502. The requisition for the application form must be accompanied by a self addressed envelop of the size of 20 cm x 30 cm duly affixing postal stamps worth Rs.5/-. The filled in application together with the attested educational qualification/experience certificate along with a crossed Demand Draft for Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) for the posts mentioned under II (b) and III (d) & (e) snf Td.40/- (Rupees Forty only) for the remaining categories of posts, towards registration fee for each post applied for, drawn in favour of the REGISTRAR, S.V.UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI-517 502, not earlier than 25-11-1996 should reach this office on or before 4-00 p.m on 31-12-1996. NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY BHAVAN, TIRPUATI-517 502 DATED: 20th NOVEMBER, 1996 REGISTRAR." The grounds of challenge, in brief :- 7. The petitioner's challenge to the advertisement and the subsequent process of selection qua the advertisement dt. 20.11.1996, in brief is as under: A) The respondent-University failed to provide for reservation to the extent mandated by law and to specify the posts to which reservation is applicable. The petitioner's challenge to the advertisement and the subsequent process of selection qua the advertisement dt. 20.11.1996, in brief is as under: A) The respondent-University failed to provide for reservation to the extent mandated by law and to specify the posts to which reservation is applicable. Though ten teaching posts were notified only one post in the category of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education is specified to be reserved for Scheduled Caste. As per the roster at least 5 of the ten posts should have been reserved. Further, pursuant to the judgment (23.12.1994) of a Division Bench of this court in Dr. N. Chandrayudu v S.V.University, Tirupati(1) the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 420 Education Department, dated 18.11.1995 directing that reservation be applied groupwise (i.e., Group-I - Arts, Commerce, Business Management, Law, Social Sciences and Education including all languages; Group-II - Sciences and Group-II - Engineering and Technology), with a condition that vacancies must be notified department/subject-wise, as directed by this court in the judgment. The order of the Government further mandated that subjects within a group must be arranged in an alphabetical order for the purpose of roster points. In a subsequent order, in G.O.Ms. No.456 Education Department, dated 21.12.1995 the State Government ordered that in each of the 3 groups the roster should be maintained arranging the subjects in alphabetical order within that particular group and the vacancies computed in each particular group should be distributed amongst different categories as per the 100 point roster. 8. According to the petitioner, the University failed to follow the orders of the Government as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court and this court and despite pointing out the shortcomings the University went ahead and issued the 2nd advertisement dated 22.2.1997 replicating the same errors. (B) The University unlawfully constituted Screening Committees and entrusted them the task of evaluating the eligibility of candidates for sending interview call letters. Such committees are not authorized by law. Even in the composition of the several committees, no experts from the concerned disciplines were involved. Eligible candidates such as the petitioner were denied even the threshold opportunity to participate in the process of selection. (C) The post of Project Leader in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell (EDC), SVU College of Engineering, required, inter alia, a Ph.D in Sociology. Even in the composition of the several committees, no experts from the concerned disciplines were involved. Eligible candidates such as the petitioner were denied even the threshold opportunity to participate in the process of selection. (C) The post of Project Leader in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell (EDC), SVU College of Engineering, required, inter alia, a Ph.D in Sociology. The petitioner had applied for this post with the qualification of Ph.D. in Socio- Anthropology, a species of the genus Sociology. The relevant Screening Committee which had no expert from Sociology, did not comprehend this academic reality and failed to issue the petitioner a call letter. In the case of the department of Bio-Technology, the Screening Committee did not have the coordinator of the Bio-Technology course while the Screening committee in the Directorate of Distance Education did not have the Dean of Education but included the Director of Distance Education, a person who did not have even a B.Ed. qualification. (D) The issuance of call letters was also arbitrary. A chosen few candidates received call letters by 18/20.2.1997 while highly and fully eligible candidates, including in-service candidates were ignored. For the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology, of the 15 Post-doctoral Research applicants from the Department of Zoology, only the 5th respondent was sent a call letter, while others such as Dr. Venkateswara Rao and Dr. K.Kondandarami Reddy, who were in- service candidates in Bio-Technology, were ignored. Dr. Venkateswara Rao, thereafter, employed his political clout to secure a call letter on 25.2.1997, three days prior to the interviews. For the post of Coordinating Officer in the Directorate of Distance Education (one of the advertised posts), only 3 of the 63 applicants were called for interview. The 10th respondent, who is admittedly over-aged, was selected. Telegraphic call letters were also sent by the University to influential candidates who could pressurize the University administration. Several ineligible candidates were also sent call letters by the incompetent Screening Committee. For instance, call letters were sent to Ms. T.Nirmala and Mr. Lokanath. These candidates were however sent away at the time of interview for the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology, when their ineligibility was exposed by protesting Post-Doctoral Research applicants, including the petitioner. The selection process was scandalous and newspapers had predicted names of the prospective appointees including respondents Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12, in advance. T.Nirmala and Mr. Lokanath. These candidates were however sent away at the time of interview for the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology, when their ineligibility was exposed by protesting Post-Doctoral Research applicants, including the petitioner. The selection process was scandalous and newspapers had predicted names of the prospective appointees including respondents Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12, in advance. (E) Of the ten selected candidates for the teaching posts, eight belonged to OC and of them six to a single community. The interviews were rushed through and completed by 4.3.1997 and the Executive Council of the University met at Hyderabad (not at Tirupati) on 5.3.1997 for ratifying the selection. (F) The 7th respondent was appointed as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education, though he does not have the basic qualification of B.Ed. Though his application was rejected by the Screening Committee, the University authorities were thereafter influenced by the Chairman of the State Council for Higher Education, Hyderabad, who certified that a certificate in teaching English language, issued by the CIEFL, Hyderabad (a certificate produced by the 7th respondent), was equivalent to the B.Ed. Degree. Why the University solicited a clarification from the Chairman, State Council for Higher Education (to benefit the 7th respondent) when there were clearly qualified and eligible candidates available, is not clarified. (G) The 10th respondent was appointed as the Coordinating Officer in the Directorate of Distance Education, though he was over-aged. (H) The University also resorted to making appointments in excess of the posts notified. Only one post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics/Social Sciences, Directorate of Distance Education, was notified. However two appointments were made. The 8th respondent was first appointed as an Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Social Sciences and thereafter Dr. Bhoopathi Naidu (R-14) was also appointed as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics in excess of the notified vacancies. (I) Without any notification of a post of Plant Bio-technologist in the impugned notification the 15th respondent was illegally appointed as such. The Defense of the 1st respondent-University :- 9. On behalf of the 1st respondent-University, the Registrar filed a counter affidavit on 30.6.1997 and an additional counter affidavit on 26.6.1998. The case of the Registrar of the University, in brief, is : (A) A single writ petition challenging two advertisements/ notifications is not maintainable. The Defense of the 1st respondent-University :- 9. On behalf of the 1st respondent-University, the Registrar filed a counter affidavit on 30.6.1997 and an additional counter affidavit on 26.6.1998. The case of the Registrar of the University, in brief, is : (A) A single writ petition challenging two advertisements/ notifications is not maintainable. (B) The petitioner applied for the posts of Project Leader and Senior Research Assistant in EDC in the SVU College of Engineering. A Ph.D. in one of the specified disciplines including Sociology is the prescribed qualification for the post of Project Leader. Since the petitioner was not eligible he was not called for interview for the post. The petitioner was eligible for the post of Senior Research Assistant. He was sent a call letter to the interview to this post but he failed to attend the interview. (C) While the challenge to the post of Project Leader and Senior Research Assistant is barred including for latches and delay, the challenge to the other posts advertised is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi. Only applicants for a particular post can challenge a notification and not a third party. (D) The EDC is a project sanctioned by the Government of India, Department of Science and Technology. The Government of India temporarily sanctioned one post of Senior Project Leader, one post of Project Leader and one post of Senior Research Assistant. Thus, these posts are not a part of the University service and are also temporary. Since these posts are neither regular, permanent nor budgeted teaching posts of the University and are also single posts, the rule of reservation or applying the roster does not arise. In any event the petitioner is an OC candidate and cannot claim that the selection process was illegal for not applying the rule of reservation. He cannot also claim that the roster intended to be applied for permanent posts must be applied to temporary posts also. (E) The department of Bio-technology was temporarily created by the Executive Council (EC) of the University. The teaching posts in the department of Bio- technology were sanctioned on a temporary basis by the EC of the University. The posts were not sanctioned by the State Government. The salaries for these posts are from the funds generated by the University and not from the block grant sanctioned by the State Government. The teaching posts in the department of Bio- technology were sanctioned on a temporary basis by the EC of the University. The posts were not sanctioned by the State Government. The salaries for these posts are from the funds generated by the University and not from the block grant sanctioned by the State Government. The services rendered by these Teachers is not University service. The reservations prescribed by the State are applicable only to posts sanctioned by the State within the budgeted teaching posts and are inapplicable to the temporary teaching posts in the department of Bio-technology. The roster meant for permanent posts is not applicable to temporary posts. For the above reason, the teaching posts in the Bio-technology department, being not regular and permanent or budgeted, are outside the purview of reservations. (F) For the posts of Reader and Lecturer the required academic qualifications are specified in the advertisement notification. According to the past experience of the University for teaching posts in advanced Science and Engineering Disciplines candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes category were not available. Even if a temporary roster is to be applied to fill up the temporary posts in the Bio-technology department the first point goes to the "O.C." and the second point for "S.C.". Two posts of Lecturers were advertised in the notification dated.20-11-1996. Five candidates belong to the "S.C." category submitted applications. None were however found eligible, as they did not possess the prescribed qualifications. Therefore they were not called for interviews. No Scheduled Caste candidate could therefore be appointed to fill up the second roster point. No "S.C" candidates raised any grievance regarding the notification and appointments. Lecturer posts cannot be kept unfilled for want of "S.C." candidates as the salary is drawn from self-generated funds i.e., amounts contributed by private agencies. Further, as the department is newly created with very limited teaching staff (of one Reader and two Lecturers), the students cannot be made to suffer for want of teachers. (G) There is only one post of Reader in the Bio-technology department, which is also temporary. Therefore the rule of reservation was not followed. Three candidates, two belonging to the O.C. and one belonging to B.C.(D) applied for the Reader's post. The Selection Committee recommended the name of P.Srinivasulu Reddy (R4), and he was appointed. (G) There is only one post of Reader in the Bio-technology department, which is also temporary. Therefore the rule of reservation was not followed. Three candidates, two belonging to the O.C. and one belonging to B.C.(D) applied for the Reader's post. The Selection Committee recommended the name of P.Srinivasulu Reddy (R4), and he was appointed. (H) Of the two posts of Lecturers in the Bio-technology department, for one post the required specialization is Plant Biotechnology/Cell and Tissue Culture/Food and Industrial Biotechnology/Micro Biology and Immunology. For the second post the required specialization is Molecular Biology/Molecular Genetics/Genetic Engineering/Bio processing and Bio chemical Engineering. (I) On the recommendations of the selection committee Sri C.Varadarajulu Naidu(R-6) was appointed to the first post and M.Dhanunjaya Naidu(R-5) for the second post. Though the two posts are in the same department, they have distinct specializations and for either of the posts no qualified SC and ST or B.C candidate was found suitable and recommended by the selection committee. None of the applicants for these posts have challenged the notification and appointment. (J) In the Directorate of Distance Education three posts of Assistant Director- cum-Lecturer were advertised, with one earmarked for SC. This is in accordance with the roster point since the roster point Nos.1 and 3 are for OC and the 2nd for SC. (K) The post of Coordinating Officer in the School of Distance Education is also temporary and a non-teaching post created by the EC. The expenditure for this post is to be met from self-generated funds. The rule of reservation is therefore inapplicable. One of the applicants for this post, B.Hari Babu challenged the appointment of K.Purnachandra Rao (R-10) as Coordinating Officer and sought his own appointment to the post. He however did not challenge the notification. The petitioner is not an applicant. He cannot therefore challenge either the notification or the appointment. One of the applicants for the post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education filed W.P.No.6690 of 1997. He challenged the appointment of V.Ravi Naidu (respondent No.7) but not the notification. The petitioner being a 3rd party cannot challenge the notification. (L) None of the applicants for the post of Senior Project Leader in EDC, Reader and Lecturer in Bio-technology department, the two posts of Assistant Director- cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education (advertised) in the notification dated.20-11-1996 (challenged either the notification or the appointments). The petitioner being a 3rd party cannot challenge the notification. (L) None of the applicants for the post of Senior Project Leader in EDC, Reader and Lecturer in Bio-technology department, the two posts of Assistant Director- cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education (advertised) in the notification dated.20-11-1996 (challenged either the notification or the appointments). The petitioner being a 3rd party cannot challenge the selections made to these posts. (M) The ratio and principle of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court (relied on by the petitioner) is not applicable to the present case as the posts considered in the Division Bench Judgment were regular, permanent and budgeted posts. (N) The orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.420, and G.O.Ms.No.456 were followed by the University wherever applicable. (O) The University is entitled to constitute a screening committee to verify the eligibility of various candidates who applied for the several advertised posts. The allegation that the committee sent call letters arbitrarily and to candidates of its choice, is denied. Further the screening committee is not an authority entitled to send call letters. To verify the eligibility of applicants in accordance with notification, no special expert need be present. The allegation of political influence is without basis. (P) There is no irregularity in conducting the Executive Council meeting at Hyderabad. (Q) The 7th respondent has a Post-graduate Diploma in Teaching English from the CIEFL, the Diploma is equivalent to B.Ed if not higher. The allegation that the application of the 7th respondent was rejected by the screening committee and just prior to the interview the University authorities were influenced by the Chairman, State Council for Higher Education, Hyderabad is denied. On a clarification sought by the University, the Chairman clarified that the Diploma of the 7th respondent is equivalent to a B.Ed degree. In any event, the petitioner cannot challenge the 7th respondent's appointment. W.P. No.6690 of 1997 challenging the appointment of 7th respondent, by an applicant to the post is pending. (R) Insofar as the 10th respondent is concerned, the allegation that he is ineligible for the post of Coordinating Officer on the ground of being over aged is incorrect. The University is competent to relax the age restrictions. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of 10th respondent as a Coordinating Officer, as he is not an applicant. The University is competent to relax the age restrictions. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of 10th respondent as a Coordinating Officer, as he is not an applicant. (S) Regarding Sri Bhupathi Naidu (R-14), Statistics is a subject within Mathematical Science. The Dean, Faculty of Sciences, an expert held the same view. Sri Bhupathi Naidu is thus eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education. (T) Pursuant to the order of appointment except the 11th respondent the other official respondents i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 10, 12 and 13 had joined in the respective posts. 10. In the additional counter-affidavit dated.26-06-1998 the Registrar of the 1st respondent-University states that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the appointments of the respondent Nos.14 and 15 as Assistant Director-cum- Lecturer in the School of Distance Education and as a Plant Bio-Technologist, Bio-technology department, respectively as he is not an applicant for either of the posts nor eligible to have applied. It is also stated that the 8th respondent was appointed under the "B.C" category to the post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics/Social Sciences, a post advertised on 20- 11-1996. The School of Distance Education is not a department of the University. The Executive Council of the University at its meeting held on 05- 03-1997 resolved to accept the recommendations of the Finance Committee and create an additional post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the School of Distance Education in addition to the three existing posts, created earlier on 05-07-1996. The selection committee at the meeting held on 02-03-1997 placed the name of the 14th respondent at serial No.1 in the panel for the post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer- for Mathematics/Social Sciences. He was therefore appointed to an OC vacancy in the additional post created by the Executive Council. The appointment is purely temporary and terminable at any time. The salary payable is to be met from self-generated funds and the service would not count towards University service. The 14th respondent was appointed by an order dated.25-02-1997. 11. The additional counter-affidavit further asserts that the Head of the Bio- technology department by a letter dated.24-02-1997 requested for creation of a post of Plant Bio-Technologist to meet the work load. The salary payable is to be met from self-generated funds and the service would not count towards University service. The 14th respondent was appointed by an order dated.25-02-1997. 11. The additional counter-affidavit further asserts that the Head of the Bio- technology department by a letter dated.24-02-1997 requested for creation of a post of Plant Bio-Technologist to meet the work load. On 05-03-1997 the EC of the University resolved to create the said post on a consolidated salary basis and to meet the expenditure from funds received through industrial sponsorship. The EC also resolved to authorize the Vice Chancellor to fill up the post. At a later meeting dated.24-03-1997 the E.C. authorized the Vice Chancellor to take necessary action for filling up the posts of Plant Biotechnologist from the panel of names of Lecturers, Bio-technology, recommended by the selection committee at its meeting held on 01-03-1997. The post of Plant Bio-Technologist is lower in status to the post of Lecturer, in all respects. The selection committee constituted for the post of Lecturer had placed the name of the 15th respondent in the panel for the Lecturer's post. Therefore pursuant to the orders dated.25-03-1997 the 15th respondent was appointed as Plant Bio- Technologist on a temporary tenure, terminable at any time. As the two posts above mentioned are temporary, terminable at any time and the candidates were already selected and recommended by the selection committee, no separate advertisement is required. 12. During the course of hearing on 22.11.2007 the 1st respondent University was directed to produce the record and file an affidavit on the following aspects: a) Record relating to the selection of the 7th respondent as Assistant Director- cum-Lecturer (English methods) in the School of Distance Education; the correspondence relating to the Chairman, State Council of Higher Education issuing a certificate that the Diploma (Post Graduate Diploma in teaching English from the CIEFL) of the 7th respondent is equivalent to B.Ed; what is the basis for seeking the equivalence certificate from the Chairman, State Council for Higher Education; and what the authority fo the SCHC to declare such equivalence? b) If P.G./Ph.D. in Statistics is an equivalent/eligible qualification to a post in Mathematics (regarding R-14), why is not Ph.D. in Social Anthropology (of petitioner) equivalent to Ph.D. in Sociology? Was the petitioner's Ph.D. in Social anthropology assessed by any Expert and if so what is the record. b) If P.G./Ph.D. in Statistics is an equivalent/eligible qualification to a post in Mathematics (regarding R-14), why is not Ph.D. in Social Anthropology (of petitioner) equivalent to Ph.D. in Sociology? Was the petitioner's Ph.D. in Social anthropology assessed by any Expert and if so what is the record. Also the record disclosing the assessment that Statistics is equal to Mathematics. c) On what basis the 5th respondent's M.Sc., in Molecular Physiology was treated as equivalent to a P.G. Degree in Molecular Biology, for appointment as Lecturer in Bio-Technology. What is the basis for determining or rejecting equivalence in respect of the petitioner; the 5th respondent; and the 7th respondent? Is there any protocol followed by the 1st respondent University for determining/assessing equivalence. d) Power of the University or Selection Committee to relax age prescription (of R-10 for appointment as Coordinating Officer in School of Distance Education). e) How was R-8 (G.Janakiramaiah) appointed as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the School of Distance Education treated as under B.C. Category (as pleaded in University's additional counter dated 26-06-1998) in view of no such reservation specified in the advertisement dated 20.11.1996. f) How was the additional post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the School of Distance Education (created by E.C's resolution dated 05-03-1997) treated as an O.C Vacancy? What is the roster point followed (see Additional Counter of R.1 dated 26.06.1998). g) Since all the posts advertised are specified to be temporary and the posts in SDE are also funded from self-generated funds and not to be treated as University service, why was reservation followed for SDE Posts and not for Bio- Technology and EDC? h) Are the appointments continued from 1997 to 2007 and on what basis? What is the current status of these appointees-respondent Nos. 4 to 15? 13. In response to the above direction the 1st respondent-University filed an additional affidavit on 25.01.2008. The response of the University to several queries (a) to (h) above, would be considered during the course of analysis of issues, hereinafter. The case of the non-official respondents :- 14. Respondent Nos.5,7,8,9,10,12 and 14 have filed counter-affidavits, in February,2007, a decade after the institution of the writ petition. 15. According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner is presently working as an Associate Lecturer in the Dravidian University, Kuppam since the last three years. The case of the non-official respondents :- 14. Respondent Nos.5,7,8,9,10,12 and 14 have filed counter-affidavits, in February,2007, a decade after the institution of the writ petition. 15. According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner is presently working as an Associate Lecturer in the Dravidian University, Kuppam since the last three years. He did not apply for posts other than the posts of Project Leader and Senior Research Assistant in the EDC. Hence he cannot challenge the notification or appointments made to the other posts. The answering respondent claims to be qualified for the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology since he has the qualification of M.Sc with Molecular Physiology which is equivalent to molecular Biology. 16. According to the 7th respondent his qualification of Post-graduate Diploma in teaching of English from CIEFL Hyderabad is equivalent to B.Ed and this was also accepted by the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education. One of the candidates who applied for the post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in English methods had filed W.P.No.6690 of 1997 but had later withdrawn the writ petition. Therefore the petitioner cannot challenge his selection and appointment. 17. According to 8th respondent, he belongs to B.C. "B" and is fully qualified for appointment as an Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education. 18. According to the 9th respondent, he was appointed as an Assistant Director-cum- Lecturer on 06-03-1997 pursuant to the advertisement dated.2011-1996. She belongs to "SC" category, had applied for the post, was selected and appointed as she was qualified. No applicant for this post has challenged her appointment, is her plea. 19. The 10th respondent applied for the post of Coordinating Officer. According to him since he was qualified, he was appointed. Regarding the allegation of being over aged this respondent states that the University had always excluded the periods of employment in the University in computing age. As an in-service candidate (he was working in the University since 1984 and during 1994-97 as a Junior Computer Operator on a consolidated pay) he applied and was duly selected. Only three persons applied for the post. As the petitioner did not apply for the post, he cannot challenge the 10th respondent's appointment. One V.Haribabu filed W.P.No.4760 of 1997 questioning this respondent's selection as a Coordinating Officer. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 23-10-2000. Only three persons applied for the post. As the petitioner did not apply for the post, he cannot challenge the 10th respondent's appointment. One V.Haribabu filed W.P.No.4760 of 1997 questioning this respondent's selection as a Coordinating Officer. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 23-10-2000. It is a normal practice for the University to relax the age to the extent of the service put in by in-service candidates (either temporary or otherwise). This respondent had put in 10 years of temporary service in the University. The University therefore treated his application as valid and called him for interview and had selected him. 20. The 12th respondent was appointed as Project Leader in EDC on 06-03-1997 (a post to which the petitioner had applied but not issued an interview call letter). According to this respondent, he was later posted as an Assistant Professor to teach MBA in an existing vacancy after due clearance by the State Government and ratification by the Executive Council. As the petitioner had applied but did not attend the interview, he is not entitled to challenge the 12th respondent's appointment. 21. According to 14th respondent he was appointed as an Assistant Director-cum- Lecturer on 27-03-1997 to teach Mathematical methods for B.Ed in the Directorate of Distance Education. This respondent states that he has the qualification of M.Sc in Statistics and B.Ed in Mathematics. M.Sc Statistics is a specialization in the branch of Mathematics. Being fully eligible he was considered, selected and appointed and no case is made out for interference at the instance of the petitioner, who had not applied for this post. ANALYSIS: 22. From the broad averments in the counter affidavits, the stance of the University appears to be that in respect of posts comprehended within the budget or the block grant by the State Government alone, the University would function as an instrumentality of the State subject to constitutional and public Law limitations. Where there is no such State aid or grant, even if the funding were by the Government of India, as in the case of Bio-Technology, the University has a wholesome and total immunity from scrutiny and regularity of its conduct qua public law standards. Similar is the perception of the University with regard to temporary posts. Temporary posts invite no lawful standards except the discretion of the University and fairness on its own terms. 23. Similar is the perception of the University with regard to temporary posts. Temporary posts invite no lawful standards except the discretion of the University and fairness on its own terms. 23. We will now proceed to examine this assumption of the University. That the 1st respondent-University is an instrumentality of the State is incontrovertible and is not either disputed. In the considered view of this court, the 1st respondent as an instrumentality of the State has no private aspect on which Constitutional and Public Law lights do not shine. Every facet of the 1st respondent's conduct is subject to constitutional and public law scrutiny. It would be incongruous to hold that after office hours, the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar or Rector of the University would employ the University's insignia or its authority for purposes for which the University has not been created. Whether the post is a post within the service of the University, within its sanctioned cadre; whether such post is covered by the budget or block grant of the State or is funded by the Government of India, by any other instrumentality of the Union or of the State or is out of its self-generated funds, it is nevertheless a University function that is performed. As a University, the 1st respondent is obliged to conform to constitutional and public law standards. A University cannot have a schizophrenic personality; a public persona and a private persona. Such an assumption is an assumption that has no parallel in the jurisprudence of our public institutions. Even temporary posts administered by the University funded by whatever means, are subject to public law scrutiny and the administration of these posts must conform to public law standards. They cannot be filled up either clandestinely or irrationally. All applicable principles of administrative law are mandatory. This is not to say that a reservation should be made applicable to every post, including a temporary post. A reservation policy mandated by State policy is however unavoidable. 24. On the basis of the rival pleadings the following issues fall for resolution: ISSUES : (A) Whether the petitioner has locus to challenge the appointments to the posts advertised on 20.11.1996, for which he was not an applicant? A reservation policy mandated by State policy is however unavoidable. 24. On the basis of the rival pleadings the following issues fall for resolution: ISSUES : (A) Whether the petitioner has locus to challenge the appointments to the posts advertised on 20.11.1996, for which he was not an applicant? (B) Whether the impugned advertisement and the consequent appointments are invalid on account the 1st respondent- University failing to prescribe or follow reservation as per the Division Bench judgment dated 23.12.1994 and the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 420 Education Department dated 18.11.1995 and G.O.Ms.No. 456 Education Department dated 21.12.1995 directing groupwise and subjectwise consolidation of posts and applying the 100 point roster by arranging the subjects in each group in the alphabetical order? (C) Whether the constitution and composition of the screening committee is illegal? (D) Whether the 1st respondent-University acted illegally in failing to send the petitioner a call letter for the posts of Project Leader in the Entrepreneurship Development Cell, SVU College of Engineering and on the ground that the petitioner did not have a Ph.D. in Sociology though he had a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology? (E) Whether the selection and appointment of the 10th respondent for the post of Coordinating Officer, Directorate of Distance Education, despite being overaged, is invalid? (F) Whether the selection and appointment of the 7th respondent as an Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education, though not having a B.Ed. qualification solely on the basis of the certificate of the Chairman of the State Council for Higher Education in the context of an advertisement not prescribing a qualification equivalent to the B.Ed. as one of the qualifications, is valid? (G) Whether the appointment of two candidates - Dr. G.Janaki Ramaiah, the 8th respondent and Dr. Bupathi Naidu (R-14) to the solitary notified post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics/Social Science, is valid? (H) Whether the appointment of the 15th respondent to the post of Plant Bio- technologist without notification of the post is valid? ISSUE (A) :- 25. (G) Whether the appointment of two candidates - Dr. G.Janaki Ramaiah, the 8th respondent and Dr. Bupathi Naidu (R-14) to the solitary notified post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics/Social Science, is valid? (H) Whether the appointment of the 15th respondent to the post of Plant Bio- technologist without notification of the post is valid? ISSUE (A) :- 25. Though the petitioner has an adversarial interest presented for adjudication [regarding the failure of the R1-University in sending him a call- letter for the post of Project Leader in the ED Cell of the University College of Engineering, on the ground that he did not have a PhD in Sociology], he challenges the appointments of respondents 4 to 15 to the several posts in other departments as well, which had been advertised by the notification dated 20.11.1996. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent-University, a State instrumentality, committed gross illegalities in the process of selection and appointment. He pleads a public interest nexus for challenging these appointments. 26. In Dr. Meera Massey v Dr. S.R.Mehrotra (2) a Professor in the Himachal Pradesh University challenged the appointment of lecturers as being in transgression of the Ordinances of the University and the resolutions of the Executive Council. The High Court quashed the appointments. Before the Supreme Court, the selectees contended that Dr. Mehrotra had no locus standi. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that the petitioner was concerned with the anomaly and illegality in the procedure adopted by the University in making selections and regularizing various posts in contravention of the Acts, Statutes and Ordinances. The petitioner was fully aware of that was happening and had adequate grip on all the material facts. He was genuinely concerned and had no personal animosity against any one. He was the professor of History in the same University and did not litigate for any personal action. He litigated neither for publicity nor on account of political motivation. He had locus, held the Supreme Court. 27. In his reply affidavit dated 28.2.1998, responding to the 1st respondent's counter averments with regard to the petitioner's locus standi, the petitioner pleaded that though he was issued a call-letter to attend the interview for the post of Senior Research Assistant in the EDC, he consciously did not attend the interview. He had locus, held the Supreme Court. 27. In his reply affidavit dated 28.2.1998, responding to the 1st respondent's counter averments with regard to the petitioner's locus standi, the petitioner pleaded that though he was issued a call-letter to attend the interview for the post of Senior Research Assistant in the EDC, he consciously did not attend the interview. In the reply the petitioner reiterates that he does not seek any personal benefit but is litigating only to bring to light the gross illegalities and arbitrariness of the University. He reiterates that he is not seeking appointment to any of the posts advertised in the notification. He has also pleaded that immediately after issuance of the first notification he met the Registrar of the University and remonstrated with him about the illegalities in the notification. The Registrar admitted the lapses and promised to issue a fresh notification. However he issued the second notification dated 22.2.1997 containing similar illegalities as the first. Immediately thereafter the Post- Doctoral Researchers Association submitted a representation dated 27.2.1997 to the Registrar. On the Registrar expressing his inability, the Association sought an interview with the Vice Chancellor. No interview was granted and the University failed to take any action or even consider the representation of the said Association. Interviews were not conducted by then. Shortly thereafter the University conducted interviews in post haste and under police bandobast. 28. The additional counter filed by the 1st respondent on 26.6.1998, which responded to some of the allegations in the reply affidavit, is however silent on the above averments by the petitioner except a bland denial in general. 29. It is therefore legitimate to conclude that the petitioner is pursuing not a personal, motivated nor a publicity interest centered agenda in this writ petition, but is motivated by genuine public concern of bringing to light alleged gross illegalities and violations of public and administrative law principles as well as subversion of the legitimate, constitutionally protected concerns of persons belonging to SC, ST and BCs. 30. The petitioner herein is not a mere busy body. He has a Masters Degree in Sociology and a doctorate in Social Anthropology. He is an UGC recognized Research Associate, selected pursuant to a National level selection. He has put in 8 years of post-doctoral research experience in the department of Anthropology in 1st respondent-University College of Arts and Science. 30. The petitioner herein is not a mere busy body. He has a Masters Degree in Sociology and a doctorate in Social Anthropology. He is an UGC recognized Research Associate, selected pursuant to a National level selection. He has put in 8 years of post-doctoral research experience in the department of Anthropology in 1st respondent-University College of Arts and Science. He also applied for the post of Project Leader and Senior Research Assistant in EDC, pursuant to the impugned recruitment notification. In the circumstances and in the context of the serious allegations of violation of fundamental administrative norms, leveled against the impugned recruitment by the University, this court is not inclined to reject this writ petition on the jejune ground of locus. A somewhat similar challenge to locus is also seen to have been rejected by a Full Bench of this court in P.V.S.V.Prasada Rao and Ors v Andhra University and Ors (3). The ratio and observations therein are applicable proprio vigore to the case on hand. Issue (A) is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioner and this conclusion is applicable to all challenges to the petitioner's locus standi. ISSUE (B) : 31. Indisputably the impugned advertisement dated 20.11.1996 did not specify reservations for the posts in the Bio-Technology department or the Entrepreneurship Development Cell. On this aspect, the case of the University is that Bio-technology department is temporarily created by a resolution of the Executive Council; the posts are not those sanctioned or funded by the State; the salaries are met from self-generated funds of the University; the service in these posts is not counted towards University service, and since the posts are neither permanent nor budgeted teaching posts and are also temporary, neither reservation nor the roster is applicable. Responding to the allegation that University failed to confirm to the law declared by a Division Bench in Dr. N.Chandrayudu's case (1supra) and the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.Nos. 420 and 456 dated 18.11.1995 and 20.12.1995 respectively, the University pleads that while the Division Bench judgment was under consideration by a Full Bench, the orders of the State Government were followed wherever applicable. 32. N.Chandrayudu's case (1supra) and the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.Nos. 420 and 456 dated 18.11.1995 and 20.12.1995 respectively, the University pleads that while the Division Bench judgment was under consideration by a Full Bench, the orders of the State Government were followed wherever applicable. 32. The substantive defence of the University is therefore that the policy of reservation and the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.Nos.420 and 456 are applicable only to regular/permanent posts sanctioned and funded by the State Government and are inapplicable to posts which are funded from the University's own resources and which are not permanent in character. 33. This stance of the University is wholly misconceived and extravagant. The 1st respondent-University is an instrumentality of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Its genesis is qua an Act of the State Legislature and its functions are now controlled by another Act of the State Legislature viz., the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act 1991 (the 1991 Act). The 1st respondent is thus required to confirm to the directives of the State in the matter of provision of reservations, referable to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It is now well settled that the State may make provision for reservations even by an Executive Order. The State has not only made such a provision but has also issued elaborate guidelines for the substantive and procedural implementation of reservations in G.O.Ms Nos. 420 and 456, pursuant to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Dr. N.Chandrayudu (1 supra). In fact the 1st respondent University is a party to the judgment in Dr. N.Chandrayudu (1 supra). The 1st respondent does not plead and cannot lawfully contend either, that it is immune to the directives of the State in the matter of reservations. The orders in G.O.Ms.Nos. 420 and 456 are the operative law, which obligate the University to provide reservations. The law (in G.O.Ms.Nos.420 and 456) has taken a side in favour of the constitutionally protected classes of citizens - the S.Cs/S.Ts/B.Cs. The University must confirm to this affirmative action mandate of the State. 34. By a regressive and extravagant misconception, the University has clearly subverted the affirmative action agenda of the State. The law (in G.O.Ms.Nos.420 and 456) has taken a side in favour of the constitutionally protected classes of citizens - the S.Cs/S.Ts/B.Cs. The University must confirm to this affirmative action mandate of the State. 34. By a regressive and extravagant misconception, the University has clearly subverted the affirmative action agenda of the State. Why temporary posts (now continued indefinitely for over a decade) are outside the purview of the reservations matrix and why the University is required to provide reservations only for posts sanctioned and funded by the State Government, is not explained. The plea of the University that the posts, the expenditure for which is met out of self-generated funds are outside the pale of reservation, is a plea that is as extravagant as is misconceived. The 1st respondent has not established before this Court that it generates funds otherwise than as a University. Whatever be the source of funds, the University is an instrumentality of the State. These posts and the appointments to these posts have continued un-interrupted for over a decade now. The label "temporary" is therefore seen to be a camouflage arbitrarily adopted to deprive the constitutionally protected classes of citizens, of the State mandated programme of affirmative action. 35. In the considered view of this Court, any post to which generically the programme of affirmative action by the State ( by way of reservations) is applicable must be filled up duly providing for reservations as mandated by the State. The 1st respondent has failed to demonstrate that it could have a functional agenda insulated from the provisions of the 1991 Act. 36. By the order dated 22.11.2007 this court directed the University to file an affidavit inter alia on query (G) as to why the impugned notification dated 20.11.1996 provided reservation for the posts in the Directorate of Distance Education and not for the posts advertised in the Department of Bio-Technology and the EDC. In its counter affidavit dated 25.01.2008 the 1st respondent has responded. It is admitted by the University that all the posts advertised by the impugned notification dated 20.11.1996 are specified to be purely temporary and are funded from self-generated funds, not to be treated as University service. In its counter affidavit dated 25.01.2008 the 1st respondent has responded. It is admitted by the University that all the posts advertised by the impugned notification dated 20.11.1996 are specified to be purely temporary and are funded from self-generated funds, not to be treated as University service. The University however pleaded that reservations could not be followed as it was apprehended that all the candidates with the requisite qualifications with the specializations mentioned in the advertisement may not be available in the reserved categories. Hence it was treated as unique one in nature. Further, the two Lecturer posts in Bio-Technology are entirely with different specialization. This defence of the University is misconceived, extravagant and irresponsible. The basis on which the University concluded that reserved candidates with the requisite qualifications would not be available for the posts in the Bio-Technology Department and EDC is not clear and the University does not choose to explain. For the posts of Senior Project Leader, Project Leader and Senior Research Assistant in the EDC the impugned notification stipulates qualifications which are not seen to be unique or rare. For Senior Project Leader the qualification notified is inter alia a B.Tech. with M.B.A. with relevant experience; for the post of Project Leader the notified qualification is Ph.D. in Commerce/Economics/ Psychology/ Sociology or a Masters Degree in Management/Engineering; similarly for the post of Senior Research Assistant in the EDC the qualification notified is a Masters Degree in Commerce/Economics/ Psychology/ Sociology/ MBA with Ph.D. a desirable qualification. The defence as set out in the counter affidavit dated 25.01.2008 of the University for providing reservation in the Directorate of Distance Education while excluding reservation for the posts of Reader and Lecturer in the Department of Bio-Technology and for the several posts in the EDC, is thus not only misconceived but also wholly irrational and unfair. 37. The contention that the decision in Dr.N.Chandrayudu's case (1 supra) is subject to consideration by a Full Bench is a non-sequitor. The judgment in Dr.N.Chandrayudu's case (1 supra) was not suspended or stayed. In fact the Full Bench of this Court in P.V.S.V. Prasada Rao's case (3 supra) followed the decision in Dr.N.Chandrayudu's case (1 supra) (para 89) and held that the failure to indicate or specify the reservation of posts for SCs/STs/BCs, department/faculty/subject-wise in each group violates the principles of equity and of equal opportunities to the citizens. In fact the Full Bench of this Court in P.V.S.V. Prasada Rao's case (3 supra) followed the decision in Dr.N.Chandrayudu's case (1 supra) (para 89) and held that the failure to indicate or specify the reservation of posts for SCs/STs/BCs, department/faculty/subject-wise in each group violates the principles of equity and of equal opportunities to the citizens. The observations of the Full Bench in Paras.89 and 90 being apposite are extracted:- "89. Applying the principle as above and also the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in University of Chochin v Dr. N.Raman Nair (4 supra), Suresh Chandra Verma v Chancellor, Nalgpur University (3 supra) and State of U.P. v Dina Nath Shukla (6 supra) and also the decisions of this Court in Scholars and Teachers Action Committee v Andhra University (7 supra) and Dr. N.Chandrayudu v Sri Venkateswara University (1 supra), this Court is compelled to hold that the non-indication and non-mentioning of the reserved posts for SCs/STs/BCs, department/faculty subject-wise in each group would certainly violates the principles of equality and the principle of equal opportunity to the citizens. We also are compelled to hold that the determination of percentage of reservations by dividing University service into groups would not in any manner work out to the disadvantage of the reserved class and indeed it is to their benefit. The University service is only one service and there is no separate service for lecturers/Readers department-wise. When Rule 22 of the General Rules is applied by the University, taking each group i.e., arts, science, engineering, as a unit of appointment for the purpose of applying roster, the same does not in any manner violate the principle of equality or the statutory rules. Whenever a group is considered as a unit of reservation and roster points are earmarked by arranging in alphabetical order that would certainly mitigate against arbitrariness. However, such exercise should be undertaken at the prenotification stage so that all those involved in the decision making like members of the selection committee, members of Board of Management would be aware when they discharge their functions of filling up the posts. This would also ensure that all those persons who are qualified would know as to whether they could apply for the posts or not in case they are competing for reserved posts. This would ensure transparency and fairness in the selection procedure. This would also ensure that all those persons who are qualified would know as to whether they could apply for the posts or not in case they are competing for reserved posts. This would ensure transparency and fairness in the selection procedure. If the exercise of filling up the roster points in each group after the selections are over is followed the same would certainly results in arbitrariness in filling up roster points. 90. It is true that, as contended by the learned counsel for the University, when recruitment is to be made in a situation where the service consists of wide variety of sub-categories and there are candidates belonging to SCs/STc/BCs aspiring for posts in such sub-category, there would be necessarily limited number of roster points in every recruitment and the University has to evolve some method where all the candidates qualified in all sub-categories are given an opportunity to compete for the posts. To ensure this, there should be first indication of the posts and while indicating the posts at the stage of notification, one method which might ensure proper exercise would be to arrange the subjects/faculties/departments in each group alphabetically and fix roster points depending on number of posts in the recruitment. In this manner not only the roster with reference to group can be worked out with least arbitrariness but there will be more transparency and fairness. Indeed the learned Advocate General has brought to the notice of this court the orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No. 420 dated 18.11.1995 which was issued accepting the recommendations of the committee constituted by the Government pursuant to the judgment of this court in Dr. N.Chandrayudu vs Sri Venkateswara University (1 supra). In the Government Order, the Government accepted recommendations of the committee and issued the following instructions: (I) Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.995, Education, dated 16.12.1982 regarding the observance of rule of reservation group-wise shall be continued. But the vacancies shall be notified Department/Subjectwise as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court. (II) The Department/Subject within a group shall be arranged in alphabetical order for the purpose of roster points. (III) In filling up the backlog vacancies the distribution of these vacancies shall be done based on the principles that the unrepresented and under- represented subjects/departments having representation from SC/ST communities. However, in some of the Universities, there had been no recruitment in certain departments/subjects since 1982. (III) In filling up the backlog vacancies the distribution of these vacancies shall be done based on the principles that the unrepresented and under- represented subjects/departments having representation from SC/ST communities. However, in some of the Universities, there had been no recruitment in certain departments/subjects since 1982. Therefore, the question of treating them as totally un-represented for the purpose of distributing the backlog vacancies does not arise. Among equally un-represented departments/subjects, the distribution of backlog vacancies shall be on the basis of alphabetical arrangement of departments/subjects; (IV) For filling up of the future vacancies, or the other backlog vacancies the procedure shown at (I) and (II) shall only be adopted; (V) The following departments/subjects have been identified as unique departments/subjects: 1. Arabic, 2. Islamic, 3. Persian and 4. Urdu. These departments/subjects in view of uniqueness may be deleted from the roster points. Recruitment to these departments/subjects may be known open to all qualified candidates." 38. Even in respect of the three posts of Assistant Directors-cum-Lecturers ( to handle B.Ed Course) in the School of Distance Education, one post is specified in the advertisement as reserved for Scheduled Caste. The three posts are in respect of distinct specializations namely Biological Sciences; Mathematics/Social Sciences; and English Methods. The post in which specialization is reserved for Schedule Caste Candidates, the advertisement fails to specify. It is clear that the qualifications for the three posts are different and distinct. The ritualistic, cosmetic and illusory reservation provided for the three posts of Assistant Directors-cum-Lecturers is therefore in violation and subversion of the orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.420 and 456 as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr.N.Chandrayudu's case (1 supra), as affirmed by the Full Bench in P.V.S.V.Prasada Rao (3 supra). 39. The law on this aspect is too well established. The 1st respondent consciously and arbitrarily chose to ignore and subvert the clear State mandated policy on reservations. The 1st respondent-University may not disregard the affirmative action mandate of the State in the matter of providing reservation for SC/ST/B.C, on the ground that the posts are not sanctioned or funded by the State out of the block grant. The capacity of the University to generate funds or to receive donations is on account of its statutory status and such facilitation by the legislative provision under which the University is regulated. It cannot deny its parentage. The capacity of the University to generate funds or to receive donations is on account of its statutory status and such facilitation by the legislative provision under which the University is regulated. It cannot deny its parentage. It may not therefore deny the consequences of the legitimate control by the State in the matter of the mandated reservation policy. 40. On the aforesaid analysis on issue (B) this court holds that the advertisement dated.20-11-196 and the appointments made pursuant thereto are invalid for failing to confirm to the reservation policy mandate of the State qua G.O.Ms.Nos.420 and 456. Issue (C): 41. The petitioner assails the constitution and composition of the screening committee, which vetted the applications received for the several posts. The challenge is on the ground that in the several screening committees constituted there were no relevant subject experts and this has resulted in erratic, discriminatory and arbitrary vetting of applications vis--vis the qualifications notified for the posts. The petitioner alleges while that his qualification of Ph.D in Socio-Anthropology was not considered equivalent to a Doctorate in Sociology, in the case of the 7th respondent who was favoured with appointment as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer (English methods) though he did not have B.Ed qualifications which was the notified qualification, he was called for interview and selected on the premise that a post-graduate diploma in Teaching English from CIEFL was equal to a B.Ed. qualification. Further the 5th respondent with M.Sc in Molecular Physiology was considered qualified for appointment as a Lecturer in Biotechnology though the qualification notified was a post graduation in Molecular Biology. 42. In response, the University states that it is entitled to constitute screening committees to verify the eligibility of various candidates who had applied for the several advertised posts. It has also adopted the position that to verify the eligibility of the applicants in accordance with the notification no special expert need be associated with the screening committees. 43. While the University is entitled to constitute committees including screening committees to verify the validity and regularity of applications, since call letters for interviews were sent on the basis of the assessment by the screening committees (of the validity of the applications, including the qualifications and eligibility of the applicants), in the considered view of this Court the relevant subject experts ought to have been associated in the several screening committees. The erratic trajectory that is apparent could then have been avoided. The University fails to explain why a post-graduate diploma in teaching English from the CIEFL is equivalent to a B.Ed qualification. The 7th respondent was selected and appointed as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in English methods in the School of Distance Education though he did not have the notified B.Ed qualification. The 1st respondent appears to have solicited a certificate from the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education for determining such equivalence. By what authority in law is the Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education competent or authorized to determine equivalence, whether Andhra Pradesh State Council is so authorized by any law or instrument having the force of law to determine equivalence, whether such equivalence could have been considered when the advertisement does not speak of equivalent qualifications but specifies only M.Ed/B.Ed, the University does not answer. 44. In the case of the 5th respondent, a Post-graduate in Molecular Physiology was considered equivalent to a P.G in Molecular Biology and he was appointed as a Lecturer in Bio-technology. Coming to the petitioner, a Ph.D in Socio Anthropology after a Masters in Sociology, he was not considered to have a doctoral qualification in Sociology. Different screening committees with no experts have generated such erratic evaluation. 45. On the above analysis this Court holds that while the 1st respondent was acting within its discretion in having screening committees to vet and process the several applications received pursuant to the impugned recruitment advertisement, it acted irrationally in constituting screening committees without association of subject experts. This failure has resulted in grossly irregular, erratic and discriminatory evaluation and assessment of qualifications and has thereby impacted the right of the candidates to have an equal opportunity to compete for appointment to public posts, on the basis of qualifications. This issue is accordingly answered. Issues D & F : 46. The petitioner with a Masters in Sociology, a Doctorate in Social Anthropology and 8 years of post-doctoral research experience in the Anthropology department in the 1st respondent's University college of Arts and Science applied for the post of Project Leader and Senior Research Assistant in the EDC in the 1st respondent-University College of Engineering but was denied a call-letter for the post of Project Leader. One post of Project Leader in EDC was advertised by the impugned advertisement dated 20.11.1996. The qualifications prescribed for this post are a Ph.D. in Commerce/Economics/Psychology/Sociology or a Masters Degree in Management/Engineering. The petitioner claims that his Doctorate qualification in Social Anthropology constitutes a Ph.D. in Sociology, one of the prescribed qualifications. The 12th respondent was appointed as a Project Leader in EDC on 06.03.1997. 47. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent pleads the petitioner was not called for interview (for the post of Project Leader in EDC) as he did not have a Ph.D. in any of the specified disciplines viz., Sociology. The 12th respondent in his counter takes the plea that though he was initially appointed as a Project Leader in EDC, he was later posted as an Assistant Professor to teach MBA in an existing vacancy after a due clearance by the State Government and ratification by the Executive Council. The 12th respondent further contends that as the petitioner had applied but did not attend the interview, he is not entitled to challenge the 12th respondent's appointment. This defence of the 12th respondent is incomprehensible. It is the specific case of the petitioner and impliedly admitted by the 1st respondent University that no call letter was sent for the post of Project Leader in EDC, to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not attend the interview. 48. The petitioner asserts that the recruitment policy of the University on the aspect of assessment and screening of the qualifications prescribed and considered for the various posts advertised by the notification dated 12.09.1996 is discriminatory, irrational, arbitrary and perverse. The petitioner urges that the absence of a subject expert in Sociology in the Screening Committee (which vetted the application for the post of Project Leader, EDC), caused the fundamental error which deprived him of equal opportunity by the 1st respondent, of a call letter for the post of Project Leader, EDC. In support of the challenge on the ground of irrationality and arbitrariness the petitioner cites the instance of the 7th respondent's appointment as an Assistant Director-cum- Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education. The other essential qualifications [apart from MA/MSc (with not less than 55% of marks or equal grade)] stipulated for the post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer is M.Ed./B.Ed.; M.Phil/Ph.D. in the basic P.G. Degree. The other essential qualifications [apart from MA/MSc (with not less than 55% of marks or equal grade)] stipulated for the post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer is M.Ed./B.Ed.; M.Phil/Ph.D. in the basic P.G. Degree. The petitioner's contention is that the 7th respondent did not possess the essential qualification of B.Ed. His application was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee but the 1st respondent- University's officials thereafter solicited a certification from the Chairman of the A.P. State Council for Higher Education ('the Chairman') and obtained an opinion from that authority that a certificate in teaching English language, issued by the CIEFL, Hyderabad to the 7th respondent was equivalent to B.Ed. qualification. The 7th respondent was ineligible as opined by the Scrutiny Committee. Why the 1st respondent-University solicited an opinion as to equivalence from the Chairman particularly when there were clearly qualified and eligible applicants to the post available and why the petitioner's case was not similarly treated for soliciting an opinion regarding equivalence of Ph.D in Social Anthropology with Ph.D. in Sociology from an academic in the field of Sociology, the University does not answer. The University maintains a studied silence on this aspect. The University's response on the petitioner's contention in this behalf [regarding 7th respondent's appointment after contriving an opinion from the Chairman] is that the petitioner being a third party to the post (of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer) cannot challenge the notification and appointment of 7th respondent. The locus standi issue is already decided in favour of the petitioner under issue-A, supra. 49. As would be considered further infra, the conduct of the 1st respondent- University in the matter of screening, assessment of the qualifications of the applicants, sending of call letters, the process of recruitment and appointment is singular and almost unparalleled in public institutions. The recruitment process followed would perhaps embarrass even private institutions unregulated by the public law standards. In defense of the 7th respondent's consideration and appointment, the University pleads that the PG Diploma in Teaching English (obtained by the 7th respondent from CIEFL), is a qualification equivalent to B.Ed. if not higher. The logical or academic basis for this ipse dixit of the University is neither pleaded nor established. The University further pleads that on a clarification sought by the University, the Chairman had clarified that the Diploma of the 7th respondent is equivalent to B.Ed. Degree. if not higher. The logical or academic basis for this ipse dixit of the University is neither pleaded nor established. The University further pleads that on a clarification sought by the University, the Chairman had clarified that the Diploma of the 7th respondent is equivalent to B.Ed. Degree. The University again maintains a pregnant silence why it had to solicit an opinion from the Chairman regarding the 7th respondent's qualification. 50. On 22.11.2007 during the course of hearing this court directed the 1st respondent-University to inter alia produce the records relating to the selection of the 7th respondent as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer (English Methods) in the School of Distance Education; the correspondence with the Chairman relating to the issuance of a certificate that the PG Diploma in Teaching English from the CIEFL to the 7th respondent is equivalent to B.Ed., and to file an affidavit spelling out the basis, justification and authority for calling for an equivalence certificate from the Chairman and to spell out the authority of the AP State Council for Higher Education (APSCHE) to declare such equivalence. 51. Pursuant to the above direction, the 1st respondent filed an affidavit dated 25.01.2008 stating that the record relating to selection of the 7th respondent, the correspondence between the University and the Chairman, APSCHE, relating to the certificate issued regarding equivalence, is not available. The affidavit is also silent as to the authority of the APSCHE to declare the equivalence of qualifications. The writ petition was filed on 31.03.2997. The recruitment notification is dated 20.11.1996 and it stipulated that the last date for receipt of applications is 31.12.1996. The interviews were completed by 04.03.1997 and the petitioner's allegation that the Executive Council of the University met at Hyderabad on 05.03.1997 to ratify the selection has not been denied. The writ petition was admitted on 03.04.1997 and rule nisi issued. In the circumstances (that the University successfully misplaced/lost the relevant records relating to the validity of the impugned selection of the 7th respondent), the averment on oath (counter affidavit dated 25.01.2008) of the 1st respondent must be considered as illustrative of the extravagant and suspicious conduct of responsible officers in the University. In the circumstances (that the University successfully misplaced/lost the relevant records relating to the validity of the impugned selection of the 7th respondent), the averment on oath (counter affidavit dated 25.01.2008) of the 1st respondent must be considered as illustrative of the extravagant and suspicious conduct of responsible officers in the University. In the circumstances the inference is legitimately compelling that if the record were produced it would establish the petitioner's allegation that the 1st respondent University without justification or lawful authority had solicited and contrived an equivalence certificate from the Chairman with a view to justify the appointment of the 7th respondent and had also denied equal treatment to the petitioner by consulting an expert in Sociology to ascertain whether the petitioner's qualification of PH.D. in Social Anthropology is equivalent to Ph.D. in Sociology. In recording this conclusion on issue-D, this court is following the well settled principle that judicial review is primarily directed against the decision making process rather than the decision paper. 52. Issue-D is as regards validity of the 7th respondent Dr. V.Ravi Naidu's appointment as an Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education. The challenge is on the ground that the 7th respondent is not a B.Ed., the specified qualification as per the recruitment notification dated 20.11.1996. The recruitment notification does not specify an equivalent qualification to B.Ed. as a relevant qualification. Admittedly the 7th respondent does not have the B.Ed. qualification. The 1st respondent-University contrived an opinion from the Chairman, APSCHE as to whether the 7th respondent's qualification (of a P.G. Diploma in Teaching English obtained from the CIEFL, Hyderabad), is equivalent to B.Ed. In view of the specification in the recruitment notification that B.Ed. is the requisite qualification (apart from M.Ed. which is not relevant for the analysis) (and no equivalent qualification specified), the 1st respondent-University should have confined qualified applicants to this post to those who have the notified qualification. The University is prohibited from considering candidates who did not have the specified qualification. 53. Since the notification did not specify a qualification equivalent to B.Ed. to be a requisite qualification, the University was bound to confine the issue of call letters, consideration, selection and appointment only to those candidates who possess B.Ed. qualification. The University is prohibited from considering candidates who did not have the specified qualification. 53. Since the notification did not specify a qualification equivalent to B.Ed. to be a requisite qualification, the University was bound to confine the issue of call letters, consideration, selection and appointment only to those candidates who possess B.Ed. qualification. As already analysed supra despite a specific query from this court the University has failed to furnish the record disclosing the compulsions, reasons and basis for soliciting an opinion from the Chairman or any authority for considering such opinion, exclusively for the 7th respondent. 54. For the above reasons, this court holds that the 1st respondent-University acted arbitrarily, without the authority of law and in transgression of the recruitment notification in issuing a call letter, considering, selecting and appointing the 7th respondent as an Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education. Having prescribed a specific qualification without enumeration of an equivalent qualification, the University is disentitled to consider and appoint the 7th respondent. The appointment of the 7th respondent as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in the Directorate of Distance Education is invalid and unsustainable. Issue-F is answered accordingly. Issue (E): 55. The petitioner urges that the 10th respondent was selected and appointed to the post of Coordinating Officer, Directorate of Distance Education despite being over-aged. In defence to this allegation a counter affidavit of the 1st respondent states that the post of Coordinating Officer is a temporary and a non-teaching post created by the Executive Council, the expenditure for which is being met from self-generating funds; that one B.Haribabu had challenged the appointment of the 10th respondent as a Coordinating Officer while seeking his own appointment to that post but did not challenge the notification; and that the petitioner herein not being an applicant to the post cannot challenge either the notification or the appointment (of R-10 as Coordinating Officer). It is also the defence of the 1st respondent that the University is competent to relax the age requirement. 56. The 10th respondent in his counter affidavit dated 18.02.2007 contends that the petitioner not being an applicant to the post of Coordinating Officer has no locus standi either to challenge the notification or this respondent's appointment as a Coordinating Officer. It is also the defence of the 1st respondent that the University is competent to relax the age requirement. 56. The 10th respondent in his counter affidavit dated 18.02.2007 contends that the petitioner not being an applicant to the post of Coordinating Officer has no locus standi either to challenge the notification or this respondent's appointment as a Coordinating Officer. This respondent further contends that he was in service of the 1st respondent-University in various capacities since 1986 - as a Field Assistant in the Department of Zoology from 1986 to 1989 and as a consolidated Assistant in the Development Project of the University from 1989 to 1992, on temporary basis. His services were dispensed with in 1992 but he was reappointed in 1994. From 1994 to 1997 he served as a Junior Computer Operator on a consolidated pay in the Directorate of Distance Education, of the 1st respondent University. He applied pursuant to the advertisement. One Haribabu filed W.P.No. 4760/97 questioning his selection and appointment as a Coordinating Officer on several grounds including that over-age. The writ petition was however dismissed as withdrawn on 23.10.2007. The 10th respondent further contends that it is a normal practice in the 1st respondent-University to relax age to the extent of service put in by an in-service candidate (either temporary or otherwise) while computing the age. Since he had put in 10 years of temporary service in the University the 1st respondent treated his application as valid, he was called for interview and selected. 57. By the order dated 22.11.2007, this court called upon the 1st respondent- University inter alia directed the 1st respondent to explain by affidavit the power of the University or the Selection Committee to relax the age restriction in so far as the appointment of the 10th respondent for the post of Coordinating Officer. In its counter affidavit dated 28.01.2008 the 1st respondent pleads that the applications for the post of Coordinating Officer were scrutinized by the Director, School of Distance Education, who identified two candidates eligible for sending call letters viz., Mr. K. Mani and Mr. K.Poornachandra Rao (R-10). The University admits that the recruitment notification clearly specified that an applicant to the post of Coordinating Officer should not be over the age of above 34 years, with general relaxation available of 5 years for SC/ST/BC categories. K. Mani and Mr. K.Poornachandra Rao (R-10). The University admits that the recruitment notification clearly specified that an applicant to the post of Coordinating Officer should not be over the age of above 34 years, with general relaxation available of 5 years for SC/ST/BC categories. The University further states that as per the existing procedure where internal candidates applied and are selected for any post the age prescription is not taken into account. Following this practice the 10th respondent was called for interview as an internal candidate who was working as Junior Computer Operator since 11.1.1995 and on an over all view of the matter the University selected and appointed the 10th respondent even though he was over-aged i.e., on consideration of his past ad hoc temporary service in various categories in the University. 58. On an analysis of the rival pleadings this court holds that consideration and appointment of 10th respondent as a Coordinating Officer in the School of Distance Education is unsustainable. The impugned recruitment notification dated 20.11.1996 clearly stipulates that an applicant for this post should not be above the age of 34 years. It is now the admitted case that the 10th respondent is above the age of 34 years and therefore ineligible for consideration, selection and appointment. The notification does not enable relaxation of age for in-service candidates to the extent of the service they had put in in the University. Even according to the 10th respondent he never served on a regular basis in any post in the University. According to the 10th respondent he worked on a temporary/ad hoc basis in the University during 1986 till the date of the notification (with a break even in temporary/ ad hoc service during 1992 to 1994), in different capacities as a Field Assistant, Assistant, Junior Computer Operator. The 10th respondent cannot therefore be considered an in-service candidate. Further the 1st respondent University fails to show any authority or a rule or Statute enabling grant of relaxation for in- service candidates. The post is not reserved for in-service candidates. Except relaxation of 5 years to SC/ST/BC candidates, the recruitment notification does not spell out any power of relaxation of age qualification for in-service candidates. 59. In the circumstances the University cannot fairly or lawfully contend that it had power to relax the age specification in so far as the 10th respondent is concerned. 60. Except relaxation of 5 years to SC/ST/BC candidates, the recruitment notification does not spell out any power of relaxation of age qualification for in-service candidates. 59. In the circumstances the University cannot fairly or lawfully contend that it had power to relax the age specification in so far as the 10th respondent is concerned. 60. Having regard to the clear specification in the recruitment notification the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose could not have sent a call letter to the 10th respondent without a formal decision recorded by the University to relax the age restriction for the 10th respondent. The 1st respondent does not explain how a call letter was sent to the 10th respondent and whether the screening committee itself had relaxed the age qualification. The 1st respondent has adopted a wholly irrational and discriminatory procedure in calling the 10th respondent for interview and selecting and appointing him as Coordinating Officer in the School of Distance Education though over-aged and therefore ineligible in terms of the age prescription in the recruitment notification dated 20.11.1996. 61. The 1st respondent is an instrumentality of the State. It has issued the recruitment notification. The notification specifically stipulates that an application to the post of Coordinating Officer should not be above the age of 34 years. It is not the case of the University that this age prescription is contrary to a Statute or a Rule and is therefore invalid. The recruitment notification also specifies that the mode of recruitment to the post is by direct recruitment. There is no preference or relaxation of age for in-service candidates. The 10th respondent was never regularly and permanently appointed in any post in the University and cannot be considered an in-service candidate. As an instrumentality of the State and having invited applications by published notification, the 1st respondent is bound by the terms of the notification and cannot relax or alter the qualifications including the age qualification on the basis of a plea that there was a practice in vogue. Any such practice, in the absence of any lawful authority is a perverse practice that is prohibited to a Public Authority. 62. As is apparent from the material papers filed by the University on 28.01.2008 the order of appointment of the 10th respondent is issued under the letter head of the University and by the authority of the Vice Chancellor of the University. 62. As is apparent from the material papers filed by the University on 28.01.2008 the order of appointment of the 10th respondent is issued under the letter head of the University and by the authority of the Vice Chancellor of the University. It is not open to the University or the Vice Chancellor to adopt private standards while in public office, particularly in regard to a post regulated and administered by the University, irrespective of the source of funding of the post. In its counter affidavit the 1st respondent puts forth an extraordinary plea in defence of the appointment of the 10th respondent (despite he being over-aged) that the post is temporary, a non-teaching post and the expenditure is met from self-generated funds. Even if the University generates funds on its own and on the basis of institutional exersions, these cannot be equated to a private fund- raising norm. Irrespective of how the University generates the funds, the expenditure must meet public law standards. Having professed in the recruitment notification the standard of age for a post administered by the University, the University is bound and cannot recant from the professed standard on extravagant pleas that it had in the past contrived an irrational practice of relaxation. 63. Frankfurter, J enunciated this principle in Viteralli vs Seaton (4) : "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standard by which it profess its action to the judged ... " The principle enunciated is that where the standard professed by the executive agency is under a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirement that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. "He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword" held Justice Frankfurter. This principle was accepted and internalized into our body of administrative law, in A.S. Ahluwalia vs Punjab (5); Sukhdev Singh vs Bhagatram (6); and Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs Internatinal Air Port Authority of India and Ors (7) and has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions too. 64. On application of the above binding principle of administrative law, this court holds that the selection and appointment of the 10th respondent for the post of Coordinating Officer in the School of Distance Education in the 1st respondent-University, though he was over-aged and therefore ineligible qua the age prescription specified by the recruitment notification dated 20.11.1996, is invalid and unsustainable. Issue-E is answered accordingly. Issue-E is answered accordingly. Issue (G) : 65. The petitioner impeaches the conduct of the 1st respondent-University in making appointments in excess of the notified posts. In the recruitment notification dated 20.11.1996 only one post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer to handle B.Ed. Courses is notified for the disciplines Mathematics/Social Sciences. The petitioner asserts that the 8th respondent was first appointed as an Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Social Sciences and thereafter the 14th respondent was appointed as an Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics. This assertion is not denied. 66. In the initial counter affidavit dated 30.06.1997 the 1st respondent- University merely states that the 14th respondent's qualification of a PG in Statistics is a qualification within Mathematical Sciences; this was the view of the Dean, Faculty of Sciences, an expert and therefore the 14th respondent is eligible to apply for the post. In the additional counter affidavit dated 26.06.1998 the 1st respondent presents another defence: The Directorate of Distance Education is not a Department of the University; the Executive Council of the University at its meeting held on 5.3.1997 (subsequent to the recruitment notification dt 20.11.1996) resolved to accept the recommendation of the Finance Committee and resolved to create an additional post of Assistant Director-cum- Lecturer in addition to the three existing posts earlier created on 5.7.1996. The Selection Committee at the meeting held on 2.3.1997 placed the name of the 14th respondent at Sl.No.1 in the panel for the post of Assistant Director-cum- Lecturer for Mathematics/Social Sciences; thus the 14th respondent was appointed in a OC vacancy in the additional post created by the Executive Council; the appointment is purely temporary and terminable at any time and the salary is to be met from self-generated funds; and the service in this post could also not be counted towards University service. 67. The 14th respondent in his counter affidavit dated 18.2.2007 contends that since the petitioner is not an applicant to the post of Assistant Director-cum- Lecturer in the discipline of Mathematics/Social Sciences in the Directorate of Distance Education, he has no locus standi to question the appointment. The 14th respondent pleads that after appointment as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer on 27.3.1997 to teach Mathematical methods for B.Ed. in the Directorate of Distance Education, he was later awarded senior scale on 27.3.2001 and is currently working as an Associate Professor since 27.3.2001. The 14th respondent pleads that after appointment as Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer on 27.3.1997 to teach Mathematical methods for B.Ed. in the Directorate of Distance Education, he was later awarded senior scale on 27.3.2001 and is currently working as an Associate Professor since 27.3.2001. Denying the allegation that his appointment is vitiated on account of extraneous considerations, it is pleaded that he was appointed pursuant to the creation of an additional post by the resolution of the Executive Council. 68. In Hoshiar Singh vs State of Punjab (8) the Supreme Court considered the issue as to the validity of appointments in excess of the notified posts. Upholding the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which quashed the excess selections to the post of Inspector of Police, the Supreme Court observed that since the requisition was for 8 posts the Selection Board was required to send its recommendations for 8 posts only, the Board on its own could not recommend the names of 19 persons for appointment viz., for a larger number than those requisitioned. The Apex Court held that the appointment to the additional posts on the basis of such selection and recommendation would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment to the post on the last date of submission of applications specified in the advertisement and who would become eligible for appointment thereafter, an opportunity of being considered for appointment to the additional posts, since if these had been advertised subsequently those who became eligible subsequently would have been entitled to apply. 69. The principle that recruitment and appointment in excess of the number of posts advertised would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been reiterated and uniformly applied in - Ashok Kumar vs Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board (9); Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State of Haryana (10); A.V.Bhogeswarudu vs A.P.P.Supreme Court. (11); State of Bihar vs Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union (12); Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association vs State of Gujarat (13); State of Bihar vs Madan Mohan Singh (14); Madanlal vs State of J&K (15) and Prem Singh vs Haryana State Electricity Board (16). 70. (11); State of Bihar vs Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union (12); Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association vs State of Gujarat (13); State of Bihar vs Madan Mohan Singh (14); Madanlal vs State of J&K (15) and Prem Singh vs Haryana State Electricity Board (16). 70. Since the Executive Council of the University had resolved on 5.3.1997 to create an additional post of Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer in Mathematics/Social Sciences, candidates who applied pursuant to the earlier recruitment notification dated 20.11.1996 (with a last date for submission of applications as 30.12.1996), could not have been considered. Candidates qualified subsequent to the notification and those qualified as on the date a fresh notification is issued for this additional post would be eligible but were deprived of equal opportunity to public employment guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16, by the conduct of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent University clearly violated the well established principle of fairness, in the appointment of 14th respondent. The appointment of 14th respondent as Assistant Director- cum-Lecturer in Mathematics/Social Sciences in the School of Distance Education is therefore invalid and unsustainable. 71. The other defences of the University that the post is temporary, terminable at any time and the salary payable from the self-generated funds are defences are extravagant and are accordingly rejected. 72. Issue-G is answered accordingly. Issue (H): 73. The petitioner alleges that without notification of the post of Plant Bio- Technologist the 15th respondent was illegally appointed to the said post. In its additional counter dated 26.6.198 the University has responded to this allegation. The University contends that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the 15th respondent's appointment as Plant Bio-Technologist since he was not an applicant to this post. On facts the University states that the Head of the Bio-Technology Department by a letter dated 24.02.1997 had requested for creating a post of Plant Bio- Technologist to meet the workload. On 5.3.1997 the Executive Council of the University resolved to create the said post on a consolidated salary basis, the expenditure to be met from the funds received through industrial sponsorship. The Vice Chancellor was authorized by the Executive Council to fill up the post. On 5.3.1997 the Executive Council of the University resolved to create the said post on a consolidated salary basis, the expenditure to be met from the funds received through industrial sponsorship. The Vice Chancellor was authorized by the Executive Council to fill up the post. The Executive Council at a later meeting dated 24.3.1997 authorised the Vice Chancellor to take necessary steps for filling up the post of Plant Bio-Technologist from the panel comprising Lecturers of Bio Technology recommended by the Selection Committee at its meeting dated 1.3.1997. The post of Plant Bio-Technologist is lower to the post of Lecturer. The Selection Committee had included the 15th respondent in the panel for the post of Lecturer. In the circumstances pursuant to the order dated 25.3.1997, the 15th respondent was appointed as a Plant Bio-Technologist on a temporary tenure terminable at any time. As the post is temporary and the candidate was already selected and recommended by the Selection Committee though for a different post, no advertisement is required. To query- (h) posed by this court on 22.11.2007 (whether the appointments continued from 1997 till date), in the counter affidavit dated 25.01.2008 the 1st respondent states that all the respondents 4 to 15 are being continued uninterrupted since 1997 and the teachers of Bio-Technology are paid salary from out of the sponsorship fee collected from the students without any financial commitment on the part of the University or Government. 74. The 15th respondent as is apparent from the averments in the counter affidavit has been continued uninterrupted since March 1997. His appointment as already noticed is even without an advertisement. It is not the case of the University that though no public notification is issued some manner of information is published specifying the vacant post, the qualifications and inviting applications from qualified candidates. This appointment by the University of the 15th respondent is thus to a post not notified. The label 'temporary' is (in the context of the fact that the 15th respondent has been continued uninterrupted for over 11 years now) a mere camouflage. If the 15th respondent had been initially appointed on a temporary basis to the post of Plant Bio-Technologist, the University should have issued an advertisement at least shortly after the exigent ad hoc appointment of the 15th respondent. If the 15th respondent had been initially appointed on a temporary basis to the post of Plant Bio-Technologist, the University should have issued an advertisement at least shortly after the exigent ad hoc appointment of the 15th respondent. The University has even in the impugned advertisement dated 20.11.1996 advertised all posts which are temporary, salary paid from self-generated funds and posts which are claimed not to form the service cadre of the University. The justification offered by the University for appointing the 15th respondent as a Plant Bio-Technologist even without an advertisement is thus mischievous, irrelevant and wholly unbecoming of a Public Institution. 75. In view of the analysis of precedents in relation to issue 'G' supra, the appointment of the 15th respondent to the post of Plant Bio-Technologist is invalid and inoperative. 76. Issue-H is answered accordingly. 77. To the query by this court on 22.11.2007 whether the appointments of the party-respondents made pursuant to the recruitments consequent on the impugned notification dated 20.11.1996 are being continued from 1997 till date and on what basis and what is the current status of these appointees i.e., Respondents 4 to 15, the University in its counter affidavit dated 25.01.2008 has stated that respondents 4 to 15 are all continuing in service, the expenditure towards salaries of Teachers in the Department of Bio-Technology are being met out of self-generated funds; that Dr. B.Amarnath (R12) who was appointed as Project Leader in the EDC is presently working as Assistant Professor in MBA and his salary is being met from the block grant of the University as per the orders of the State Government dated 17.05.2006 against the post of Professor in MBA; and that the salary of the Assistant Director-cum-Lecturer and one Coordinating Officer are also being met from the block grant of the University. 78. From the above response of the University it is apparent that the University does not follow any structured pattern either in the recruitment or in continuing employees in the University service. 78. From the above response of the University it is apparent that the University does not follow any structured pattern either in the recruitment or in continuing employees in the University service. Some of the respondents are seen to have been appointed to temporary posts to be met out of the self- generated funds and have been later accommodated in regular posts in the University as in the case of the 12th respondent who was appointed as a Project Leader in the EDC and is now serving as an Assistant Professor in MBA and against the post of Professor in MBA with salary paid out of the block grant. Since the initial appointments of all the respondents 4 to 15 are pursuant to the notification for temporary posts and they are being continued indefinitely on temporary tenure since 1997 the University is seen to have no justification for such indefinite continuance of temporary posts or for accommodating them in regular posts latter, particularly since all the appointments made pursuant to the impugned notification dated 20.11.1996 are invalid for the reasons already recorded supra. RESULT: 79. W.P.M.P. Nos. 6822 and 6823 of 1998 are ordered. 80. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on the analysis above and in the light of the principles of law and the precedents considered, the writ petition is allowed. The recruitment advertisement No. E 11(2)/1996(Temporary) Dated 20-11-1996 is invalid and is quashed. Consequently the appointments of respondents 4 to 15 are declared invalid and set aside. 81. 80. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on the analysis above and in the light of the principles of law and the precedents considered, the writ petition is allowed. The recruitment advertisement No. E 11(2)/1996(Temporary) Dated 20-11-1996 is invalid and is quashed. Consequently the appointments of respondents 4 to 15 are declared invalid and set aside. 81. Since the University has resorted to applying grossly irrational, discriminatory and arbitrary standards in the matter of issuing recruitment advertisement; in the matter of earmarking reservation; in the matter of scrutiny of the applications received and in the threshold evaluation of qualifications for the purpose of sending call letters; in adopting non- transparent procedure in the matter of considering over-aged candidates; has conferred unexplained favours to some candidates (R-7) by soliciting certification of equivalence of qualifications even though an equivalent qualification to the specified qualification was not notified; has failed to preserve the relevant records for enabling scrutiny by this court even though the writ petition was filed within a month of the ratification of the selection by the Executive Council (on 5.3.1997) and thus subverted the constitutional process of judicial review; and since even in the counter affidavit the University has adopted wholly irrational and mutually contradictory standards of defence, this court considers it appropriate to allow the writ petition with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand) of which Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner for the efforts as a public spirited citizen in presenting the arbitrary conduct of the 1st respondent-University in this writ petition and the amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.