JUDGMENT : Durga Prasanna Choudhury, J. 1. Since the captioned writ applications and writ appeal involve common questions of law, the same are taken up for disposal by this common judgment, with the consent of the parties. 2. The brief details of case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15410 of 2014 is that, while working as lecturer on contractual basis in the Department of Botany from 2nd May, 2011 to 22nd May, 2014, she applied for a regular post of lecturer in the Department of Life Science, duly advertised by the opposite party- Ravenshaw University. It is further averred by the petitioner that although the petitioner has obtained a Ph. D. degree, she was not shortlisted purportedly on the ground that she has not acquired National Eligible Test (NET) certificate, although the University Grants Commission guidelines very clearly state that a candidate for lecturer who has got Ph. D. degree, can be eligible for the post of lecturer even if she or he has not acquired NET certificate. Moreover, without following the Odisha Reservation of Posts and Service (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2008) made advertisement and the petitioner being a member of socially and educationally backward class (hereinafter called SEBC) was ignored for her selection to the post of lecturer. On the whole, it is the claim of the petitioner that the impugned advertisement for the post of lecturer in Life Science and shortlisting of the candidates for such posts was made by violating the guidelines issued by the U.G.C. Since the petitioner has been discriminated by violating the provisions of law, the fundamental right of the petitioner as enshrined under Articles 14 & 16 have been allegedly violated. It is therefore, prayed in such petition to quash the impugned advertisement dated 23.6.2014 and direct opposite parties to consider her candidature for the post of lecturer in Life Science. 3. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15422 of 2014 is that the petitioner after completion of M.A. in English with 58.2% of marks from Ravenshaw College, has obtained M.Phil and Ph.D. from Utkal University. He has also got international and national publication and was working as a lecturer in English in Mahanga Puspagiri College, Erkana in the district of Cuttack. That the opposite party No. 1 made advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014 for the recruitment of faculty members in different Departments of University. He has also got international and national publication and was working as a lecturer in English in Mahanga Puspagiri College, Erkana in the district of Cuttack. That the opposite party No. 1 made advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014 for the recruitment of faculty members in different Departments of University. As the last date was fixed to 22.7.2013 by the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of lecturer in English. To his utter surprise, he found that clause-7 of the advertisement has been described as hereunder : "7. Other conditions : (b) It will be open to the university to consider names of suitable candidates who might not have applied. xx xx xx (e) Applications received after the last date will not be considered. xx xx xx (g) Relaxation of any of the qualification may be in exceptional cases on the recommendation of the selection committee." 4. University Grants Commission Act (hereinafter called 'the U.G.C. Act') and Regulations made thereunder the posts should be Assistant Professor and Associate Professor but not the lecturer or Reader as per nomenclature advertised vide impugned advertisement. Further he alleges that clause 7(b) of the advertisement is illegal and unreasonable because under this clause it is not justified for the University to consider the names of the suitable candidates who might not have applied whereas the last date of submission of applications has been fixed to 22.7.2014 and clause 7(e) stipulates that the application received after the last date will not be considered. It is further averred by the petitioner that the clause 7(g) of the advertisement provides for relaxation of qualification in exceptional cases on recommendation of selection committee, which cannot arbitrarily cause relaxation in qualification by violating the norms of the UGC Regulations. Moreover, he alleges that the clause-2.2 of the advertisement provides that a person having five years of teaching experience, can be appointed as Reader, whereas UGC has prescribed eight years teaching experience for the post of Associate Professor. As such it is alleged that the advertisement made by the opposite party-University for the recruitment to the different posts such as lecturer, Reader, Professor was illegal, arbitrary and unfair, as such the petitioner was not shortlisted for reasons best known to O.P. No. 1. It is also averred by the petitioner that the selection committee comprises of some experts under whom certain shortlisted candidates were doing Ph. It is also averred by the petitioner that the selection committee comprises of some experts under whom certain shortlisted candidates were doing Ph. D. In all fairness, no member of the selection committee should sit in the selection process while their students are candidates for the post of lecturer in different subjects. Thus the petitioner challenges the advertisement dated 23.6.2014 vide Annexure-1 and prayed to quash the same in the interest of justice. 5. In W.P.(C) No. 15545 of 2014, there are two petitioners. Out of them, petitioner No. 1 was continuing as lecturer in Zoology on ad hoc basis at N.C. Autonomous College, Jajpur whereas petitioner No. 2 is continuing as lecturer in Zoology on ad hoc basis at Govt. Autonomous College, Angul. Being inspired by the advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014 (Anexure-1) issued by O.P. No. 1 for the recruitment of the lecturer in Life Science in O.P.-Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, they submitted applications. It is further averred that in clause-8 of the advertisement (Anexure-1), it has been mentioned that the selection shall be made as per the UGC Regulation published vide letter No. F.1-2/2009 dated 13.6.2013 vide Anexure-3. It is further stated that both the petitioners have got good academic career and possess Ph. D. qualification with due research, participation in seminars, conference etc. and both of them have been selected and appointed as Lecturer in Zoology (Ad hoc) by the Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education in the respective colleges. To their surprise, opposite party No. 1 issued another notice dated 11.8.2014 (Annexure-6) stating that for "shortlisting", the candidates having both Ph. D. and NET under Unreserved category, S.C. & SEBC except S.T. category, would be called for interview. Petitioner challenged such changes in the procedure and also stated that such criteria violates the U.G.C. Act, because as per the U.G.C. norms, the candidates for lecturer should possess either Ph. D. degree or the NET clearance. But the qualification ought not to be limited to Ph. D. with NET qualified. Moreover, once the notice containing the selection procedure is issued, no further change in the selection procedure is permissible under the service law. D. degree or the NET clearance. But the qualification ought not to be limited to Ph. D. with NET qualified. Moreover, once the notice containing the selection procedure is issued, no further change in the selection procedure is permissible under the service law. It is stated that due to such violation of norms of U.G.C. and service law, the advertisements dated 23.6.2014 and 11.8.2014 need be quashed being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the O.P.-Ravenshaw University be directed to prepare the list of candidates as per the U.G.C. Regulation (Annexure-3). 6. In W.P.(C) No. 15757 of 2014 it is stated that the petitioner is a meritorious student having first class career, passed M. Sc. in Bio Chemistry from University of Madras, Chennai in the year 2002 and completed his Doctorate Degree (Ph.D.) in the year 2006 in the same subject. Petitioner has also completed Post Doctorate Degree in Cancer Biology from 2006-2008 from New York, USA Medical College. He also completed Post Doctorate Degree during 2008-2012 on Cancer Biology from Medical College of Georgia, Georgia Health Science University, Augusta, Georgia, USA. Petitioner has published many articles and papers, presently he is working as an Assistant Professor in the KIIT University, Bhubaneswar. Being inspired by the advertisement dated 23.6.2014 (Anexure-1) by O.P. No. 1 for the recruitment of faculty members in Life Science and in other subjects, petitioner having requisite qualification, applied for the post. According to the U.G.C. Regulation dated 30.6.2010, candidates, who are, or have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree before 2009, in accordance with the U.G.C.(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility test namely, NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent qualification in Universities/Colleges/Institutions. But on 11.8.2014, opposite party No. 1 by-passing the U.G.C. Rule brought an amendment to the advertisement, stating that for "shortlisting" the candidates for the post of lecturer in Life Science, the candidates who have Ph. D. Degree and having NET qualification, will be called for interview. Petitioner challenges such development in the selection procedure, stating that such procedure adopted by O.P. No. 1 not only violates the U.G.C. Regulations but also plays with the future of the candidates. Moreover, because of the subsequent changes made in selection procedure, the advertisement issued is not in accordance with law. Petitioner challenges such development in the selection procedure, stating that such procedure adopted by O.P. No. 1 not only violates the U.G.C. Regulations but also plays with the future of the candidates. Moreover, because of the subsequent changes made in selection procedure, the advertisement issued is not in accordance with law. In a peculiar way, the advertisement vide Annexure-1 has been made by stating that "suitable candidates who might have not applied for the post, may be considered for the post" which is against ethics and selection procedure of U.G.C. as well as other statute of the State. Under clause 7(g) of the advertisement vide Annexure-1, it has also been made clear that "relaxation of any of the qualification may be made in exceptional cases on the recommendation of the selection committee" which is also arbitrary and illegal. The aforesaid two clauses not only muddies the process of selection but also violates the constitutional provision, since candidates who have not applied, are also entitled to be called for interview and their qualification can also be relaxed, at the instance of the selection committee which are an anti-thesis to service law. It is also stated that the advertisement vide Annexure-1 violates the U.G.C. norms and settled principles of service law. It is prayed by the petitioner to quash such notification dated 23.6.2014 (Annexure-1) and the amendment dated 11.8.2014 (Annexure-3) since the same are illegal, for which reason the petitioner was not shortlisted to face the interview on the subject. 7. In W.P.(C) No. 16348 of 2014, the petitioner, was working as Assistant Professor (Contractual) in OUAT, Bhubaneswar in the Department of Microbiology and taught students of Post Graduate and Ph. D. since 12.1.2009. She has Ph. D. degree in Botany (Algology Microbiology) from Berhampur University. Government of Odisha sanctioned seven posts of lecturer in Botany and nine posts of lecturer in Zoology. But altogether seventeen posts of lecturer were sanctioned by the Government of Odisha, of course, with many subjects. It is further stated that the school of Life Science should comprise of the persons who have Ph. D. Degree in Botany or Biology as Life Science subject contains Bio Technology, Zoology and other subjects. Suddenly on 11.8.2014, a notice was issued stating that for shortlisting of the candidates, when it was stipulated by the opposite party No. 1 to only call candidates who have both Ph. D. Degree in Botany or Biology as Life Science subject contains Bio Technology, Zoology and other subjects. Suddenly on 11.8.2014, a notice was issued stating that for shortlisting of the candidates, when it was stipulated by the opposite party No. 1 to only call candidates who have both Ph. D. and NET under the unreserved category, SC & SEBC to the Interview. Many candidates became disqualified as either they have got Ph. D. qualification or NET qualification. According to the U.G.C. Regulation, for the post of lecturer, Ph.D. Degree holder shall be exempted from the requirement of minimum eligibility Test of NET/SLET/SET. Such shortlisting procedure being ambiguous and contrary to U.G.C. norms, the petitioner contends that the said selection procedure is illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. So she filed the writ petition to quash the impugned advertisement dated 23.6.2014. 8. The aforesaid writ applications; W.P.(C.) Nos. 15410, 15422, 15545, 15757 and 16348 of 2014 were placed before the Single Bench of this Court where interim orders have been passed but the parties affected by the order of the Single Bench preferred Writ Appeal No. 23 of 2015. By virtue of such writ appeal, the aforesaid writ applications have been placed before us for disposal. In the writ appeal No. 23 of 2015 the case of the appellants is that the interim orders passed by the Single Bench has affected the educational atmosphere of the University and there is every possibility of withdrawal of its recognition. Moreover, due to the interim orders passed by the Single Bench, the appellant and other worthy candidates are passing through mental agony and uncertainty and the O.P.-Ravenshaw University has an acute shortage of faculty Members to teach the students. It is stated by the appellants that since the order of the Single Bench is illegal and erroneous, the appeal should be admitted and the interim orders should be vacated. 9. In W.P.(C) No. 15327 of 2014 the petitioner is working as a Reader in Botany in the Department of Life Science at O.P.-Ravenshaw University, Cuttack. On 23.6.2014 vide advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014 (Annexure-1), O.Ps.1 & 5 made advertisement for the post of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in various disciplines. Petitioner applied for the post of Professor in the Department of Life Science since he has got the requisite qualification. On 23.6.2014 vide advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014 (Annexure-1), O.Ps.1 & 5 made advertisement for the post of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in various disciplines. Petitioner applied for the post of Professor in the Department of Life Science since he has got the requisite qualification. After receipt of application, opposite parties issued another notification on 7.8.2014 referring to the said advertisement made on 23.6.2014 vide Annxure-1 stating inter alia that the name of the intended candidates who have applied for the post of Professor in School of Life Science was scheduled to be held on 20.8.2014. There was no provision in the original advertisement dated 23.6.2014 (Annexure-1) for shortlisting of the candidates. But the list of candidates were published in the website on 8.8.2014 being shortlisted. It is further stated that the Registrar (O.P. No. 5) being the head of the administration of O.P.-Ravenshaw University is also a candidate and his name at serial No. 15 in the shortlist published. When the Registrar in the administration is in the helm of the affairs of administration, his name being shortlisted, is absolutely against the fair manner of selection and the same is illegal, mala fide and contrary to the settled principle of law. It is also alleged inter alia that the advertisement made under Annexures 1 & 2 for filling up of vacancies of different schools were without State Government approval and without having necessary concurrence from Finance Department. It is further averred that clause-7 of the advertisement dated 23.6.2014 vide Anexure-1 mentioned the following objectionable conditions : "7. Other conditions : (b) It will be open to the university to consider names of suitable candidates who might not have applied. (d) Merely fulfilling the minimum qualification does not entitle a candidate to be necessarily considered or called for interview. (g) Relaxation of any of the qualification may be in exceptional cases on the recommendation of the selection committee." 10. It is alleged that in the aforesaid advertisement above clauses are illegal, improper as they speak volumes about the non-transparency and discrimination violating Articles 14 &16 of the Constitution of India. To his utter surprise, the petitioner could not be shortlisted as it was illegal, whimsical and with mala fide motive of the Ravenshaw University to fill up the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer. So it is prayed to quash the advertisement dated 23.6.2014 (Annexure-1) and notice dated 7.8.2014 (Annexure-2). 11. To his utter surprise, the petitioner could not be shortlisted as it was illegal, whimsical and with mala fide motive of the Ravenshaw University to fill up the posts of Professor, Reader, Lecturer. So it is prayed to quash the advertisement dated 23.6.2014 (Annexure-1) and notice dated 7.8.2014 (Annexure-2). 11. In W.P.(C)(PIL) No. 4773 of 2015 undergraduate students of O.P.-Ravenshaw University enmass filed a letter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for immediate appointment of faculty members, as there was already interim order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, stalling process of publication of interview for the appointment of lecturer. The students also alleged that if the teachers are not appointed the student & teacher ratio, there is every possibility of NAAC committee not extending good rating to the O.P.-Ravenshaw University. So they filed petition before this Court to intervene in the matter and to keep the O.P.-Ravenshaw University litigation free by making recruitment of faculty members in every department as soon as possible. Hon'ble Chief Justice treated such letter as PIL petition and accordingly this Bench was assigned to deal with the matter, and since this matter is connected with the connected matters, it is being disposed of along with aforesaid writ applications. 12. O.P.-Ravenshaw University, filed counter-affidavit in the W.P.(C) No. 15410, 15545, 15757 of 2014 and W.P.(C) (PIL) No. 4773 of 2015. In almost all these matters, the plea of opposite party No. 1 is that it was created by the enactment of Ravenshaw University Act, 2005 and the State Government in different phases have sanctioned 153 teaching posts for various subjects. Before regular appointment taking note of paucity of teachers, there was advertisement for contract teachers/guest teachers and visiting professors. After obtaining necessary approval of the State Government and creation of posts, steps were taken for regular appointment. 13. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that the O.P.-Ravenshaw University being authorized to recruit Lecturers/Readers/Professors in O.P.-Ravenshaw University, it has made Advertisement No. 2232 dtd. 23.6.2014 as per the norms and the manner in which the leading Universities of India make advertisements for the recruitment of teachers. It is stated that under clause 7(b) of the advertisement, it has been mentioned that it will be open to the University to consider the names of the suitable candidates who might not have applied. 23.6.2014 as per the norms and the manner in which the leading Universities of India make advertisements for the recruitment of teachers. It is stated that under clause 7(b) of the advertisement, it has been mentioned that it will be open to the University to consider the names of the suitable candidates who might not have applied. This clause has been made for transparency and is meant to accommodate very eminent persons with outstanding achievement in respective subjects provided that they give their consent to be the Professors of the University. It is also countered by the Ravenshaw University that they have made advertisement vide clause 7(g) stating that relaxation of any of the qualification may be made in exceptional cases on recommendation by the Selection Committee. This clause has been inserted with the object of meeting exceptional cases/situation that may be warranted to do so. For example, if the Selection Committee found for the post of any special rank but there are non-availability of suitable candidates among the candidates, then the Selection Committee can suggest to minimize certain qualification to fill up the post, by keeping in mind the interest of the institution and the students at large. So the allegation about retaining such clause 7(b) & (g) in the advertisement as propounded in the writ applications are not with mala fide but with bona fide intention. 14. It is also stated in the counter that U.G.C. Guidelines, 2010 has made 8 years of experience in teaching/research for the post of Associate Professors, but for the post of Reader, O.P.-Ravenshaw University has made advertisement keeping minimum 5 years of experience in teaching/research. Since the posts are to be filled up for the post of Associate Professors but not for Readers, there is no violation of U.G.C. principles. Moreover, the pay scale of Associate Professors and Readers are not the same. In the writ petition by some petitioners there is no cause of action to approach this Court, because mere apprehension in the mind that he or she may not be selected and that there may be irregularities in selection, cannot be grounds to make the writ petition, maintainable. 15. It is further stated in the counter that after Ravenshaw University was made to stand, there were occasions for appointment of contractual lecturers, visiting faculty lecturers and they have been appointed to carry out the object of the institution. 15. It is further stated in the counter that after Ravenshaw University was made to stand, there were occasions for appointment of contractual lecturers, visiting faculty lecturers and they have been appointed to carry out the object of the institution. At no point of time, the Professors or the Readers have not been associated in recruitment process. The question of bias in favour of any candidate, does not arise. It is admitted by these opposite parties that the name of one Mahima Chabbra was inadvertently deleted from the short list for the post of lecture in Education. 16. It is also averred in the counter that the Government of Odisha has sanctioned 153 posts of regular teachers and said posts are required to be filled up. But due to order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P.(C) No. 15410 of 2014 and other writ petitions, out of which W.A. No. 23 of 2015 arise, the entire process of selection has been stalled, resultantly compelling the University to appoint certain teachers on "ad hoc basis", on payment of remuneration of Rs. 400 or Rs. 500/- per class as the case may be. 17. It is also stated that shortlisting of the candidates to call for interview, is within well domain of the O.P.-Ravenshaw University because the Hon'ble Apex Court of India have allowed shortlisting of candidates is an essential scheme of recruitment process, for which clause 7(d) of the advertisement dated 23.6.2014 has been made stating that merely fulfilling minimum qualification, does not entitle a candidate, to be necessarily considered or called for the interview. This clause is also reinforced by virtue of the U.G.C. Regulations (2nd Amendment) 2013 where it has been said that the University can, if they wish to do so, increase the minimum required score or device appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment. So the O.P.-Ravenshaw University has every right of shortlisting of candidates for filling up the regular post created by the State Government, so that the interest of students and teachers can be well protected. 18. Per contra, opposite party-University Grants Commission has filed counter-affidavit covering all the writ applications. It is stated in their counter to all the writ applications that there is violation of U.G.C. Act and Regulations made thereunder. 18. Per contra, opposite party-University Grants Commission has filed counter-affidavit covering all the writ applications. It is stated in their counter to all the writ applications that there is violation of U.G.C. Act and Regulations made thereunder. It is stated in the written submissions of U.G.C. that as per clause 4.4.1 of sub-clause(iii) of U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 one must have at least 55% of marks at Master Degree level in the relevant subject to become an Assistant Professor/lecturer in an University but the advertisement in question by the O.P.-Ravenshaw University, has shortlisted all the candidates with Master's Degree in Bio Technology and Life Science for which there is no post and these candidates have been interviewed for the posts of Botany and Zoology. Similarly Ravenshaw University has committed gross error by evolving a strange screening procedure in short-listing candidates for the post of lecturer in Life Science by violating the U.G.C. Regulations, 2009, U.G.C. Regulation, 2010, U.G.C. (2nd Amendment) Regulations, 2013. It is also stated that the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, mandates that one must have NET qualification to become an Assistant Professor/lecturer in a University, whereas, sub-clause (iii) of clause 4.4.1 of such Regulations states that the candidates who are awarded with Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the U.G.C. Regulations, 2009 shall be exempted from minimum eligibility condition of NET qualification. According to clause 9(i) of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2009 a candidate for Ph. D. Degree must be admitted through an Entrance Test which shall be followed by an interview but the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 16.3.2015 in P. Suseela and others v. UGC & others, 2015 SC 1976 was pleased to upheld the validity of U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 and further held that Ph. D. Degree as per U.G.C. Regulations, 2009 is mandatory for the applicants for the post of lecturer who do not have NET qualification. So the persons, who have registered before 2009 and awarded with Ph.D. Degree are also exempted from appearing NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of lecturer but the O.P.-Ravenshaw University have shortlisted the candidates who do not have either NET or Ph. D. for appearing in the interview. Thus U.G.C. Regulations have been violated by the O.P.-Ravenshaw University. It is further stated that the clause 4.4.1 of U.G.C. Regulation, 2010 deals with recruitment and qualification of Assistant Professor which does not lay down any specialisation for such post. D. for appearing in the interview. Thus U.G.C. Regulations have been violated by the O.P.-Ravenshaw University. It is further stated that the clause 4.4.1 of U.G.C. Regulation, 2010 deals with recruitment and qualification of Assistant Professor which does not lay down any specialisation for such post. But the advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014, O.P.-Ravenshaw University on its own inserted an additional requirement called "specialisation" for the post. 19. University Grants Commission (in short U.G.C.) has also seriously criticised clause 7(b) & (g) in the advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014. It is also stated that according to U.G.C. Regulation, 2010 minimum 8 years experience of teaching is necessary to become Associate Professor/Reader but in the case in hand, the advertisement made by O.P.-Ravenshaw University reducing 8 years experience to 5 years in teaching/research to become Associate Professor/Reader is in utter violation of U.G.C. Guidelines. 20. It is also stated in the counter by U.G.C. that the Selection Committee as per U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 Selection Committee should have three experts in every subject but the O.P.-Ravenshaw University appointed 3 to 4 other experts who are not experts of the concerned subject for which the selection has been made violating the U.G.C. Guidelines. Not only this but also as per appendix III of Table IIC of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 for direct recruitment one must have minimum 300 and 400 points of API to become readers and professors respectively and by virtue of amendment of U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 total API score can be made in the following manner. Total API Score (Category wise) Score Claimed by Applicant` API Cap (%) Max Score Applicable Capped API Score Part A 210 30 122.55 122.55 Part B 0 25 102.125 0 Part C 20 20 81.7 20 Part D 16 10 40.8 16 Part E 162.5 15 61.275 61.275 Total API Score 408.5 100 219.775 Total API Score (Category wise) Score Claimed by Applicant` API Cap (%) Max Score Applicable Capped API Score Part A & B 210 55 224.675 224.675 Part C 20 20 81.7 20 Part D 16 10 40.8 16 Part E 162.5 15 61.275 61.275 Total API Score 408.5 100 321.95 21. But the advertisement made by Ravenshaw University by clubbing clause IIIA & IIIB together in calculation of API score and not by calculating them separately are in utter violation of U.G.C. Regulations, 2013. But the advertisement made by Ravenshaw University by clubbing clause IIIA & IIIB together in calculation of API score and not by calculating them separately are in utter violation of U.G.C. Regulations, 2013. Not only this but also O.P.-Ravenshaw University have violated U.G.C. and State Government directives by not confirming to the reservation policy because in the advertisement not a single post is reserved for SC & SEBC candidates for the post of Reader and Professor. There is no creation of post by the State Government "for the recruitment of teachers school wise" but the State Government have created different posts subject wise. Thus the O.P.-Ravenshaw University made advertisement for recruitment of teachers school wise violating the State Government and U.G.C. directives. It is further stated that the advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014 states that 3% of the reserved persons of disability category in each subject/post, will be reserved in accordance with person with Disability Act, 1995 and Rules made thereunder but not a single post has been shown to have been reserved in any subject in this category. It is, therefore, submitted by O.P. No. 3 that O.Ps.1 & 2 have made illegal and invalid advertisement and the same should be set aside. Points for Determination : 22. A. Whether U.G.C. Act and Regulations made thereunder are binding on O.P.-Ravenshaw University? B. Whether impugned public notice No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014 violated U.G.C. Act and Regulations and State Government directives and as such violated constitutional provisions? C. Whether the petitioners in all the writ applications are entitled to any relief? Discussion: 23. Point No. A. "By education I mean all-round development, drawing out of the best in the child-man body, mind and spirit" - Mahatma Gandhi. O.P.-Ravenshaw University has a long history being a premier educational institution in the country. While taking the history of the Ravenshaw University, into consideration one can look back to its origin. As it is told at the Bar, Ravenshaw College was started in 1868 as an intermediate college namely, Cuttack College and it was recognized as a "first grade college" in 1876. This College was named after T.E. Ravenshaw who came to Odisha as Commissioner during the British Rule. Due to his service to the cause of education, the college was named after T.E. Ravenshaw as Ravenshaw College. But it was shifted to the present magnificent red building in 1922. This College was named after T.E. Ravenshaw who came to Odisha as Commissioner during the British Rule. Due to his service to the cause of education, the college was named after T.E. Ravenshaw as Ravenshaw College. But it was shifted to the present magnificent red building in 1922. The first University of Odisha, i.e., Utkal University had not been established by then. So the college was initially affiliated to Calcutta University and later it was transferred to Patna University and then to Utkal University in 1943. After being affiliated to Utkal University, the Utkal University nourished and nurtured it well. 24. It is said that the first post graduate classes was started in 1922 in English. Only gradually thereafter other disciplines came up with Post Graduate classes. During 1989-90 the college was granted with "autonomous status" but was transformed to a University after Ravenshaw University Act was enacted by the State legislature in 2008. In fact the transformation of an intermediate college to University was also the future words of Sir Edward Gait, who at the time of laying the foundation stone of the college building, had wished that this monumental institute would one day grow into a University. It is said that on 18.1.1936 on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee Celebration of the college, Principal H.R. Batheja made the following extraordinary announcement : "Our stress is on quality rather than quantity and that probably explains our high capital cost of educating a student probably the highest in India. After that great catastrophe (great famine of 1866), Orissa has bit by bit rebuilt its life largely with the help of outside agency operating mainly through the Ravenshaw College and it is now fully prepared to drop the pilot and take command of the ship. And so we have at last a temple of learning, stately in its proportions, which compares not unfavourably with the only other temple- the temple of Jagannath for which Orissa is known all over India. These twin monuments represent Orissa to the outside world and are a source of just pride to ever Oriya." 25. Despite the growth of colleges all around, Ravenshaw College continue to be the centre of educational excellence and cultural life of the state. Idealism, humanism and nationalism have all along permeated the ethos of this college, and it has been the cradle of modern Orissa. Despite the growth of colleges all around, Ravenshaw College continue to be the centre of educational excellence and cultural life of the state. Idealism, humanism and nationalism have all along permeated the ethos of this college, and it has been the cradle of modern Orissa. It has provided to all the colleges of Orissa most of their teachers. Thus it is the Almamater of almamaters. 26. It appears that Ravenshaw College and later Ravenshaw University, remained as the corner-stone of educational and cultural life of the State. Not only Orissa but also students from the outside State and country and abroad come to this college to get better learning. In fact the glory of this college is unique and one has to think twice to preserve the quality of the college at any cost. So the present writ petitions have to be considered keeping in the background glory of the college on which it stands. We cannot forget its reputation and the credibility it has required. 27. Ravenshaw College has now become "Ravenshaw University" under the Ravenshaw University Act, 2005, an Act to provide for converting Ravenshaw College (autonomous college) into a unitary University and the matter connected with it. This O.P.-Ravenshaw University Act, 2005 under Odisha Act 8 of 2005 being legislated by the Odisha Legislative Assembly became legislation, being assented by His Excellency the Governor of Odisha on 18.7.2005. This O.P.-Ravenshaw University Act, 2005 under Odisha Act 8 of 2005 being legislated by the Odisha Legislative Assembly became legislation, being assented by His Excellency the Governor of Odisha on 18.7.2005. The object of the University as enshrined under section 4(1) is stated herein:- "4.(1) The objects of the University shall be;- (a) to disseminate and advance knowledge, wisdom and understanding by teaching and research and by the example and influence of its corporate life; (b) to promote education in accordance with universal declaration of human rights, improving the quality of education through the diversification of contents and methods and promotion of universally shared values, promoting principles and ethical norms to guide scientific and technological development and social transformation, improving human security by better management of environment and social change enhancing scientific, technical and human capacities; (c) to participate in emerging knowledge societies, protecting cultural diversity and encouraging pluralism and dialogues among culture and civilization; (d) to enhance linkage between culture and development through capacity building and sharing of knowledge and promoting the free flow of ideas and universal access to information; (e) to promote the study for sustainable development, national integration, social justice, secularism, democratic way of life, international understanding and scientific approach to the problems of society by providing right kind of work ethos, professional expertise and leadership in all walks of life. (2) Towards this end, the University shall,- (a) set-up departments for Science and Technology keeping in view the rapid changes in the field of science, the market demand for providing self-employment to the pass-outs, along with wide scope for research facility to make the departments learning centers of excellence; (b) foster the composite culture of India and establish such departments or schools in the University as may be required for the study and development of the languages, art and culture of India; (c) take special measure to facilitate students and teachers from all over India and abroad to join the University and participate in its academic programmes; (d) promote among the students and teachers an awareness and understanding of the social needs of the country and prepare them for fulfilling such need; (e) make special provision for integrated courses in humanities, education, management, science and technology in the educational programmes of the University; (f) take appropriate measures for promoting inter-disciplinary studies in the University; (g) establish such departments or schools in the University as may be necessary for the study of languages, literature and life of foreign countries with a view to inculcating in the students a world perspective and international understanding; (h) provide facilities for students and teachers from other countries to participate in the academic programmes and life of the University." 28. Not only this but also section 5 of the Act, 2005 vested power with the University to appoint Professor/Teachers/legislators or otherwise of the University. So there is no any doubt that to achieve the object the University has to appoint Professor/Readers/lecturers with maximum competency. 29. Section 25 of O.P.-Ravenshaw University Act, 2005 speaks in the following manner : 25(1) The University shall establish a fund to be called the University Fund to which shall be credited, namely- (a) any contribution or grant by the State Government, Central Government, University Grants Commission Industrial Undertakings, Corporations, Companies, Associations, other bodies or local authorities; (b) any income of the University from all sources including income from fees and charges and sale proceeds; (c) bequests, donations, endowments and other grants, if any received by the University; and (d) miscellaneous receipts. (2) The University may, from time to time, establish such other funds in such name and for such specific purposes as may be decided by the Executive Council with the prior consultations with the Government regarding establishment of such funds. (2) The University may, from time to time, establish such other funds in such name and for such specific purposes as may be decided by the Executive Council with the prior consultations with the Government regarding establishment of such funds. (3) The fund shall be kept in Nationalised or Scheduled Bank or invested in such securities as may be decided by the Executive Council. (4) The funds and all moneys of the University shall be managed in such manners as may be prescribed by the Statutes. (5) The University may, with previous sanction of the Government as regards the purpose and amount of loan, and subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Government as to security and rate of interest, borrow any sum of money from any Nationalised Bank or Scheduled Bank or any other corporate body or any financial institution. (6) The University shall prepare the financial estimate of receipts and expenditure of the University in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statute. (7) The Executive Council shall consider the estimates so prepared and approve them with or without modification. (8) The University shall submit such estimates as approved by the Executive Council to the Government for the purpose of providing the annual grant. (9) The Government may pass such order with reference to the said approved estimates as it thinks fit and communicate the same to the University which shall give effect to such order. (10) The Executive Council may, in urgent cases where expenditure in excess of the amounts provided for in the budget is found to be necessary, for reasons to be recorded in writing, incur such expenditure." 30. The above provisions clearly show that since U.G.C. is financially contributing to the University, the University is obliged to be guided by the guidelines prescribed by the U.G.C. The aforesaid provisions also disclose that the Ravenshaw University is autonomous and does not depend solely on State Government for financial support. On the otherhand the Ravenshaw University has to create University fund from various sources including U.G.C. So while the University has to be managed by the various bodies of the University, being funded from different sources as prescribed under section 25(1) of the University Act, 2005. 31. Mahatma Gandhi once wrote in Young India in 1921 that "schools and colleges should always become if not wholly self-supporting". 31. Mahatma Gandhi once wrote in Young India in 1921 that "schools and colleges should always become if not wholly self-supporting". He also emphasized on fact that teaching should be done through arts and crafts, work and play, voluntary activity and self-chosen activity. Not only this but also, Mahatma Gandhi attached much importance to character education and moral development of the child through education. This would mean to him development of such qualities in the individual up-reach of personal life has restrained and service of humanity, courage, strange of conviction, righteousness and sense of responsibility. The attempt of Gandhiji's non-violence was the supreme value to be developed in the people through education. Gandhiji's philosophy on education which is known as "Nai Talim" or basic education was result of his scientific research on various aspects viz., economics, politics, child development and successful experiments of his ideas on education in South Africa and in India. With such great aim and object as propounded by Mahatma Gandhi, causing several excellency. Gandhiji says that proper and harmonious combination of the intellect, the body and the heart or soul is required for the making of the whole man and constitutes the true economies of education. Gandhiji has said, "But unless the development of the mind and body goes hand in hand with a corresponding awakening of the soul, the former alone would prove to be a lopsided affair". Gandhiji insisted that education must be related to future of one's surroundings and according to him and right action of education, in India will not only remain backward but become increasingly so. Gandhiji was advocating the allocation of a substantive place in education system of over-all development and associated with best group of Indian society. 32. About the role of the teachers, Mahatma Gandhi has said education of the heart could only be done through living touch of the teachers. Education becomes effective and faithful extent to which there is personal touch before education is stopped. An ideal teacher in Gandhiji's word is, "mother Teacher". He said "I use the word mother teacher because the teacher must be a mother of children". So taking queue from the Gandhiji's basic concept of Education, the U.G.C. Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament. 33. U.G.C. being the Apex Body on Higher Education have, from time to time streamlined the standard of education. He said "I use the word mother teacher because the teacher must be a mother of children". So taking queue from the Gandhiji's basic concept of Education, the U.G.C. Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament. 33. U.G.C. being the Apex Body on Higher Education have, from time to time streamlined the standard of education. U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 in fact made it mandatory for a University except a Government run colleges, to follow the recruitment of teachers who are most valuable according to the system of locality to bring knowledge to the students. 34. In the decision reported in University Grants Commission and another v. Neha Anil Bogode (Gadekar), 2013 (10) SCC 519 , Their Lordships have observed : "4. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament under the provisions of Schedule VII List I Entry 66 to the Constitution, which entitles it to legislate in respect of "coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical education". 5. For the said purpose, the Act authorised the Central Government to establish a commission, by name, the University Grants Commission. Chapter III of the Act deals with the powers and functions of the Commission. Section 12 states that it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under the Act, the Commission has been bestowed with certain powers under the Act. 6. Clause (j) of Section 12 reads as under: "12. (j) perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions." 7. Section 26(1) of the UGC Act confers powers on it to make Regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules. Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Section 26 are of some relevance and are given below: "26. Section 26(1) of the UGC Act confers powers on it to make Regulations consistent with the Act and the Rules. Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Section 26 are of some relevance and are given below: "26. Power to make Regulations.- (1) The Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make Regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder- * * * (e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the university, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction; (f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any university; (g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities;" 35. With due respect to the said decision we notice that the U.G.C. has been advancing higher education in India and the same has to be followed for defending the qualification of the teachers, minimum standard of institution for the grant of degree and regulating the maintenance of standard and the coordination of work or facilities in Universities. So undoubtedly U.G.C. being an apex body, has been constituted for framing the policy to appoint teachers and to raise standard of education. 36. In the decision reported in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and others, AIR 1995 SC 336 , Their Lordships have observed at para-21. "21. We now turn to analyse the said Regulations. They are made applicable to a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution, including a constituent or an affiliated college recognised by the UGC in consultation with the University concerned, and every institution deemed to be a University. The said Regulations are thus intended to have the widest possible application, as indeed they must have if they are to serve the purpose intended, namely, to ensure that all applicants for the post of lecturer, from whichever University they may have procured the minimum qualificatory degree, must establish that they possess the proficiency required for lecturers in all Universities in the country. This is what clause 2 of the said Regulations mandates, thus: "No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in University ... This is what clause 2 of the said Regulations mandates, thus: "No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in University ... in a subject if he does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subject as provided in Schedule 1." The first proviso to clause 2 permits relaxation in the prescribed qualifications by a University provided it is made with the prior approval of the UGC. This is because the said Regulations, made under the provisions of Section 26(1)(e), define the qualifications that are ordinarily and not invariably required of a lecturer. The second proviso to clause 2 makes the application of the said Regulations prospective. Clause 3 of the said Regulations provides for the consequence of the failure of a University to comply with the recommendation made in clause 2 in the same terms as are set out in Section 14 of the UGC Act. The provisions of clause 2 of the said Regulations are, therefore, recommendatory in character. It would be open to a University to comply with the provisions of clause 2 by employing as lecturers only such persons as fulfil the requirements as to qualifications for the appropriate subject provided in the schedule to the said Regulations. It would also be open, in specific cases, for the University to seek the prior approval of the UGC to relax these requirements. Yet again, it would be open to the University not to comply with the provisions of clause 2, in which case, in the event that it failed to satisfy the UGC that it had done so for good cause, it would lose its grant from the UGC. The said Regulations do not impinge upon the power of the University to select its teachers. The University may still select its lecturers by written test and interview or either. Successful candidates at the basic eligibility test prescribed by the said Regulations are awarded no marks or ranks and, therefore, all who have cleared it stand at the same level. There is, therefore, no element of selection in the process. The University may still select its lecturers by written test and interview or either. Successful candidates at the basic eligibility test prescribed by the said Regulations are awarded no marks or ranks and, therefore, all who have cleared it stand at the same level. There is, therefore, no element of selection in the process. The University's autonomy is not entrenched upon by the said Regulations." ( AIR 1990 SC 1075 : (1990) 2 SCR 273 , (1990) 2 SCR 463 , AIR 1987 SC 400 : (1987) 1 SCR 661 , AIR 1987 SC 2034 : (1987) 3 SCR 947 : AIR 1981 SC 1777 : (1982) 1 SCR 320 : 1981 Lab IC 1515 : AIR 1971 SC 2560 : (1971) 3 SCR 699 AIR 1970 SC 1099 : 1970 Serv LR 55 : 1970 Lab IC 870 : AIR 1963 SC 703 Supp (1) SCR 112). 37. With great respect to the above decision, it is found that in the related case, there was dispute between the Delhi University and the U.G.C. with regard to the selection and appointment of teachers. It is, therefore, aptly observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that as long as U.G.C. grant is available, the University has to act as per U.G.C. guidelines, so far as appointment of teachers are concerned. 38. Not only in the case above but also in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj, 2015(3) ECS 386 : (2015) 6 SCC 363 Their Lordships have observed : "22. From the aforesaid provisions, we find that the University Grants Commission has been established for the determination of standard of universities, promotion and coordination of university education, for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities, for defining the qualifications regarding the teaching staff of the university, maintenance of standards, etc. For the purpose of performing its functions under the UGC Act (see Section 12) like defining the qualifications and standard that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed in the universities [see Sections 26(1)(e) & (g)] UGC is empowered to frame Regulations. It is only when both the Houses of Parliament approve the Regulation, the same can be given effect to. It is only when both the Houses of Parliament approve the Regulation, the same can be given effect to. Thus, we hold that the UGC Regulations though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the universities to which it applies; and consequence of failure of the university to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, UGC may withhold the grants to the university made out of the fund of the Commission (see Section 14)." xx xx xx xx "44. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold: (i) To the extent the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be inoperative. (ii) The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the universities to which it applies. (iii) The UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by UGC. (iv) The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory. (v) The UGC Regulations, 2010 having not been adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between the State legislation and the Statutes framed under the Central legislation does not arise. Once they are adopted by the State Government, the State legislation to be amended appropriately. In such case also there shall be no conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation." 2012 (6) ALLMR 336 (Para 9); (1995) 4 SCC 104 (Para 34); (1999) 7 SCC 120 (Para 35); (2009) 4 SCC 590 (para 36)" 39. With due respect to the decision, we find that there is dispute between the U.G.C. and Madurai Kangry University with regard the appointment of teachers including Vice Chancellor. With due respect to the decision, we find that there is dispute between the U.G.C. and Madurai Kangry University with regard the appointment of teachers including Vice Chancellor. After analysing the facts of the case and the principles under different earlier decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Their Lordships of the view that U.G.C. Guidelines being passed by both the houses of Parliament, over a subordinate legislature is binding on the Universities to which it applies, because under entry No. 25 of the concurrent list, the State legislature repugnant to the Central legislation would be inoperative. Following decision we are of the view that U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 is applicable to the Universities and colleges thereunder and it will not apply to such colleges who ought not to have got any grant from U.G.C. However, it is clear from the aforesaid decision that U.G.C. Regulation being central legislation, is binding on the State legislation so far as appointment of teachers and their training is concerned. So the real test is whether the UGC. Act and Regulations is binding on the Universities that can be derived from the facts and circumstances of each case. 40. After adverting to the facts of the case, it is found from the date of publication in the gazette that is in 2005, Ravenshaw University Act came under the purview of U.G.C. This view is supported from the contents of section 36 of the Ravenshaw University Act since the O.P.- Ravenshaw University is receiving U.G.C. grant, as per provisions of the Act, 2005. 41. From the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the Ravenshaw University Act being a subordinate legislation and receiving U.G.C. grant, has to abide by the U.G.C. Act and Regulation/guidelines so far as the appointment of teachers are concerned. The U.G.C. Act being under entry No. 25 of the concurrent list and having been enacted by the Parliament, have the responsibility of prescribing standard for recruitment of teachers. Such standard has to be maintained by the Universities concerned including Deemed and Autonomous colleges. The U.G.C. being the apex body to formulate the policy and carry out the same for creating better education and to restore the teacher and student relationship, particularly with regard to the philosophy of education as propounded by Gandhiji. Such standard has to be maintained by the Universities concerned including Deemed and Autonomous colleges. The U.G.C. being the apex body to formulate the policy and carry out the same for creating better education and to restore the teacher and student relationship, particularly with regard to the philosophy of education as propounded by Gandhiji. It does not mean that Universities can violate or by-pass the standards as prescribed by the U.G.C. so far as eligibility criteria of the teachers, standard of teaching they impart and conditions under which such standard to be implemented, have to be strictly complied with. 42. In the counter, Ravenshaw University have never averred that the U.G.C. Act and Regulations are not binding on them. On the otherhand, we are of the view that the U.G.C. Act and Regulations/guidelines are binding on Ravenshaw University so far as appointment of teachers and allied matters are concerned. Point No. A is answered accordingly. Point No. B 43. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are all qualified persons but they were not shortlisted by the Ravenshaw University illegally. The petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 23.6.2014 issued by Ravenshaw University to fill up the posts of Lecturer/Reader/Professors and claim that clauses 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 4, 7(b), 7(e), 7(g) & clause 8 thereof are not in consonance with the U.G.C. Act and Regulations. They have also alleged about arbitrariness and illegality committed by Ravenshaw University in shortlisting candidates and to go for appointment of teachers ignoring the eligibility of the petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that under section 26 of the U.G.C. Act, 1956 and Regulations, 2010 have been framed providing minimum educational qualification for appointment of teachers and staff in the Universities and college in order to maintain uniform standard of higher education in the country. But the Ravenshaw University in utter disregard to the Regulation, issued under U.G.C. Act, 1956 advertised for appointment of teachers. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that U.G.C. Regulation has prescribed 8 years of experience as teacher to become Reader whereas Annexure-1 indicated experience of 5 years as required to become Reader. But the Ravenshaw University in utter disregard to the Regulation, issued under U.G.C. Act, 1956 advertised for appointment of teachers. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that U.G.C. Regulation has prescribed 8 years of experience as teacher to become Reader whereas Annexure-1 indicated experience of 5 years as required to become Reader. Similarly the petitioners who have got better academic career and published articles in the journals, were not shortlisted although there are norms prescribed by U.G.C. to compute the score for such activities stating API to be considered at the time of selection. 44. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that by virtue of such illegal and motivated advertisement dated 23.6.2014, fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14, 16 &19 of the Constitution of India have been infringed upon. It is also stated by learned counsel for petitioner that Ravenshaw University have not followed proper procedure, since, some teacher experts who are related to the candidates were found to be in the interview team. So they have challenged the said advertisement dated 23.6.2014 and have prayed to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process of teachers. 45. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners in W.P.(C)(PIL) No. 4773 of 2015 being students of Ravenshaw University have made complaint about shortage of teaching staff and requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to expedite steps for appointment of teachers so that the students can get education. They only referred to the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge who was pleased to pass the order to continue the process of interview but restricted to publish the result thereof without leave of this Court. 46. Learned counsel for the U.G.C. vehemently opposed the impugned advertisement made by the Ravenshaw University on the ground that the appointment process for the recruitment of teachers in the institution should be guided by U.G.C. Guidelines. According to him U.G.C. Regulations, 2006, U.G.C. Regulations, 2009, U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, U.G.C. Corrigendum Notification, 2011, U.G.C. Regulations, 2013 and U.G.C. Corrigendum Notification, 2014 have not been followed in the impugned advertisement issued by Ravenshaw University. 47. According to him U.G.C. Regulations, 2006, U.G.C. Regulations, 2009, U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, U.G.C. Corrigendum Notification, 2011, U.G.C. Regulations, 2013 and U.G.C. Corrigendum Notification, 2014 have not been followed in the impugned advertisement issued by Ravenshaw University. 47. Learned counsel for U.G.C. further submitted that as per clause 4.4.1 of U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, one must have at least 55% marks at the Masters Degree level in the relevant subject to become Assistant Professor/Lecturer in a University but in the impugned advertisement O.P. No. 1 has shortlisted the candidates with Masters Degree in Bio Technology and Life Science for which there is no basis and such candidates have been interviewed for the post of Botany and Zoology, violating clause 4.4.1 of U.G.C. Regulations, 2010. By amendment of the impugned advertisement of 23.6.2014 Ravenshaw University has committed illegality by evolving a strange procedure in shortlisting total number of 316 candidates for the post of lecturer in Life Science in the following manner. "Ravenshaw University 11 August 2014 In response to advertisement No. 2232 Dt. 23/06/2014, a large number of applicants, i.e. 1243, have applied for the position of Lecture in the School of Life Sciences. However, it is not humanly possible to conduct the interview for such a huge number of candidates. Therefore, a screening procedure has been evolved that avoids any kind of subjectively and it is decided to call for interview only those candidate who have both Ph.D. and NET under Unreserved category, SC and SEBC reserved categories. Because of smaller number of applications under ST reserved category, all candidates who have NET or Ph.D. are called for interview. The date and time of the interview are mentioned against their names. Venue of Interview: Office of the Vice Chancellor, The candidates are free to contact Dr. J.P. Das (E-mail: jpdas@ravenshawuniversity.ac.in), if they have any discrepancies. The candidates are required to produce the following documents before the Screening committee/Interview board on the day of Interview: 1. Mark Sheets and Certificates of all the examinations passes (original and 3 sets of photocopy); 2. Ph.D. certificates/Notification and NET certificate (both original and photocopy); 3. Course work certificate of Ph.D.(those who have registered 2009 onwards); 4. Original caste certificate in support of claiming reservation (SC/ST/SEBC); 5. Original PH certificate; 6. Teaching/Research experience certificates (both original and photocopy); 7. 5 copies of Bio- data in the attached format; 8. Original publications; 9. Ph.D. certificates/Notification and NET certificate (both original and photocopy); 3. Course work certificate of Ph.D.(those who have registered 2009 onwards); 4. Original caste certificate in support of claiming reservation (SC/ST/SEBC); 5. Original PH certificate; 6. Teaching/Research experience certificates (both original and photocopy); 7. 5 copies of Bio- data in the attached format; 8. Original publications; 9. Photocopies of publication (3 sets); 10. Research project sanction letter, if any; 11. Photo Identity Proof; 12. Application fee in the form of Demand Draft (Applicable only for those who have applied from abroad)." 48. Learned counsel for U.G.C. submitted that the advertisement corrigendum has been issued to shortlist the candidates by ignoring the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court. 49. Learned counsel for the U.G.C. submits that for the post of lecturer under clause 4.4.1(2), candidates who are awarded Ph. D. Degree in accordance with U.G.C. Regulations, 2009 shall be exempted from minimum qualification of N.E.T. Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in P. Suseela (supra) has made it clear that Ph. D. Degree as per U.G.C. Regulations, 2009 is mandatory to the applicants for the post of lecturer who do not have NET qualification. Ignoring such provision and law declared by the Supreme Court, the Ravenshaw University made it compulsory for all candidates to have Ph. D and NET qualification in order to shortlist the candidates for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. He also submitted that clause 7(d) of the impugned advertisement that it would be open to the University to consider the names of suitable candidates who might not have applied and clause 7(g) that relaxation of any of the qualification may be made in exceptional cases on recommendation of the selection committee are all wholly arbitrary and illegal. Further it is submitted that it is completely unknown to law that candidates who have not applied, could also be considered for the post of lecturer and the minimum eligibility can be ignored in exceptional cases, which amounts to interference to providing for qualitative education, an object the Ravenshaw University should never ignore. 50. Learned counsel for U.G.C. further submitted that under U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, 8 years experience in teaching to become an Associate Professor/Reader has been reduced illegally to 5 years by the Ravenshaw University in the impugned advertisement to apply for the post of Reader. 50. Learned counsel for U.G.C. further submitted that under U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, 8 years experience in teaching to become an Associate Professor/Reader has been reduced illegally to 5 years by the Ravenshaw University in the impugned advertisement to apply for the post of Reader. Further it is stated that according to clause 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of UGC Regulations, 2010, the decision of selection committee should include three experts in the concerned subjects. But in the impugned advertisement, 3 to 4 other experts who are not expert in concerned subject, have been selected which renders the process of selection unlawful. He further submitted that as per Appendix III table II(C) of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, the candidates for direct recruitment must have score of 300/400 points of APIs to become Readers and Professors respectively. Such U.G.C. Regulation being amended in 2013 states API scores should be calculated in the following manner. "6.1.0 The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in this Regulations in Tables I to IX of Appendix III. Provided that API scores will be used for screening purpose only and will have no bearing on expert assessment of candidates in Direct Recruitment/CAS Provided also that the API score claim of each of the sub-categories in the Category III (Research and Publications and Academic Contributions) will have the following cap to calculate the total API score claim for Direct Recruitment/CAS Sub-Category Cap as % of API cumulative score in application III(A) : Research papers (Journals, etc.) 30% III(B) : Research publications (Books, etc.) 25% III(C) : Research Projects 20% III(D) : Research Guidance 10% III(E) : Training Courses and Conference/ Seminar, etc. In order to make the system more credible, universities may assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar on lecture in a class room situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. These procedures can be followed for both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations." There is also amendment to the said Regulation by incorporating the following clause : "3. These procedures can be followed for both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations." There is also amendment to the said Regulation by incorporating the following clause : "3. The clause 6.0.2 of the Principal Regulations shall stand amended and substituted by the following clause :-- "6.0.2 The Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedure through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleges/affiliated colleges (Government/Government-aided/Autonomous/Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. An indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS is annexed in Appendix III. The universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers. While adopting this, universities shall not change any of the categories or scores of the API given in Appendix-III. The universities can, if they wish so, increase the minimum required score or devise appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment." 51. From the aforesaid amendment it is clear that the percentage of API cumulative score in application can be based on self-appraisal of particular candidate and the University may increase the minimum required score or device appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment. On the otherhand the Regulation has directed that the Universities can only add to the minimum criteria as devised in Appendix III and increase the standard by adding any other criteria to the minimum prescribed by the U.G.C. but shall not change any categories or scores of API given in Appendix III. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Academic Performance Indicator as per the criteria of U.G.C. has not been maintained. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for U.G.C. that the subject category III A and subject category III B have been clubbed together by the University. Learned counsel for U.G.C. submitted that the purpose of providing 30% marks for research papers, journals etc. and research publication, books etc. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for U.G.C. that the subject category III A and subject category III B have been clubbed together by the University. Learned counsel for U.G.C. submitted that the purpose of providing 30% marks for research papers, journals etc. and research publication, books etc. and 25% have been kept separate by the U.G.C. the very purpose that the candidate must have research papers or journals and also research orientation so that his academic interest can be well measured and to consider other academic pursuit so that it can meet the career of the students and the research scholars. The details of Appendix III has been described by the U.G.C. Regulation. 52. It is alleged by learned counsel for U.G.C. that the O.P.-Ravenshaw University has clubbed up Appendix IIIA and clause IIIB together in calculation of API scores by not calculating the same separately, has resulted in an improper and illegal method of calculation adopted by Ravenshaw University, the candidate will not be eligible to apply for the post of Reader. Besides, it is alleged that as per clause 6.0.2 of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 read with clause 3 of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2013, the API scores has to be calculated by a statutory body but O.P. No. 1 has entrusted such work to one individual, Shri J.P. Das, lecturer in Chemistry clearly violating the U.G.C. Regulation. It is also submitted by learned counsel for U.G.C. that according to clause 6A of U.G.C. directive dated 25.8.2006, the reservation policy is applicable to all teaching posts such as posts of Lecturer/Readers/Professor but Ravenshaw University has clearly made departure through the impugned advertisement dated 23.6.2014 by not reserving even a single post for SC/ST/SEBC candidates for the post of Reader and Professor. It is also stated that O.Ps.1 & 2 went ahead to make vacancies "school wise," whereas according to the U.G.C. Regulations, the vacancies have to be filled up "subject wise" and the State Government has also created posts "subject wise". Moreover, it is stated that the reservation for the persons with disability category has not been followed while making advertisement vide Annexure-1. The reservation policy for appointment of teachers has not been followed and 80 point model roster in service has also been violated. Moreover, it is stated that the reservation for the persons with disability category has not been followed while making advertisement vide Annexure-1. The reservation policy for appointment of teachers has not been followed and 80 point model roster in service has also been violated. It is, therefore, submitted by learned counsel for U.G.C. to set aside the advertisement dated 23.6.2014. 53. Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned senior Advocate for O.P.-Ravenshaw University submitted that the Ravenshaw University being autonomous, has maintained its absolute autonomy in recruiting teachers and has thoroughly followed all procedures. He further submitted that State Government has created regular posts of Lecturer/Reader/Professor from time to time and the Vice Chancellor took steps for filling up posts on issuance of advertisement. For the interest of students and for good and qualitative education, the advertisement was made on 23.6.2014 to fill up the posts. Since the Ravenshaw University has been created under a statute, it has obligation to go ahead with appointment of teachers according to such statute. He further submitted that the petitioners in the writ petition have completely distorted and misrepresented various clauses of advertisement. The Ravenshaw University being competent to appoint the teachers have retained necessary clauses in advertisement in question like any other leading Universities of India adopting similar procedure for recruitment of teachers. 54. It is further submitted that according to clause 7(b) of the impugned advertisement, it has been mentioned that it will be open to the University to consider the norms of the suitable candidates who might not have applied inasmuch as this clause has been given to maintain transparency in order to accommodate very eminent persons with outstanding achievements in the respective subjects as Professors of the University provided they give their consent to do so. Similarly, under clause 7(g), it has been mentioned that relaxation for any of the qualification may be made in exceptional cases on recommendation of the Selection Committee because in absence of suitable candidates, the Selection Committee may find suitable candidates by relaxing the qualification to fill up the posts for keeping the interests of institution and the students at large. 55. Mr. 55. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior Advocate further submitted that vide advertisement dated 23.6.2014 the teaching experience of 8 years has been reduced to 5 years for the reason that the posts advertised to be filled up are for Readers but U.G.C. Guidelines provide for 8 years teaching experience for the post of Associate Professors. According to him, the post of Associate Professor is not equivalent to Readers because for Readers, the scale of pay is Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs. 8000/- whereas the scale of Associate Professor (under U.G.C.) is more than this pay scale. 56. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalpat Aba Saheb Solanki v. B.S. Mahajan and others, (1990) 1 SCC 305 the selection should be vibrant one consisting of eminent scientists and proper persons even if there is exclusion of subject expert from selection board. It is submitted that in absence of real expert to remain in the selection board, the absence of persons with expertise cannot be said to be fatal to selection and question of bias, does not arise. Moreover, it is submitted by learned counsel for O.P. No. 1 & 2 that retaining the Ph. D. and NET as qualification for the post of lecturer, cannot be said to be in violation of U.G.C. Guidelines. In order to appoint regular teachers against contract teachers, steps have been taken by the impugned advertisement and there is no illegality because the University needs good number of experienced teachers to maintain proper education standard of Teachers. 57. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate for O.P.-Ravenshaw University further submitted that the allegation that the Registrar has become part of the selection process, is absolutely false and fabricated story, because the Registrar himself being a candidate had been kept out of ambit of selection process, although, initially he was the person to have issued the advertisement under the orders of the Vice Chancellor. 58. Mr. 58. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate for O.P.-Ravenshaw University further submitted that in the impugned advertisement under clause 7(d) to the effect that merely fulfilling minimum qualification does not entitle a candidate to be considered or called for interview and the same cannot be said to be inconsistent with the U.G.C. guidelines because, under U.G.C. Regulations, 2013, the University can if they wish to do so, increase minimum required score or device with proper additional criteria for screening of candidate at any level of recruitment. So the University has every right to shortlist the candidates. It is also submitted by learned counsel for Ravenshaw University that API scores by clubbing clause IIIA with clause IIIB is proper, in order to find out the suitable candidates and by that no Regulation of U.G.C. has been violated, because U.G.C. has allowed the University to find out its own method of selection by keeping the criteria as prescribed by U.G.C. He refuted all the allegations made by the petitioners and the U.G.C. Over-all it is submitted on behalf of the Ravenshaw University that the interview of the candidates for different posts have been made properly and there is no violation of reservation policy because the advertisement has been made post-wise keeping the reservation of posts for the SC/ST/SEBC. At last it is submitted by learned counsel for the O.P.-Ravenshaw University that for larger interest of students, the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench should be lifted as the advertisement has been made in order to have transparent selection of teachers and writ petitions should be dismissed with cost. 59. The advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014, impugned, reads as follows : "Ravenshaw University Cuttack (Orissa) Advertisement No. 2232 Dt 23/06/2014 Recruitment for faculty positions Ravenshaw, one of the premier educational institutions in the country, was established in 1868 in Cuttack, Odisha. After one hundred and forty years of eventful existence, it was converted into O.P.- Ravenshaw University by an Act of the State Legislature on November 15, 2006. Thus, as one of the heritage educational institutions, and as a young university, Ravenshaw is a veritable blend of the old and the new. The Ravenshaw campus with its majestic structures was set up in the year 1919 on the eastern side of Cuttack. Thus, as one of the heritage educational institutions, and as a young university, Ravenshaw is a veritable blend of the old and the new. The Ravenshaw campus with its majestic structures was set up in the year 1919 on the eastern side of Cuttack. After becoming a university, Ravenshaw has acquired another one hundred and forty acres of land on the bank of river Mahanadi to build its second campus for the new disciplines of management and applied sciences. The old Ravenshaw campus is located very close to the Cuttack Railway Station, and is about a 45 minutes drive from the Bhubaneswar Airport. As a young university, the old Ravenshaw is now in the throes of preservation and change. Its infrastructure, both academic and physical, is being strengthened and expanded to meet the needs to make it more contemporary and raise the level of its excellence. As a part of the endeavour, O.P.- Ravenshaw University is soon going to recruit a brand new faculty for its various disciplines. O.P.-Ravenshaw University invites applications for the following faculty positions in various disciplines under different schools. Applications in prescribed format should reach the Registrar, O.P.- Ravenshaw University latest by the July 22, 2014. School Post No. of Vacancies UR ST SC SEBC Total Life science Professor 2 - - - 2 Reader 5 - - - 5 Lecturer 10 4 2 1 17 Physical Science Professor 3 - - - 2 Reader 5 - - - 5 Lecturer 8 5 3 1 17 Mathematics and Computer Science Professor 2 - - - 2 Reader 3 - - - 5 Lecturer 6 3 1 1 11 Commerce and Management Studies Professor 2 - - - 2 Reader 2 - - - 5 Lecturer 5 1 1 - 7 Earth Atmoshpere and Ocean Sciences Professor 1 - - - 1 Reader 5 - - - 5 Lecturer 6 3 2 1 12 Social Sciences Professor 2 - - - 2 Reader 3 - - - 5 Lecturer 6 3 1 1 11 Languages Professor 1 - - - 2 Reader 2 - - - 5 * UR- Unreserved; ST- Scheduled Tribe; SC Scheduled Caste; SEBC-Socially and Educationally Backward Caste. 3% reservation for Persons with Disability (P.W:D) Category in each subject/post will be reserved in accordance with the P.W.D Act, 1995 and Rules made there-under. 2. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION 1. 3% reservation for Persons with Disability (P.W:D) Category in each subject/post will be reserved in accordance with the P.W.D Act, 1995 and Rules made there-under. 2. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION 1. Professor A. (i) School of Life Sciences : An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in Botany/Zoology any other branch of Life Sciences/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers. School of Physical Sciences : An eminent scholar with Fh.D. qualification(s) in Physics/Astrophysics/Chemistry/Nano material/Nano science/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers. School of Mathematics and Computer Sciences : An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in Mathematics/Statistics/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers. School of Commerce and Management Studies: An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in Commerce/Management/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers. School of Earth, Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences : An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in Geology Geography/Atmospheric Science/Ocean Science/allied/ relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers. School of Social Sciences : An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in Philosophy/Political Science/International Studies/Sociology/Psychology/Public Policy/ allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers, School of Languages : An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in English/Linguistics/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers" (ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in university/college, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level. (iii) Contribution to educational innovation; design of new curricula and courses, and technology - mediated teaching learning process. (iii) Contribution to educational innovation; design of new curricula and courses, and technology - mediated teaching learning process. (iv) A minimum score of 400 points as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (APl) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) in category lll (as per UGC Regulations published in Gazette of India on September 18, 2010 and 2nd Amendment vide Letter No. F.1-2/2009 (EC/PS) V(I) Vol-II dated 13 June 2013). Or An outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field, who has made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials. 2. Reader (i) School of Life sciences : Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in Botany/Zoology any other branch of Life Sciences/allied/relevant disciplines with specialization in Molecular Biology/Cytogenetics/Bio Physics/Biochemistry/any other specializations. School of Physical Sciences: Good academic record with a Ph'D' Degree in physics/Astrophysics/Chemistry/Nano Material/Nano science/allied relevant disciplines. School of Mathematics and computer Sciences : Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in Mathematics/computer Science/Statistics/allied/relevant disciplines. School of Commerce and Management Studies: Good academic record with a Ph. D. Degree in Commerce/Management/allied/relevant disciplines. School of Earth, Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences : Good academic record with; Ph.D. Degree in geology/Geography/Atmospheric Science/Ocean Science/allied/relevant disciplines. School of Social Sciences : Good academic record with a Ph'D' Degree in Economics/Education/International Studies/Philosophy/Public Folicy/Sociology/Pychology/allied/relevant disciplines. School of Languages : Good academic record with a Ph'D' Degree in English/Linguistics//allied/relevant disciplines. (ii) A Master's Degree with atleast 5% marks or an equivalent grade in a point Scale wherever grading system is followed)' (iii) A minimum of five years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Professor/Lecturer in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution industry including the period of Ph. D. research with evidence of published work and books and/or research/policy papers. (iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology - mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students. (v) A minimum score of 300 points as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (AFD based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) in category lll (as per UGC Regulations published ln Gazette of India on September 18, 2010 and Amendment vide Letter No. F.1-2/2d)9 (ECIPS) V(I) Vohtt dated 13 June 2013). 3. (v) A minimum score of 300 points as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (AFD based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) in category lll (as per UGC Regulations published ln Gazette of India on September 18, 2010 and Amendment vide Letter No. F.1-2/2d)9 (ECIPS) V(I) Vohtt dated 13 June 2013). 3. Lecturer (i) School of Life Sciences : Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% of marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed), at the Master's Degree level in Botany/Zoology any branch of Life Sciences/relevant disciplines from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University with specialization in Molecular Biology/Cytogenetics/Bio Physics/Biotechnology/Photo Biology/Neurobiology/Cancer Biology/Nano Biology/Virology/Micro Biology/Stem Cell Research/Biochemistry/Plant Taxonomy/Ecology/Environmental Biology/Plant or Animal Developmental Biology/Plant Physiology/Animal Physiology/any other specializations. School of Physical Sciences : Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% of marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in Physics/Chemistry/Astrophysics/relevant disciplines from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University with specialization in Spectroscopy/Physical Chemistry/Electro Chemistry/Theoretical Chemistry/Nuclear Chemistry/Computational Physics/Astrophysics/Laser and Photonics/Nano-Material and Nano-Sciences/any other specializations. School of Mathematics and Computer Sciences : Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% of marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree in Mathematics/Computer Sciences/Statistics/relevant disciplines from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University. School of Commerce and Management Studies: Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% of marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree in Commerce/Management relevant disciplines from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University with specialization in Managerial Economics/Banking/Statistics/Quantitative Methods/Accountancy/Taxation/Finance/any other specializations. School of Earth, Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences : Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% of marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Masters Degree in Geology/Geography/Atmospheric Science/Ocean Science/relevant disciplines from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University with specialization in Remote Sensing and GIS/Disaster Management/Geomorphology/any other specializations. School of Social Sciences : Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% of marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at. the Master's Degree in Economics (specialization in Mathematical Economics;/Econometrics/International Trade/any other specializations) of Education (special Edition in Economics of Education/Early Childhood Care and Education/Inclusive Education/any other specializations) or History (specialization in Contemporary Indian History/Archaeology/any other specializations) or Political Science (specialization in Political Theory/any other specializations) or Philosophy (specialization in Indian Philosophy/any other specializations) or Psychology/Sociology/lnternational Studies/any branch of Social Sciences having specialization in History of Science/Science Policy/Social Psychology/Governance/.Education Policy/Land Management Policy/any other specializations from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University. School of Languages-: Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% of marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree in English relevant disciplines from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University with specialization. in Professional Writing/English Language Teaching/Classical/Comparative Literature/any other specializations.. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NEQ conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET for the respective subjects. ' (iii) 'Notwithstanding anything contained in (i) and (ii) candidates, who are, or have been awarded a-Ph. D. Degree through a process of administration, registration, course work and external evaluation as laid down in the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 and so adopted by the university, shall be exempted from NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Lecturer. Persons, who have registered before 2009 and awarded with Ph.D. degree are also exempted from NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Lecturer. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. (iv) A relaxation of 5% may be provided at the Graduate and Master's level for the SC/ST/Differently-abled (Physically and Visually Handicapped) candidates for the purpose of eligibility and for assessing good academic record during direct recruitment to teaching positions. Rounding off of marks to make it to 55% or 5% as the case may be through grace mark procedure etc., by universities is not permissible for claiming relaxation. Rounding off of marks to make it to 55% or 5% as the case may be through grace mark procedure etc., by universities is not permissible for claiming relaxation. (v) A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D. Degree holders, who have passed their Master's degree prior to 19th September, 1991. 3. SCALE OF PAY: 1. Professor: Rs. 37400 - 67000 and AGP - Rs. 10000 2. Reader: Rs. 15600 - 39100 and AGP - Rs. 8000 (However, applicants who are already in the Pay Band and AGP mentioned above and have completed five years of service will be considered later for Pay Band 37400 - 67000 and AGP Rs. 9000). Applicants who are already in AGP of Rs. 9000/-, their salary shall be protected. 3. Lecturer : Rs. 15600 - 39100 and AGP - Rs. 6000 4. HOW TO APPLY: Application forms are only available in the O.P.-Ravenshaw University 'www.ravenshawuniversity.ac.in,.' Applicants are required to download the application form and the API Score Card (for the post of Professor and Reader) from the links 'API SCORE CARD' given below. Application form API Score Card complete in all respects should be sent to the Registrar,, Cuttack-753003, Odisha along with a Demand Draft for Rs. 500/- (Rs. 2000- in case of sc/ST/PWD applicants) drawn in favour of the Comptroller of Finance, O.P.-payable at Cuttack by Speed Pot/Registered Post so as to reach on or before the last date (July 22, 2014) of the application. The envelope containing application should be superscribed, APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF............. IN THE SCHOOL OF............................... However the applicants are advised to send a soft copy of the duly filled in application through email attachment to "registrar@.ac.in,'. The applicants staying abroad may send their applications through email attachment. However, they will be required to submit all the testimonials and the bank draft at the time of the interview. The application form sent by any other mode will not be, accepted; The last date of application is 22 July 2014. 5. APPLICATION FORM 6. APISCORE CARD 7. Documents to be submitted along with the application form: "i. API Score Card (for the post of Professor and Reader); ii. Bank Draft for Rs. 500i- (Rs. 200/- in case of SC/ST/PWD applicants); iii. Attested photo copies of certificates and mark sheets relating to academic qualifications; iv. 5. APPLICATION FORM 6. APISCORE CARD 7. Documents to be submitted along with the application form: "i. API Score Card (for the post of Professor and Reader); ii. Bank Draft for Rs. 500i- (Rs. 200/- in case of SC/ST/PWD applicants); iii. Attested photo copies of certificates and mark sheets relating to academic qualifications; iv. Experience Certificates from concerned authorities; v. No Objection Certificate from the present employer; vi. SC/ST/SEBC/PWD certificates from competent authorities; vii. List of publications including books and articles, viii. Copies of the reprints of three best publications. ix. Copies of all other certificates on the basis of which API Scores have been calculated. Other Conditions : 7. a. The application form duly filled in by the candidate must be supported by attested copies of all required documents. b. It will be open to the university to consider names of suitable candidates who might not have applied. c. The university may also consider the applications received from applicants staying abroad in absentia. However, all the credentials, including certificates and testimonials will be verified on selection but before the issue of appointment letters. d. Merely fulfilling the minimum qualification does not entitle a candidate to be necessarily considered or called for interview e. Applications received after the last date will not be considered. f. University reserves the right not to fill up any of the vacancies advertised if the circumstances so warrant. g. Relaxation of any of the qualification may be made in exceptional cases on the recommendation of the selection committee. h. Separate application is required for each post. i. No deputation allowances will be paid j. No TA/DA will be paid to attend the selection committee or to join the first appointment. k. Canvassing in any form by or on behalf of the candidates be considered as disqualification. l. Applicants applying for the post of Professor and Readers are required to make necessary entries in the API Score Card and submit the same along with the Application Form duly filled in. m. Applicants already in service are required to apply through proper channel. 8. l. Applicants applying for the post of Professor and Readers are required to make necessary entries in the API Score Card and submit the same along with the Application Form duly filled in. m. Applicants already in service are required to apply through proper channel. 8. Selection Criteria: As per UGC REGULATIONS, published in the Gazette of India on September 18, 2O1O and 2nd Amendment vide Letter No. F1-2/2009 (EC/PS) V(I) Vol-II dated 13 June 2013) Lecturer Reader Professor Minimum API Scores Minimum Qualification Stipulated in this Regulations Consolidated API score requirement of 300 points from category III of APIs. Consolidated API Score requirement of 400 points from category III of APIs. Selection committee criteria/Weightages (Total weightages = 100) a) Academic Record and Research Performance (50%) b) Assessment of Domain knowledge and teaching skills (30%) c) Interview Performance (20%) a) Academic Background (20%) b) Research Performance based on API score and quality of publication c) Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (20%) d) Interview Performance (20%) a) Academic Background (20%) b) Research performance based on API score and quality of publications (40%) c) Assessment of Domain knowledge and teaching skills (20%) d) Interview Performance (20%) 9. Candidates who had already applied in response to Advertisement No. 1910 of 02 May 2013 of O.P.-Ravenshaw University for those posts, they may send an updated CV to the Registrar with a forwarding letter by the last date of application. Sd/- Registrar, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack" 60. Before going to the impugned advertisement which is challenged in these writ applications, it appears that for 16 professors, 29 readers and 95 lecturers, the said advertisement has been made. Subsequently, with regard to the segregation of posts of different schools, there is advertisement No. 2414 dated 3.7.2014 and for shortlisting of candidates a separate corrigendum was issued on 11.8.2014. Both the parties admit these facts. It is also the admitted fact that U.G.C. has issued Regulations from time to time. It is admitted fact that on 25.8.2006 and 8.9.2014 U.G.C. issued Regulation for implementing reservation policy for all teaching and non-teaching posts of all Universities. Thereafter U.G.C. (Minimum Standard and procedure for awards of M. Phil/Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 was published on 11.7.2009. It is also the admitted fact that U.G.C. has issued Regulations from time to time. It is admitted fact that on 25.8.2006 and 8.9.2014 U.G.C. issued Regulation for implementing reservation policy for all teaching and non-teaching posts of all Universities. Thereafter U.G.C. (Minimum Standard and procedure for awards of M. Phil/Ph. D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 was published on 11.7.2009. More stress has been laid on U.G.C. (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010. Similarly on 9.4.2011 U.G.C. (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2011 was issued. Thereafter from time to time, amendment was made in 2011, 2013 and finally in 2014 by the U.G.C.. These facts are not denied by the opposite parties. 61. As it appears from the above, clause 7(b) of the impugned advertisement No. 2232 dated 23.6.2014, shows that it will be open to the University to consider the names of the suitable candidates who might not have applied. It is absolutely arbitrary and illegal because in the notification vide Annexure-1 the University has given the last date for submission of application as 22.7.2014. There is also provision in clause 7 of impugned advertisement that any application received after due date will be rejected. When there is stipulation of date, i.e., 22.7.2014 and after due date applications were not acceptable, it is not understood why clause 7(b) allows candidate to appear in the interview even if he/she has not applied for the same. In this regard counter of Ravenshaw University shows that in order to find out suitable candidates, clause 7(b) has been kept in the advertisement. The explanation of O.P.-Ravenshaw University is absurd as such clause is opposed to the principles of fairness of selection and discrimination between candidates. 62. Under clause 7(g) of advertisement of the advertisement vide Annexure-1, it has been indicated that relaxation of any of the qualification may be made in "exceptional cases" on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted, which is also arbitrary and illegal in as much as the candidates who have minimum qualification, can only apply and relaxation of any of the qualification at the hand of the selection committee cannot ensure fair and transparent recruitment process. U.G.C. Regulations do not provide nor permit the consideration of any application after the due date. In one hand it violates natural justice and on the other hand it contradicts U.G.C. Regulations which are binding in nature over the Ravenshaw University, as discussed above. 63. Clauses 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 mandate that the Composition of Selection Committee shall include three experts in the concerned subject, but Ravenshaw University has included 3-4 other persons as experts who are not from the concerned subject. But it is revealed from the counter that where the subject expert is not available, experts in other subjects can be made as expert in order to fill up the post of faculty member so that the University can run without any paucity in lecturer/Reader/Professor. This explanation of Ravenshaw University seems to be diabolical because when the expert members in every subject are available in other colleges or from outside State, it is not worthwhile to allow the expert in one subject to remain in the selection committee as expert in other subject. By this way, the confidence of the applicants can be enhanced in the fairness in the selection process. 64. It appears from the impugned advertisement dated 23.6.2014, minimum score of 400 & 300 points in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) as per Appendix III Table IIC under U.G.C. Regulations published in Gazette of India on September 18, 2010 and 2nd Amendment vide letter No. F 1-2/2009 (EC)/PS) V(I) Vol-II dated 13 June 2013) is one of the essential qualification for the post of Professor and Reader respectively. Moreover, sub-clause A III of clause-2 of the impugned advertisement stipulates that contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses and technology-mediated teaching process also to be read along with sub-clause IV of the advertisement in question is an essential qualification for the post of Professor. At the same time in all the subjects as per clause 2 sub-clause A (i) of said advertisement, the candidate must be an eminent scholar with Ph. D. in concerned subject and published work of high quality with research work with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research policy papers. At the same time in all the subjects as per clause 2 sub-clause A (i) of said advertisement, the candidate must be an eminent scholar with Ph. D. in concerned subject and published work of high quality with research work with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research policy papers. Besides 10 years of teaching experience in University/college and/or experience in research at the University/National level institution/industry or experience of guiding candidates at doctoral level is one of the basic qualification to become Professor. Again in clause 2 there is a sub-clause to the effect that an outstanding Professional with established reputation in the relevant field who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline to be substantiated by the credentials. Under U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 clause 4.1.0 speaks about eligibility criteria to become Professor in the direct recruitment process but the impugned advertisement contains all criteria of U.G.C. Regulations, except with regard to the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) as prescribed in the Appendix III Category III of the U.G.C. Regulation. It has been highlighted by learned counsel for the U.G.C. that instead of following appendix III category III of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 and amended Regulations, 2013 O.P.-Ravenshaw University prescribed table in the following manner in selection procedure. Total API Score (Category Wise) : Score Claimed by Applicant API Capp (%) Max. Score Applicable Capped API Score Part A and B 0.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 Part C 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 Part D 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Part E 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 Total API Score 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 65. It has been highlighted by learned counsel for the U.G.C. that the appendix III category II C of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 being amended in 2013 is prescribed in the following manner. Sub-Category Cap as % of API cumulative score in application III(A) : Research papers (Journals, etc.) 30% III(B) : Research publications (Books, etc.) 25% III(C) : Research Projects 20% III(D) : Research Guidance 10% III(E) : Training Courses and Conference/Seminar, etc. It is reiterated that clause 6.0.2 of the Principal Regulations shall stand amended and substituted in the following manner:- "There is also amendment to the said Regulation by incorporating the following clause : 3. It is reiterated that clause 6.0.2 of the Principal Regulations shall stand amended and substituted in the following manner:- "There is also amendment to the said Regulation by incorporating the following clause : 3. The clause 6.0.2 of the Principal Regulations shall stand amended and substituted by the following clause :- 6.0.2 The Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedure through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleges/affiliated colleges (Government/Government-aided/Autonomous/Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. An indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS is annexed in Appendix III. The universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers. While adopting this, universities shall not change any of the categories or scores of the API given in Appendix-III. The universities can, if they wish so, increase the minimum required score or devise appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment." An indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS is annexed in Appendix III. The universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers. While adopting this, universities shall not change any of the categories or scores of the API given in Appendix-III. The universities can, if they wish so, increase the minimum required score or devise appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment." 66. From the amendment of clause 6.0.2 of Regulations, 2013 it is clear that the percentage of API cumulative score in application can be based on self-appraisal report with a particular subject but the University may increase the minimum required score or device appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment. On the other hand the Regulation has directed that the Universities has to retain the minimum criteria as devised in Appendix III Table II C and increase the standard by adding any other criteria to the minimum prescribed by the U.G.C. At the same time no University is allowed to change any category on scores of API given in Appendix III. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Academic Performance Indicator as per the criteria of U.G.C. has not been maintained. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for U.G.C. that the subjects in category III A and subject category III B have been calculated together by the opp. Party No. 1 without calculating them separately. Learned counsel for University submitted that even if the Table III A and Table III B have been taken together to find out the marks out of 55% (30% + 25%) for a better one by University but by that mandate of the U.G.C. Regulation has not been violated. Learned counsel for U.G.C. submitted that the purpose of keeping 30% mark for research papers (journals etc.) and 25% marks for research publication (books etc.) by the U.G.C. is with very purpose that the candidate must have research papers or journals and also research publication so that his/her academic interest can well be measured and to keep alternative academic pursuit so that it can meet the career of the students and the research scholars. The details of Appendix III has been described by the U.G.C. Regulations. Now let us see what is the effect of clubbing total III A & B by the O.P.-Ravenshaw University while considering the eligibility criteria of respective candidate for the post of Professor and Reader. 67. Learned counsel for Ravenshaw University supporting counter submitted some examples to show that while separately the scores are calculated for Categories III A & III B, the capped API score becomes less and marks calculated together can increase the total marks of candidates. Learned counsel for the U.G.C. put objection to the examples as set out in counter of the Ravenshaw University. He put forth following guidelines. API Calculator for Direct Recruitment (as per UGC Guidelines and as amended till June 2013) Name of the Candidate Post Applied for Department/Center School/Faculty University Whether Awarded Ph.D Degree (YES of No/Year) Whether Supervised Doctoral Research Work (Yes or No) Teaching/Research Experience (in Years) (Excluding the Years spent for M.Phil & Ph.D) CATEGORY – III : RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS Sl. No. Parameters Methodology of Assessment Number of Papers Score Reported PART – A RESEARCH PAPERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNALS (i) Papers published in Non-referred but recognized and reputable Journal with ISBN/ISSN Number 10/Paper 0 0 (ii) Papers in Referred Journals  with ISSN/ISBN Numbers 15/Papers 0 0 (iii) Papers in Indexed Journals 20/Papers 0 0 (iv) Papers with Impact Factor between 1 and 2 25/Paper 0 0 (v) Papers with Impact Factor between 2 and 5 30/Paper 0 0 (vi) Papers with Impact Factor 5 or above 40/Paper 0 0 (vii) Published in Conference Proceedings as full papers (Abstracts not to be included) 10/Paper 0 0 Total API under Part A 0 0 Sl. No. Parameters Methodology of Assessment Number of Papers Score Reported PART – B RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS (BOOKS, MONOGRAPHS) (i) Text/Reference Books published by an International Publisher with an established Peer Review System Sole Author Chapter in Edited Books 50 per Books 10 per Books 0 0 0 0 (ii) (Subject Books Published by National level publisher/state and central government publications with ISBN/ISSN) numbers Sole Author Chapter in edited Books 25 Per publication 5 Per publication 0 0 0 0 (iii) Subject Books Published by other local publishers with ISBN/ISSN numbers Sole Author Chapter in edited Books 15 Per Publication 3 Per Publication 0 0 0 0 (iv) Chapter Contributed to edited knowledge based volumes published by international publishers 10 Per Chapter 0 0 (v) Chapter in knowledge based volumes published by Indian/National level publishers with ISBN/155N Numbers and with numbers of national and international directories 5 Per Chapter Total A Plunder Part B 0 0 0 0 68. It appears that the research papers vide category IIIA and research publications vide IIIB cannot be taken together inasmuch as research papers of individual can be published in referred journals or non-referred journal or can be placed before the conference proceeding and accordingly marks will be awarded whereas research publications can also be categorised by publication in books by international publishers or books by national level publishers or by other local publishers and they will be evaluated accordingly. For example, a candidate might have research papers but not have research publication of books. For example, a candidate might have research papers but not have research publication of books. Similarly a candidate might have got research papers published in any referred but published journals in non referred and he might have got research publication of books by the international publishers, if the categories are at all clubbed together, cannot be the same as evaluated separately because marks can be awarded individually under different category as given by the U.G.C. Guidelines for necessary shortlisting as appended to Regulations, 2013 on 4.6.2013. 69. Moreover, learned counsel for U.G.C. has put up example as to how Ravenshaw University has flouted their Regulation which is as under : “Let us put an example A candidate has following API points III (A) : Research papers (Journal, etc) = 400 III (B) : Research publications (Books, etc) = 0 III (C) : Research projects = 50 III (D) : Research Guidance = 40 III (E) : Training courses and Conf/Seminar, etc = 30 As per UGC guidelines June 2013 capping be as follows: Total API Score (Category Wise) : Score Claimed by Applicant API Capp (%) Max. Score Applicable Capped API Score Part A 400 30 156 156 Part B 0.0 25 130 0.0 Part C 50 20.0 104 50 Part D 40 10.0 52 40 Part E 30 15.0 78 30 TOTAL API Score 520 100.0 276 As per Ravenshaw University Total API Score (Category Wise) : Score Claimed by Applicant API Capp (%) Max. Score Applicable Capped API Score Part A & Part B 400 55 286 286 Part C 50 20.0 104 50 Part D 40 10.0 52 40 Part E 30 15.0 78 30 TOTAL API Score 520 100.0 406 As per UGC he/she is not eligible for READER but according to Ravenshaw University he/she is eligible for PROFESSOR (As per UGC for APIU score required for READER = 300 and for professor=400)" 70. Therefore, rightly it has been found from the table given by the learned counsel for the U.G.C. that as per U.G.C. amended guideline, 2013, a candidate can not be eligible for Reader but according to Ravenshaw University, he can be eligible for Professor. Therefore, rightly it has been found from the table given by the learned counsel for the U.G.C. that as per U.G.C. amended guideline, 2013, a candidate can not be eligible for Reader but according to Ravenshaw University, he can be eligible for Professor. So the method adopted by the O.P.-Ravenshaw University cannot be said to be in conformity with the U.G.C. Regulations although it has been advertised vide the impugned advertisement that as per U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, the API score will be considered to find out the eligibility for the post of Professor and Reader. Apart from this, the U.G.C. has clarified that the respective University can increase the standard of requirement by keeping the minimum standard as prescribed by U.G.C. In the present case the O.P.-Ravenshaw University has violated the same for the reason best know to it. On the otherhand the impugned advertisement has clearly violated the norms of U.G.C. Regulation in the manner as discussed above by diluting the minimum standard enshrined by the U.G.C. Regulations. It must be remembered that the purpose of U.G.C. Regulation is to enhance the quality of education but not to denegrade the same as stated in the above para, the object of education as enshrined by Mahatma Gandhi cannot be made successful if there is dilution of minimum standard of eligibility to be maintained by the teachers while being appointed. On the otherhand the qualitative education will fall if the stress is not laid on the API score card as propounded by the U.G.C. The quality of teacher is very much essential for blossoming of a student from bud with the international standard of education. Mere qualifying in any competitive examination is not enough unless the student is well equipped with the potency in education. Be that as it may, the Ravenshaw University in the guise of maintaining minimum eligibility of standard of teachers, in their appointment, as enshrined under the impugned advertisement, has not actually followed the U.G.C. Act and Regulation in this regard. On the otherhand, Ravenshaw University has shattered the basic aim of education by publishing the impugned advertisement. 71. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for U.G.C. that the impugned advertisement has violated other provision of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010. On the otherhand, Ravenshaw University has shattered the basic aim of education by publishing the impugned advertisement. 71. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for U.G.C. that the impugned advertisement has violated other provision of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010. According to them the O.P.-Ravenshaw University has advertised that for the post of Reader, the minimum teaching experience should be 5 years but the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 at clause 2 (1), it has been clearly mentioned that minimum of 8 years of experience of teaching, research in an academic research position equivalent to that in University college or accredited research institution/industry excluding the period of Ph. D. research with evidence of published work and a minimum five publications as books/research/policy papers is one of the criteria of eligibility for the candidate applying for the post of Reader/Associate Professor. 72. On the other hand this criteria for 8 years of experience as teaching or research now has been violated by the O.P.-Ravenshaw University vide the impugned advertisement by reducing the same to 5 years. It is only submitted by the Ravenshaw University in counter that the post of Associate Professor is not equivalent to Reader because the salary as prescribed by U.G.C. for the post of Associate Professor is not the pay scale of Reader. The question of payment of salary depends upon the concerned college or the University but it is found from the impugned advertisement that for the post of Reader, minimum 5 years of teaching or a research in a academic research position in an University or college or accredited research/industry excluding the period of Ph. D. research with evidence of published work and minimum of five publications as books and/or research policy papers is required for the candidate applying for the post of Reader. The impugned advertisement itself shows that the five years experience as Assistant Professor is required to become Reader for which the contention of learned counsel for the Ravenshaw University coupled with the counter to the effect that the post of Reader is not equivalent to Associate Professor, is a fallacious one. The Ravenshaw University have failed to prove that the post of Associate Professor as propounded by U.G.C. is not the post of Reader as advertised by the Ravenshaw University. The Ravenshaw University have failed to prove that the post of Associate Professor as propounded by U.G.C. is not the post of Reader as advertised by the Ravenshaw University. Thus the advertisement stipulating the criteria for eligibility to become Readers as per the impugned advertisement is in violation of U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 in this regard. 73. Another pertinent point has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for U.G.C. is that the impugned advertisement maintains at clause 3 that for the post of lecturer in any discipline, a candidate should have at least 55% of marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed), at the Master's Degree level and the candidate must have cleared NET conducted by U.G.C., CSIR or similar test accredited by the U.G.C. like SLET/SET for the respective subjects. Again under sub-clause (iii) of the same clause, it has been mentioned that the candidates who have got Ph. D. Degree prior to the U.G.C. Regulations, 2009 are also exempted from NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Lecturer. But this procedure has been changed by the Ravenshaw University in their subsequent corrigendum issued on 11.8.2014 vide Annexure-1 in W.P.(C) No. 15410 of 2014 which states that in order to shortlist the candidates they decided to call for interview only those candidates who have both Ph. D. and NET under unreserved category, SC and SEBC reserved categories. Because of smaller number of applications under ST reserved category, all candidates who have NET or Ph. D. are called for interview. This letter has modified the impugned advertisement dated 23.6.2014 to this extent. The Regulations, 2009 itself discloses that the candidates those who have secured Ph. D. earlier to 2009, shall be exempted from NET/SLET or SET clearance. But candidates having Ph. D. and NET pass, are called for interview under unreserved category SC & SEBC, for which it violates the earlier U.G.C. Regulations, 2010. The argument from the side of the O.P.- Ravenshaw University that such Regulation being prospective in nature, cannot be understood anti clock wise. In this regard the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Suseela and others v. UGC & others (supra) para-14 "14. The argument from the side of the O.P.- Ravenshaw University that such Regulation being prospective in nature, cannot be understood anti clock wise. In this regard the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Suseela and others v. UGC & others (supra) para-14 "14. The other interesting argument made is that such Regulations should not be given retrospective effect so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such Regulation may be applicable. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right. This distinction was made with great felicity in Trimbak Damodhar Rajpurkar v. Assaram Hiraman Patil. In that case a question arose as to whether an amendment made to Section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act could be said to be retrospective because its operation took within its sweep existing rights. A Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court held that Section5 had no retrospective operation. This Court held: (Trimbak case, AIR pp. 1760-61, paras 8-10 : SCR pp. 707-09) "Besides, it is necessary to bear in mind that the right of the appellant to eject the respondents would arise only on the termination of the tenancy, and in the present case it would have been available to him on 31-3-1953 if the statutory provision had not in the meanwhile extended the life of the tenancy. It is true that the appellant gave notice to the respondents on 11-3-1952 as he was then no doubt entitled to do; but his right as a landlord to obtain possession did not accrue merely on the giving of the notice, it accrued in his favour on the date when the lease expired. It is only after the period specified in the notice is over and the tenancy has in fact expired that the landlord gets a right to eject the tenant and obtain possession of the land. Considered from this point of view, before the right accrued to the appellant to eject the respondents amending Act 33 of 1952 stepped in and deprived him of that right by requiring him to comply with the statutory requirement as to a valid notice which has to be given for ejecting tenants. In this connection it is relevant to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right. In this connection it is relevant to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right. Where a statute operates in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of its operation all existing rights are included. As observed by Buckley, L.J. in West v. Gwynne, Ch at pp. 11, 12 retrospective operation is one matter and interference with existing rights is another. "If an Act provides that as at a past date the law shall be taken to have been that which it was not, that Act I understand to be retrospective. That is not this case. The question here is whether a certain provision as to the contents of leases is addressed to the case of all leases or only of some, namely, leases executed after the passing of the Act. The question is as to the ambit and scope of the Act, and not as to the date as from which the new law, as enacted by the Act, is to be taken to have been the law." These observations were made in dealing with the question as to the retrospective construction of Section 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1892 (55 and 56 Vict. c. 13). In substance Section 3 provided that in all leases containing a covenant, condition or agreement against assigning, underletting, or parting with the possession, or disposing of the land or property leased without licence or consent, such covenant, condition or agreement shall, unless the lease contains an expressed provision to the contrary, be deemed to be subject to a proviso to the effect that no fine or sum of money in the nature of a fine shall be payable for or in respect of such licence or consent. It was held that the provisions of the said section applied to all leases whether executed before or after the commencement of the Act; and, according to Buckley, L.J., this construction did not make the Act retrospective in operation; it merely affected in future existing rights under all leases whether executed before or after the date of the Act. The position in regard to the operation of Section 5(1) of the amending Act with which we are concerned appears to us to be substantially similar. The position in regard to the operation of Section 5(1) of the amending Act with which we are concerned appears to us to be substantially similar. A similar question had been raised for the decision of this Court in Jivabhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson 10 in regard to the retrospective operation of Section 34(2)(a) of the said amending Act 33 of 1952 and this Court has approved of the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court on that point in Durlabhai Fakirbhai v. Jhaverbhai Bhikhabhai. It was held in Durlabhai case, that the relevant provision of the amending Act would apply to all proceedings where the period of notice had expired after the amending Act had come into force and that the effect of the amending Act was no more than this that it imposed a new and additional limitation on the right of the landlord to obtain possession from his tenant. It was observed in that judgment that: (Jivabhai Purshottam case, AIR p. 1493, para 4) '4. ... A notice under Section 34(1) is merely a declaration to the tenant of the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy; but it is always open to the landlord not to carry out his intention. Therefore, for the application of the restriction under sub-section 2(a) on the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy, the crucial date is not the date of notice but the date on which the right to terminate matures; that is, the date on which the tenancy stands terminated.'" 74. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the right is vested to get exempted from clearing NET by virtue of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010. Apart from this, the retrospective effect of the said notification has been granted by the Regulation itself. So the additional criteria about the eligibility for the post again stood as an embargo to the candidates who have no clearance in NET/SLET/SET although they have Ph. D. degree obtained before 2009. So the subsequent corrigendum of O.P. No. 1 made on 11.8.2011 that the candidates who have only Ph. D. and NET being shortlisted shall be called for interview is against the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is dehors to the U.G.C. Regulations, 2009. 75. D. degree obtained before 2009. So the subsequent corrigendum of O.P. No. 1 made on 11.8.2011 that the candidates who have only Ph. D. and NET being shortlisted shall be called for interview is against the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is dehors to the U.G.C. Regulations, 2009. 75. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the U.G.C. that the impugned advertisement has not taken care of the reservation policy as propounded by U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 and the State Government directive. On the otherhand learned counsel for Ravenshaw University submitted that in single post recruitment, no reservation is necessary. On going through the impugned advertisement, it appears that the same is made to fill up more than one post of Professor/Reader and Lecturer in the subject of Life Science, Physical Science, Mathematics, Computer Science, Commerce and Management Studies and Social Science. So the fact remains that the advertisement made for the single post is not correct. It is true that for the post of lecturer, certain posts have been kept reserved for ST & SEBC category besides vacancies in unreserved category. When there are more posts than one, the Odisha Reservation of Vacancy Act and Rules squarely apply. Moreover, U.G.C. Act and Regulations specifically mention that while recruiting the teachers, reservation policy must be adopted. Similarly while sanctioning the post by the State Government, it has been directed to observe the reservation policy while filling up the post of lecturer/reader/professor. It is not known why such principle of reservation policy has not been adopted under the impugned advertisement. In this regard also the impugned advertisement is indefensible. 76. It is also found from the submission of respective counsel for the petitioners and U.G.C. that no vacancy has been kept for the person with disability under the Disability Act, 1995. In fact on going through the impugned advertisement, there is only one footnote below the clause (1) that 3% reservation for Persons with Disability (P.W.D) Category in each subject/post will be reserved in accordance with the P.W.D Act, 1995 and Rules made thereunder. But no post has been earmarked to be filled up under this category. Besides this, the posts were advertised under impugned advertisement for the different schools like school of life science, school of physical science etc. But no post has been earmarked to be filled up under this category. Besides this, the posts were advertised under impugned advertisement for the different schools like school of life science, school of physical science etc. In fact the Ravenshaw University Act empowers the Ravenshaw University to create the schools of different disciplines. Under section 12(6) of Ravenshaw University Act itself also there is provision for Executive Council to take a decision in this respect. No such decision of the Executive Council is placed before us to apprise us to prove creation of schools in the subjects, although the posts have been created by the State Government, the department wise but not school-wise. Learned counsel for the Ravenshaw University failed to satisfy us as to why such decision was taken. However, when there is no creation of post 'school wise' and schools having not been opened according to the Ravenshaw University Act, the entire procedure of allotting the posts to different schools is vulnerable. It speaks volumes against the Ravenshaw University. In this regard also the O.P.-Ravenshaw University has clearly violated the U.G.C. directive and the State Government directive. 77. With regard to importance of the U.G.C. in the case of Neha Anil Bobde (Gadkar) (supra) Their Lordships have observed in paragraphs 21-23 in the following manner; "21. We have heard the counsel on the either side at length. Let us, at the outset, point out that the power of UGC to set the standard of qualifying criteria, as such, is not disputed but, it was pointed out, such qualifying criteria ought to have been notified and made known to the candidates before taking the examination on 24-6-2012. After prescribing that the candidates were required to obtain minimum marks separately in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, there is no justification in superimposing an additional qualifying criteria before the declaration of the results. 22. We have elaborately referred to various statutory provisions which would clearly indicate that UGC as an expert body has been entrusted by the UGC Act the general duty to take such steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the universities. It is also duty-bound to perform such functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India. It is also duty-bound to perform such functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India. UGC has also got the power to define the qualification that should ordinarily be required for any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the university and to regulate the maintenance of standards and coordination of work and faculties in the universities. 23. This Court in University of Delhi v. Raj Singh dealt with the powers of UGC elaborately and held as follows: (SCC pp. 532-33, para 20) "20. The ambit of Entry 66 has already been the subject of the decisions of this Court in Gujarat 4 University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and 5 Osmania University Teachers' Assn. v. State of A.P. The UGC Act is enacted under the provisions of Entry 66 to carry out the objective thereof. Its short title, in fact, reproduces the words of Entry 66. The principal function of UGC is set out in the opening words of Section 12, thus: '12. Functions of the Commission.-It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take ... all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities....' It is very important to note that a duty is cast upon the Commission to take 'all such steps as it may think fit ... for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching'. These are very wide-ranging powers. Such powers, in our view, would comprehend the power to require those who possess the educational qualifications required for holding the post of lecturer in universities and colleges to appear for a written test, the passing of which would establish that they possess the minimal proficiency for holding such post. The need for such test is demonstrated by the reports of the commissions and committees of educationists referred to above which take note of the disparities in the standards of education in the various universities in the country. It is patent that the holder of a postgraduate degree from one university is not necessarily of the same standard as the holder of the same postgraduate degree from another university. That is the rationale of the test prescribed by the said Regulations. It is patent that the holder of a postgraduate degree from one university is not necessarily of the same standard as the holder of the same postgraduate degree from another university. That is the rationale of the test prescribed by the said Regulations. It falls squarely within the scope of Entry 66 and the UGC Act inasmuch as it is intended to coordinate standards and UGC is armed with the power to take all such steps as it may think fit in this behalf. For performing its general duty and its other functions under the UGC Act, UGC is invested with the powers specified in the various clauses of Section 12. These include the power to recommend to a university the measures necessary for the improvement of university education and to advise in respect of the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation [clause (d)]. UGC is also invested with the power to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of such functions [clause (j)]." 78. With due respect to the above decision we are of the view that Their Lordships were considering about the challenges to the NET as such eligibility Test was created by U.G.C. While considering the different aspects, Their Lordships have clearly laid down that the U.G.C. in the exercise of powers over clauses (a) & (b) of section 26 of the U.G.C. Act issued the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 and subsequently the decision of the Apex Body for giving guidance to appoint the teachers and standard are valid. Departure of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010 will not only create the vacuum but also it will take away the spirit of Education as propounded in the aforesaid paras. Since the impugned advertisements dated 23.6.2014 and subsequent amendment to advertisement including dated 11.8.2014 have violated the U.G.C. Act and Regulations, by violating the criteria for appointment of teachers, as per discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the impugned advertisements are absolutely illegal, unfair and unreasonable. 79. "Four Score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. 79. "Four Score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. We are engaged in a great civil war testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Abraham Linkon :-- Gettysburg Address." Several years back Abraham Linkon has said but his vision has been well placed in Constitution. Mahatma Gandhi has also vision of equality before law. So the Right to Equality as available from the Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been great significance in the present case. 80. As discussed above we have noticed that the impugned advertisement containing clause 7(b)(g) are no doubt against the principle of Right to Equality. Apart from this it is reiterated that the clause about the selection of the candidates as per sweet will of the Selection Committee by relaxing the qualification also creates inequality by questioning the Fundamental Right of Equality of the petitioners. Thus the Fundamental Right of the petitioners as enshrined under Article 14 is also in jeopardy by virtue of such advertisement. 81. In the advertisement by delegating to one Sri J.P. Das, a Lecturer, the power of relaxation of the clause is wholly unreasonable and without jurisdiction, since even the Vice-Chancellor of the University does not possess the authority to delegate the power to an individual to exercise discretion. It is reported in Dwarikaprasad Laxminarayan v. State of U.P. reported in 1954 SCR 803 where their Lordship struck down clause-IV of the Coal Control Order because such provision had authorised the State Coal Controller to choose any person to exercise the power of grant or refuse to grant or renew or revoke, which is a power solely vested with the licensing authority to so do. Therefore, Their Lordships held that delegation of such power by such provision to any person is clearly unreasonable. Relying upon such decision we find that the Ravenshaw University having delegated the discretion to J.P. Das to exercise power of relaxation or removal of defect is quite unreasonable. 82. Therefore, Their Lordships held that delegation of such power by such provision to any person is clearly unreasonable. Relying upon such decision we find that the Ravenshaw University having delegated the discretion to J.P. Das to exercise power of relaxation or removal of defect is quite unreasonable. 82. Similarly we are of the considered view that Article 16 which ensures the Right to Employment of the petitioners has also been seriously indefensible because the petitioners' right have been affected by not short-listing them although they possess the minimum qualification as per the UGC notification. So, the arbitrariness and unreasonableness by opposite party No. 1 in keeping the provisions in the advertisement contrary to the UGC Regulations has not only questioned their Fundamental Right but also has made the entire advertisement illegal. 83. We have already discussed in the aforesaid paras that clubbing of appendix III(A) and III(B) in counting API scores for the eligibility of the candidates to become teacher is unfair and is violative of UGC Regulation, 2010 and amended Regulation in 2013. Thus the said procedure under the advertisement being dehors to the Central Act has threatened the Fundamental Right of the candidates under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 84. On the other hand the petitioners have been denied entry to interview by virtue of illegal procedure not being established by the law under consideration. So the advertisement being dehors to the Fundamental Right of the petitioners has also violated Article 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as the petitioners being debarred from being considered for employment is violative of procedure established by the law, their Right to life and liberty has been jeopardised. 85. We are therefore of the considered view that the impugned advertisements have violated the UGC Act and Regulations and also has violated the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners as enshrined under the Constitution. 86. Under the above discussions, point No. B is answered accordingly. POINT NO. C 87. In W.P.(C) Nos. 15410, 15422, 15545, 15757, 16348 and 15327 of 2014 petitioners have made similar contentions challenging the impugned advertisement dated 23.6.2014 and subsequent corrigendums including corrigendum dated 11.8.2014 on the ground that the impugned advertisement and impugned currigendums have violated the U.G.C. Act and Regulations and State Government directives on different aspects that we have already discussed in the above paras. 15410, 15422, 15545, 15757, 16348 and 15327 of 2014 petitioners have made similar contentions challenging the impugned advertisement dated 23.6.2014 and subsequent corrigendums including corrigendum dated 11.8.2014 on the ground that the impugned advertisement and impugned currigendums have violated the U.G.C. Act and Regulations and State Government directives on different aspects that we have already discussed in the above paras. In almost all writ petitions, petitioners were not called to interview by resorting to shortlisting them under illegal and unjustified procedures adopted by the Ravenshaw University. In fact we have already observed in the aforesaid paras that the U.G.C. Regulations 2006, 2009, 2010 & 2013 have been grossly violated by retaining illegal and unjust clauses 2, 7(b),(g) and clause 8 and other illegal conditions in the impugned advertisement and following procedure of shortlisting against the cannon of law and other procedure unknown to the established law. We have already held in the aforesaid para that U.G.C. Act and Regulations are binding on Ravenshaw University. 88. In Writ Appeal No. 23 of 2015 the appellants have challenged the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge which we affirm for the reasons discussed hereinabove and consequently the same is dismissed. 89. In W.P.(C) (PIL) No. 4773 of 2015, the students have got anxiety to appoint the teachers for supporting their education. It is the fault of the authorities to make delay in proceeding for recruitment of teachers although the posts have been created long back. There is nothing remained with the petitioners to challenge in this case as it has been observed above that impugned advertisement and corrigendums thereto are bad in law. Point No. C is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION : 90. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the vision of Mahatma Gandhi on education including the quality of teachers as propounded by him, has been shockingly flouted by the illegal recruitment procedures adopted at the instance of O.P.-Ravenshaw University for selection of teachers and their standard. At the same time, it is painful for us to observe that the authorities in the helm of affairs of the administration of the Ravenshaw University have not bothered at all about the glory and unblemished record of a premiere institution like Ravenshaw University whose vision has been explained by none other than the Former principal Mr. At the same time, it is painful for us to observe that the authorities in the helm of affairs of the administration of the Ravenshaw University have not bothered at all about the glory and unblemished record of a premiere institution like Ravenshaw University whose vision has been explained by none other than the Former principal Mr. Batheja long years back, as depicted above, resultantly made the entire recruitment of teachers a mockery. When the selection process including advertisement dated 23.6.2014 and subsequent corrigendum made on 3.7.2014, 7.8.2014 and 11.8.2014 are dehors to the U.G.C. Act and Regulations and constitutional safeguards, we are of the considered view that the said impugned advertisement and subsequent corrigendums are not only illegal, unfair and unreasonable but also violate of fundamental rights of the petitioners under articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 91. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the impugned advertisement dated 23.6.2014 and subsequent corrigendums thereto. At the same time, we hereby direct the Ravenshaw University to maintain the standard of education as propounded by Mahatma Gandhi and keep up the prestige, honour, fame and glory of institution at any cost. 92. We further direct that the Ravenshaw University to issue a fresh advertisement strictly in accordance with U.G.C. Act and Regulations and State Government directives as discussed in above paras within a period of four (4) weeks from today and complete the recruitment process for the appointment of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in accordance with the U.G.C. Regulations within a further period of eight (8) weeks from the date of fresh advertisement. 93. In the result, we dismiss the W.A. No. 23 of 2015 and confirm the order of Hon'ble Single Judge. Since Fresh Advertisement is ordered above, there is no cause of action survives in W.P.(C) (PIL) No. 4773 of 2015 which is disposed of accordingly. But W.P.(C) Nos. 15327, 15410, 15422, 15545, 15757, 16348 of 2014 are disposed of as per above observations and Ravenshaw University shall file compliance affidavit of our directions made herein above by 14.3.2016. Registry is directed to list this matter on 16.3.2016 along with compliance affidavit, if any. I. Mahanty, J. : I agree.