JUDGMENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Respondent-University as well as respondent no. 7. 2. It is to be noted that though initially certain other persons were also impleaded as private respondent nos. 4, 8 to 11, but they have been deleted by an order passed in I.A. No. 1516 of 2008 dated 27th August, 2009. 3. Initially, the petitioner had made a prayer for directing the Respondent-University to appoint him on the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Chemistry), Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry. An I.A. No. 1125 of 2006 was thereafter preferred seeking to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 7 through notification no. 382 dated 16th July, 2004 issued by Respondent-University on the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Soil Science), Annexure-17 to the said I.A. By order dated 4th July, 2006, it was observed that I.A. petition shall be considered at the time of hearing this writ petition at the admission stage. The said respondent has appeared on notice and also contested the case by filing counter affidavit. Subsequently, again the writ petitioner preferred I.A. No. 2432 of 2006 seeking to challenge the transfer of respondent no. 7. The said I.A. was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to introduce the said amendment in the writ application. A prayer was made therein to quash Memo no. 3589 dated 29th August, 2006, whereby the respondent no. 7 was transferred to the vacant post of Senior Scientist (Agriculture Physics) and allowed to draw his salary against the post of Senior Scientist, Dryland, ICAR. 4. The petitioner is holding qualification of M.Sc. (Chemistry) in 1st Class as also Doctorate in Chemistry. According to the petitioner, he has worked on the post of Routine Analyst in the Respondent-University since 1989 where he has undertaken works in relation to soil samples tabulation and statistical data. He was engaged on consolidated wages. 5. The reason for preferring this writ petition on his behalf is that he made an application under Advertisement no. 4/1995 issued by the Respondent-University for being appointed as a Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor however he has not been appointed for the post of Junior Scientist despite the fact that he did have the qualification of Masters Degree in the subject of Chemistry, which was required as per the advertisement by the Respondent-University. 6. 4/1995 issued by the Respondent-University for being appointed as a Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor however he has not been appointed for the post of Junior Scientist despite the fact that he did have the qualification of Masters Degree in the subject of Chemistry, which was required as per the advertisement by the Respondent-University. 6. To cut short the controversy, it is to be indicated at the outset that under Advertisement no. 4/1995 and its corrigendum issued 10th December, 1995 no appointments were made. It is not in dispute either that the qualification laid down for the said post was further specified in the corrigendum as being Post Graduate in the subject of Agricultural Chemistry. Subsequently, advertisements were also issued bearing no. 1/2000 and 1/2003 which are relevant to be referred to hereinafter. Though there was another Advertisement no. 3/2004 issued again by Respondent-University, it appears from the submission of the rival parties, that the appointment process was undertaken under the Advertisement no. 1/2000 and Advertisement no. 1/2003. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the corrigendum issued to the Advertisement no. 4/1995 specified that no fresh application is to be made thereunder by candidates who had already applied under Advertisement no. 4/1995, but it appears from the subsequent Advertisement no. 1/2000 and 1/2003 that these two advertisements did not contain any stipulation that the persons who had earlier applied under Advertisement no. 4/1995 need not apply. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 both were issued interview letters which appear to be for both Advertisement nos. 1/2000 and 1/2003. By another Advertisement no. 1/2000, though the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor was advertised, but there was no post advertised for the subject of Agricultural Chemistry rather for Soil Science. In the subsequent Advertisement no. 1/2003, for the same post i.e. Junior Scientist-cum Assistant Professor, Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry posts were advertised requiring the qualification of High Second Class Master Degree or its equivalent Post Graduate in the subject concerned with further requirement of two years experience in teaching/ research/extension and basic professional degree for the above post. The candidates who had cleared National Eligibility Test and having the doctorate degree were to get preference. Therefore, from the summary derived through the aforesaid analysis, it can be concluded that the petitioner as well as respondent no. The candidates who had cleared National Eligibility Test and having the doctorate degree were to get preference. Therefore, from the summary derived through the aforesaid analysis, it can be concluded that the petitioner as well as respondent no. 7 both were considered for the post advertised under Advertisement nos. 1/2000 and 1/2003. Both of them had a claim of appointment to the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry. As would appear the petitioner had qualification of Post Graduation in Chemistry and Doctorate as well. However, he did not have any qualification of Post Graduate in Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry. In view of lack of qualification to the post advertised, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim to be appointed against the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor for the subject of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry under the Advertisement no. 1/2000 and Advertisement no. 1/2003. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the course of the proceedings of this case, the Respondent-University on being asked, have disclosed that there is a post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in the subject of Chemistry vacant in the Respondent-University. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said post was advertised under the Advertisement no. 4/1995 and has remained vacant though the petitioner was called for interview against the said advertisement and had also appeared thereunder. However, at this stage, it appears that the said claim is not only stale but untenable in view of the fact that no appointments were made under the said advertisement by the University. The said advertisement was also superceded further through advertisement nos. 1/2000 and 1/2003, wherein the petitioner participated, but apparently did not succeed on account of failing to fulfill the desired qualification. Therefore, on the first prayer made by the petitioner no relief can be granted. 9. So far as challenge of the petitioner to the appointment of respondent no. 7, through I.A. No. 1125 of 2006 and the transfer of the said respondent to the post of Senior Scientist, Agricultural Physics by another office order dated 29th August, 2006 through I.A. No. 2432 of 2006 is concerned the issue is being separately dealt with. It appears from the stand taken by the said respondent no. 7, through I.A. No. 1125 of 2006 and the transfer of the said respondent to the post of Senior Scientist, Agricultural Physics by another office order dated 29th August, 2006 through I.A. No. 2432 of 2006 is concerned the issue is being separately dealt with. It appears from the stand taken by the said respondent no. 7 through his counter affidavit that he possessed qualification of Post Graduation in Agriculture Physics being the major subject while having minor subject of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry. This is evident through M.Sc. Transcript furnished by Dean of the Post Graduate School of Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi (Annexure-S/2) to counter affidavit dated 20th August, 2014. A certificate of National Eligibility Test for Lecturership/Assistant Professorship, (Annexure-S/3) issued on 14th February, 2001 has also been relied upon by the counsel for the respondent no. 7 to show that he qualified in the said test in December, 1999 in the professional subject of Soil Science, Soil Physics as well and Soil & Water Conservation. This respondent had also been called for appearing under the Advertisement nos. 1/2000 and 1/2003 for the post of Assistant Professor-cum Junior Scientist (Soil Science). His appointment letter shows that he had been appointed on 16th July, 2004, Annexure-S/5 on the said post in the scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/-. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 that once the petitioner himself was ineligible for being appointed to the aforesaid post it does not lie in his mouth to question the appointment of respondent no. 7. It is further argued that the subjects of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry also were minor subjects in Post Graduation which the respondent no. 7 pursued and cleared in 1st class. He also pursued Ph.D. degree course in the same subject of Agriculture Physics. 10. It however appears from the stand taken by the Respondent-University through a supplementary counter affidavit and a show cause filed on behalf of Registrar of the Respondent-University dated 25th July, 2013 that the subject in which Post Graduation is required for the post advertised is Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry as the concerned teacher had to teach Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry. It has been further stated in the show cause that the respondent does not support the stand of respondent no. 7 fully in the sense that he was not M.Sc. It has been further stated in the show cause that the respondent does not support the stand of respondent no. 7 fully in the sense that he was not M.Sc. in Agriculture Chemistry rather he was M.Sc. in Agriculture Physics. But he had studied some minor papers in M.Sc. which were related with Agriculture and Soil Science. It appears that in the earlier counter affidavit filed, the Respondent-University had supported the qualification of respondent no. 7 for being appointed to the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in the subject of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry. Such stand was however later on sought to be corrected by way of show cause filed during the proceedings of the case. The show cause also indicates that the subject which is taught in the University is Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry and the teachers who were appointed should have obtained post graduation in Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry and not any other subject. They have indicated that their present view is that such teacher does not hold the required qualification. 11. It however appears that at the relevant point of time when the recruitment exercise was held, the Respondent-University appointed the respondent no. 7 on the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist in the subject of Soil Science against which post he had applied on the strength of his claim that he was having qualification of Post Graduation in Agriculture Physics with minor subject in Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry. Whether the qualification of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry i.e., minor subject fulfill the requirement of the post advertised under which he has been appointed is a subject matter of expert opinion. Apparently, as it appears from the stand of the Respondent-University now, it is the subject of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, which is being taught in the University by a person, who has been appointed on the same post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor in the said subject. However, the respondent no. 7 has been appointed on the strength of the same qualification and has continued since 2004 till date. A right may have accrued to him in the mean time because of the said appointment which also cannot be casually disturbed. 12. In such circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the Respondent-University to constitute an Expert Committee to determine whether the appointment of respondent no. A right may have accrued to him in the mean time because of the said appointment which also cannot be casually disturbed. 12. In such circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the Respondent-University to constitute an Expert Committee to determine whether the appointment of respondent no. 7 on the strength of the said qualification in the year 2004 was proper in the eye of law and whether it serves interest of the teaching in the Respondent-University. Needless to say since the respondent no. 7 has continued for a sufficient long of time, if any adverse decision is taken against him upon such opinion, he should be given opportunity to present his case. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations and the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court however is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for issuance of a direction to the respondent to appoint him on the post of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor under the advertisement in question against the subject of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry. The writ petition so far as it relates to the said prayer has to fail. However, as directed hereinabove, the Respondent-University shall carry out the aforesaid exercise within a reasonable time in respect of the appointment of respondent no. 7 preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove. Consequently, I.A. No. 1125 of 2006 stands disposed of and I.A. No. 1516 of 2008 stands closed.