Holding

A candidate lacking the specific qualification advertised for a post (M.Sc. Pure Chemistry) cannot be appointed, and the university must re‑advertise the post with the exact essential qualification.

Summary

Aligarh Muslim University advertised a Lecturer in Chemistry post requiring a First Class Master's in the appropriate branch, understood to mean pure Chemistry. The appellant, Mohd. Sohrab Khan, held a Master's in pure Chemistry, while the selected candidate, Merajuddin Ahmad, held a Master's in Industrial Chemistry. The selection committee appointed Ahmad, arguing his degree was more suitable, but the High Court set aside the appointment, finding Ahmad did not meet the advertised qualification. The Supreme Court affirmed that the essential qualification cannot be altered mid‑process and that Industrial Chemistry is a distinct subject from pure Chemistry. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s order directing the university to re‑advertise the post with the correct essential qualification and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether a candidate with an M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry satisfies the essential qualification of a post advertised for Lecturer in Chemistry (pure Chemistry).
Whether the selection committee can change the essential qualification criteria after the commencement of the selection process.
Whether the university's appointment of a candidate lacking the advertised qualification is legally valid.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the appointment and directing a fresh advertisement.

Subjects

service lawappointmentqualificationlecturerchemistryindustrial chemistryselection committeeeligibilityadvertisementuniversity statutes

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 907

• 1 MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN A
v.
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ORS.
C.ivil Appeal No. 1130 of 2009
FEBRUARY 20, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Service Law - Appointment - On the post of Lecturer -
1 Candidate having qualification at variance with the main
subject, appointed - Held: Such person not qualified to be
appointed for the post - The qualification held by candidate c
was not specified in the advertisement - The Selection
Committee could not have changed the essential qualification
laid down in the advertisement in the mid-way - In the matter .
of selection, though opinion of Selection Committee is final,
"(
but it cannot act arbitrarily and change the criteria/qualification D
in the midstream - Both the degrees (required in
advertisement and that held by the appointed candidate) are
different - Selection List having lapsed, University given the
liberty to lay down necessary qualification.
E
Respondent-University advertised the post of
Lecturer in Chemistry in University Polytechnic. Essential
qualification for the same was a First Class Master's
/,
Degree in the appropriate branch. Appellant as well as 'M'
applied for it. Appellant, had a First Class Master's degree
in Chemistry (Pure) whereas 'M' had the First Class F
Master's degree in Industrial Chemistry. Both were called
for interview. 'M' was selected by the Selection Committee
on the ground that he could be more suitable for the post
as the degree in Industrial Chemistry would be best suited
to teach the particular subject. 'M' was appointed . G

• Appellant filed writ petition challenging the
appointment of 'M' and also sought direction for his own
appointment to the post. High Court set aside the
907 H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

,A appointment of 'M' holding that it was not legal as he did ' ..
not possess the minimum qualification. Direction was
issued to the respondent-University to initiate fresh
selection process for the post giving liberty to the
University to consider the essen.tial qualification. Hence,
B the cross-appeals.
Disposin·g of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 High Court was justified in rejecting the
candidature of 'M' as against the said post which was
advertised for pure Chemistry stream. According to the I

C advertisement issued by the University, post in Chemistry 1-
had fallen vacant and in order to fill up the said post,
applications were invited. In the advertisement it is clearly
stated that what is advertised is a post of lecturer in
Chemistry. Therefore, it would be necessarily assumed ·
D that candidates possessing a Masters Degree in pure
Chemistry should submit their application as against the
aforesaid post. The advertisement which was issued for
filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have
been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of
E Industrial Chemistry when the same having been
specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a
Masters Degree holder in the said subject would also be f
~

suitable for being considered. [Paras 10, 21 and 231 [914- /-
~ •...-
F-G; 917-D; 919-G]
F 1.2 Whenever and wherever the University desired
· to fill up a post at variance with the main subject, it is speci-
fically notified and indicated in the said advertisement. If
=
it was necessary for the University to fill up the post from
the stream of Industrial Chemistry, it would have so
G indicated in the advertisement itself for in subsequent
years. Advertisement has been issued by the same.
University for filling up the post of Lecturer in Industrial
.' ~·

'
Chemistry by issuing an advertisement specifically in that
regard. [Paras 11 and 12] [914-H; 915-C-D]
H 1.3 After a repeated multi-tier exercise, the ~ssential

1.-I
MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN V. 909
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ORS.

qualification is earmarked for a particular post and then it A
is advertised. It is also established from the records and
there is no dispute with regard to the fact that pure Chemistry
and Industrial Chemistry are two different and separate. ,
subjects. The course contents would indicate that what.,
is dealt therein is not Industrial Chemistry but Engineering B
Chemistry. It has not been informed as to whether
Engineering Chemistry is considered to be at par with
Industrial Chemistry. [Paras 14 and 15] [915-G-H; 916-8]
1.4 The post which was advertised to be filled up is
at present vacant and the same is being manned by C
appointing a Guest Lecturer who holds a Masters Degree
in pure Chemistry. If the requirement was to have a person
having Masters Degree in Industrial Chemistry, then in that
event the post would have been manned through a Guest
Lecturer from the Industrial Chemistry stream. Therefore, D
it cannot be accepted that the person holding a Masters.
Degree in Industrial Chemistry would be better suited for ~
appointment as against the said post. [Paras 16 and 17]
[916-C; 916-D]
1.5 The Selection Committee as also the University .E
changed the rule in the midstream which was not ~.'.
permissible. The University can always have a person as
a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have,
but the same must be specifically stated in the advertise-
ment itself, so that there is no confusion and all persons F
who could be intending candidates, should know as' to
what is the subject which' the person is required to teach
and what essential qualification the person must possess
to be suitable for ma~ing application for filling up the said
post. [Para 19] [916-G-H; 917-A] G
1.6 In the matter of selection of candidates, opinion
-'t
of the Selection Committee should be final, but at the same
time, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and
cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection
process during its midstream. 'M' did not possess a H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A degree in pure Chemistry and therefore, it was rightly held t '
<

by the High Court that he did not possess the minimum
qualification required for filling up the post of Lecturer
Chemistry, for pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry
are two different subjects. [Para 20] [917-8-C]
B
Secy. A.P Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna
(2005) 4 SCC 154; Ktushna Chandra Sahu (Dr) v. State of
Orissa (1995) 6 SCC 1; P K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of
India (1984) 2 SCC 141 - Relied on.
c 2. With the appointment of 'M' to the said post, the
list recommended by the Selection Committee and
approved by the other competent authority has lapsed.
Therefore, the order passed by the High Court giving
liberty to the University to lay down the qualification
0 necessary for filling up the aforesaid post is upheld. The )

University shall now advertise the said post by laying
down exact essential qualification indicating the particular L
subject and subjects-stream which is required to be ~
possessed for making an application to fill up the said ~-
E post and therefore proceed to appoint a'Lecturer suitable
~
for the aforesaid post. [Para 23] (919-H; 920-A-B]
I

Case Law Reference
(2005) 4 sec 154 Relied on. Para 22 --i
~
F (1995) s sec 1 Relied on. Para 22
(1984) 2 sec 141 Relied on. Para 22
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 1130
;,
of 2009
~

•
y---
G From the Judgement and Order dated 03.07.2006 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ .;

Petition No. 27793 of 2004. "-

WITH

H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1131 OF 2009 i
,.

MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN V. 911
ALIGARH.MUSLIM UNIVERSITY & ORS.

... f
S. Balakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Subramonium Prasad, V.8 . A
Gugnani, lshratAli Khan, S.N. Jha,Advs. with him for the Appellants.
Anish Dayal, Anitha Shenoy, Bipin Bihari Singh, Vishal
Arun, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by B
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
1'

2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment
and order dated 3.7.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the c
I
High Court of Allahabad. By the common judgment and order,
we propose to dispose of both the said appeals.
3. The High Court by the said order allowed the Writ
Petition filed by Mohd. Sohrab Khan and set aside the Office D
i:
Memo dated 20.05.2004 issued by the University regarding
appointment of Merajuddin Ahmed, as a Lecturer in Chemistry
in University Polytechnic, Aligarh Mulsim University, Aligarh.
4. Mohd. Sohrab Khan filed the said Writ Petition
challenging the aforesaid appointment and also seeking for a E
direction that he be appointed to the said post on the basis of
his selection by the Selection Committee. Since by the said
judgment and order the High Court set aside the appointment
of the appellant MerajuddinAhmed but, however, as High Court
did not grant a direction as sought for by Mohd. Sohrab Khan, F
therefore, two appeals came to be filed in this Court on which
we have heard the counsel appearing for the parties. We have
also heard the learned counsel appearing for the Aligarh Muslim
University. In order to deal with the contentions raised in both
the appeals, it would be necessary to deal herein with some of G
the relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition.
5. Aligarh Muslim University issued an advertisement
through Advertisement No. 2 of 2004 dated 6.2.2004 whereby
it called for applications for filling up about 79 posts in the
University. One of the said posts which was advertised was the H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A ·post of Lecturer in Chemistry in University Polytechnic, Aligarh
Muslim University. Qualification that was laid down by the
University as essential qualification was a First Class Masters'
Degree in the appropriate branch of teaching post in Humanities
and Sciences. Both Mohd. Sohrab Khan as also Merajuddin
B Ahmad submitted their applications to be considered as against
the aforesaid post which was advertised namely Lecturer in
Chemistry. Mohd. Sohrab Khan had a First Class Masters'
Degree in Chemistry (Pure) whereas Merajuddin Ahmad was
holding a First Class Masters Degree in Industrial Chemistry.
c
The University Authority, however, called both of them for
the interview. The Selection Committee which was constituted
for the purpose of selecting the suitable candidate selected
Merajuddin Ahmad on the ground that he would be more suitable
D to the aforesaid post as he holds a Masters Degree in Industrial
Chemistry which according to them would be best suited to teach
the particular subject for the University Polytechnic, Aligarh
Muslim ·University. The University Authority accepted the
aforesaid recommendation of the Selection Committee and
E issUed an order of appointment in favour of Merajuddin Ahmad.
'.
6. Mohd. Sohrab Khan, being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order passed bythe Aligarh Muslim University filed a writ petition
in the-High Court of Allahabad.
F 7. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad heard
the aforesaid Writ Petition and by a judgment and order dated
3.7.2006 allowed the aforesaid writ petition holding that the
aforesaid appointment of Merajuddin Ahmad to the said post is
notlegal as he did not possess the minimum qualification. The
G .High Court consequently set aside the order of appointment
with a direction to the respondent-University to initiate fresh
selection process for the aforesaid post giving liberty
to the University to reconsider the essential qualification fo the
post, in guestion. The High Court while coming to the aforesaid
H conclusion clearly recorded that the University award degrees
MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN V. ALIGARH MUSLIM 913
UNIVERSITY & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

... f separately in both subjects Chemistry as well as Industrial A
Chemistry and that both the subjects are distinct and separate.
By referring to the course structure of Graduate and Post
Graduate classes in Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry, the High
Court came to the conclusion that the courses of the aforesaid
8
two subjects are quite different and distinct and in the light of
the aforesaid findings, it also recorded that degree of M.Sc. in
Industrial Chemistry cannot be equated with the degree of M.Sc.
in Chemistry.
The High Court referred to the decision of this Court in Dr. C
Bhanu Prasad Panda Vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur University
and Others [(2001) 8 SCC 532] for coming to the conclusion
that the eligibility qualifications cannot be ignored. The High
Court of Allahabad held that the facts of the present case are
similar to that of the abovementioned case wherein there was D
an advertisement for the post of Lecturer in Political Science
and it was held that the person having degree in Public
Administration cannot be appointed.
8. The contention that is raised on behalf of Merajuddin
Ahmad is that the selection committee being constituted of E
experts on the subjects was the only competent authority to
decide that the person holding Masters Degree in Industrial
Chemistry is best suited for teaching the subject for which
advertisement was issued and the High Court acted illegally
and without jurisdiction in interfering with the aforesaid opinion F
of the experts by substituting its own decision.
It was also submitted that the Masters Degree in Industrial
Chemistry is as good as Masters Degree in Chemistry for the
post for which the advertisement was issued and that a person G
having Masters Degree in Industrial Chemistry was better suited
for teaching the said subject. Learned counsel also invited our
attention to the course contents which the teacher appointed to
the said post was required to teach. Relying on the same, he
submitted that a candidate having Masters Degree in Industrial H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A Chemistry would have been better suited to teach the said ., ,,.'

subjects constituting the course contents.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for Mohd. Sohrab refuted
the aforesaid submissions and contended that for teaching
Chemistry to Diploma students only the basic knowledge of
B
Chemistry is required and therefore a person holding a Masters ~

Degree in pure Chemistry is better suited to teach the said ~)
subject. It was also submitted by him that Masters Degree in
Industrial Chemistry is quite distinct and separate from pure "'
Chemistry which is a separate subject altogether and therefore '
c recommendation made by the Selection Committee and the
appointment made by the University was against the
requirements and norms laid down in the advertisement issued .
}--

by the University and therefore the same was rightly set aside
by the High Court. f
i
~
D
Learned Counsel also submitted that since Mohd. Sohrab
Khan was placed at serial No. 2 and the appointment of
Merajuddin Ahmad was found to be illegal and therefore non
est and nullity, Mohd. Sohrab Khan who was placed at serial
No. 2 could have directly been appointed. It was submitted that
E
as the same has not been done the second part of the judgment
of the High Court be set aside and a direction by this Court to
appoint Mohd. Sohrab Khan on the said post be issued.
,;
~.

10. According to the advertisement issued by the
F University, post in Chemistry had fallen vacant and in order to fill
,
up the said post, applications were invited. In the advertisement ••
it is clearly stated that what is advertised is a post of lecturer in
Chemistry. Therefore, it would be necessarily assumed that L
candidates possessing a Masters Degree in pure Chemistry i

G should submit their application as against the aforesaid post. ~

"'.--
11. We have gone through the aforesaid advertisement -. I

which was issued for filling up various posts and on scrutiny, we
find that whenever and wherever the University desired to fill up
a post at variance with the main subject, it is specifically notified _.__
H and indicated in the said advertisement. For example, ..
~
•
.
I
MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN V. ALIGARH MUSLIM 915
UNIVERSITY & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

.., + advertisement which find place at Serial No. 59 was for filling . A
up the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering (Environmental
EnggJ for University Polytechnic for which qualification which
was necessary and essential was mentioned as First Class
Bachelor's Degree in Environmental I Civil Chemical I
Petroleum I Biochemical Engineering/ Architecture. B
12. Many more posts advertised in the said advertisement
specifically indicate that whenever the University desired to have
a post filled up in a particular branch of the Humanities and
Science Department, it specifically indicated as such in the said
advertisement. If it was necessary for the University to fill up the C
post from the stream of Industrial Chemistry, it would have so
indicated in the advertisement itself for in subsequent years,
we find specific advertisement has been issued by the. same .
University for filling up the post of Lecturer in Industrial Chemistry·
by issuing an advertisement specificaUy in that regard. D
13. There is no doubt with regard to the fact that it is the
University Authority who knows best as to what is their
requirement. Aligarh Muslim University was founded by Central
Act called the Aligarh Muslim University Act. It also has a statute E
made under Section 28(1) of the said Act. Statute 22 of the
University deals with the Boards of Studies. One of the functions
of the said Board of Studies is to recommend to the Faculty in
the manner prescribed in the ordinances, the field of study of
each post at the time of its creation.
F
14. Statute 21 on the other hand deals with the powers
and functions of the Faculties. The aforesaid recommendation
of the Board of Studies is to be decided by the Faculties at
Statute 21 of the University and therefore, it is confirmed by the
Academic Council under Statute 19 of the University, and G
therefore it is to be approved by the Executive Council under
Statute 17(2)(1) of the University. After such a repeated multi-
tier exercise, the essential qualification is earmarked for a
particular post and then it is advertised. It is also established
from the records and there is no dispute with regard to the fact H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A that pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different
and separate subjects.
15. Learned counsel appearing for Merajuddin Ahmad
strongly relied upon the course contents. A bare look at the same
would indicate that what is dealt therein is not Industrial Chemistry
8
but Engineering Chemistry. We are not informed as to whether
Engineering Chemistry is considered to be at par with Industrial
Chemistry.
16. Learned Counsel appearing for the University on our
c enquiry fairly stated before us that the aforesaid postwhich was
advertised to be filled up in the aforesaid manner is at present
vacant and the same is being manned by appointing a Guest
Lecturer who holds a Masters Degree in pur~ Chemistry.
17. If the requirement was to have a person having Masters
·. D Degree in Industrial Chemistry, then in that event the post would
have been mann.ed through a Guest Lecturer from the Industrial
Chemistry stream. lherefore, it cannot be accepted that the
person holding a Masters Degree in Industrial Chemistry would
be better suited for appointment as against the said post.
E
18. The post advertised was meant for a person belonging
to the pure Chemistry Department for if it was otherwise, then it
would have been so mentioned in the advertisement itself that
a person holding a Masters Degree in Industrial Chemistry
should only apply or that a person holding such a degree could
F also apply alongwith other persons. It was not so mentioned in
the advertisement and therefore, except for Merajuddin Ahmad,
no other degree holder in Industrial Chemistry had applied for
becoming a candidate as against the aforesaid post.
G 19. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the
University changed the rule in the midstream which was not
permissible. The University can always have a person as a r
Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the
same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so
H that there is no confusion and all persons who could be intending
MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN V. ALIGARH MUSLIM 917
UNIVERSITY & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

candidates, should know as to what is the subject which the A
person is required to teach and what essential qualification the
person must possess to be suitable for making application for
filling up the said post.
t<
20. We are not disputing the fact that in the matter of
.B
selection of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee
should be final, but at the same time, the Selection Committee
cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification
___. I
in the selection process during its midstream. Merajuddin
Ahmad did not possess a degree in pure Chemistry and
therefore, it was rightly held by the High Court that he did not
c
possess the minimum qualification required for filling up the post
of Lecturer Chemistry, for pure Chemistry and Industrial
Chemistry are two different subjects.
21. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the D
post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a
person belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when
the same having been specifically not mentioned in the
advertisement that a Masters Degree holder in the said subject
----"' would also be suitable for being considered. There could have E
been intending candidates who would have applied for
becoming candidate as against the said advertised post, had
they known and were informed through advertisement that
• Industrial Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up
the said post. The Selection Committee during the stage of F
selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential
qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage
held that a Masters D,egree Holder in Industrial Chemistry would
be better suited for manning the said post without there being
any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that the G

" University is now manning the said post by having a person
from the discipline of pure Chemistry also leads to the
conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised
was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to pure
Chemistry stream. H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A 22. In Secy., A.P. Public Service Comm!ssion v. B.
Swapna, [(2005) 4 SCC 154] at para 14 it was held by this
Court that norms of selection cannot be altered after
commencement of selection process and the rules regarding
qualification for appointment,. if amended, during continuation
B of the process of selection do not affect the same. Further at
para 15 it was held that the power to relax the eligibility condition;.
ifany, to the·selection must be clearly spelt out and cannot be
otherwise exercised. The said observations are extracted herein
below:
c
"14. The High Court has committed an error in holding
Jhat the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly
conceded by learned counsel for Res8ondent 1 applicant
it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a
D process ofselection starts, the prescribed selection criteria
cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based
on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain
criterion e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a
legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he
E could have applied because he possessed the said
percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment
if amended during continuance of the process of selection
do not affect the same. That is because every statute or
statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by
F necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.
Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing
the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held
to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language
which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to
G be considered .as prospective only. (See P Mahendran v.
State of Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411 and Gopal Krushna
Rath v. MA.A. Baig (1999) 1 sec 544.)
15. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is
scope for relaxation of norms. Although the Court must
H
MOHD. SOHRAB KHAN V. ALIGARH MUSLIM 919
UNIVERSITY & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

look with respect upon the performance of duties by experts A
in tile respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of
ushering in a society based on rule of law. Once it is most
satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee
did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the
entire process of selection so far as the selected B
candidate is concerned gets vitiated. In PK.
Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 14_1
•
'

this Court held that once it is established that there is no
power to relax essential qualification, the entire process
of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the C
established norms prescribed by advertisement. The
power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot
otherwise be exercised."
In Krushna Chandra Sahu (Dr) v. State of Orissa, o
[(1995) 6 SCC 1], at para 34 it was held by this Court the
Selection Committee does not even have the inherent jurisdiction
to lay down the norms for selectiOIJ nor can such power be
assumed by necessary implication. In the said case reference
was made to the decision in P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union E
of India ((1984) 2 SCC 141], wherein at para 44 it was
observed:

"By necessary inference, there was no such power in the
ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power
is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by F
necessary implication for the obvious reason that such
deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and
irreversible harm."

23. After analysing the present issue in the light of the G
abovesaid legal proposition laid down by this Court we hold
that the High Court was justified in rejecting the candidature of
Merajuddin Ahmad as against the said post which was
advertised for pure Chemistry stream. However, with the
appointment of Merajuddin Ahmad to the said post, the list H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A recommended by the Selection Committee and approved by
the other competent authority has lapsed. We, therefore, uphold ;
,
;-
the order passed by the High Court giving liberty to the University
to lay down the qualification necessary for filling up the aforesaid
post. The University shall now advertise the said post by laying
B down exact essential qualification indicating the particular
subject and subjects-stream which is required to be possessed I '
for making an application to fill"up the said post and therefore
prbceed to appoint a Lecturer suitable for the aforesaid post.

c 24. In terms of the above said both the appeals are
disposed of.

K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.

'

/

,,
I-

,.
~

\.,

~
.,