He also argued that since respondent Nos.
5 and 11 had obtained their doctorate Degrees they companyld be said to have fulfilled the qualifications.
8, she had good acadamic record both in M.A. and BA.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.1991 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Spl.
Some of them are also due for promotion to the higher posts in the near future.
As regards respondent No.
197E F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition C No.
Out of the 106 candidates so recommended, only 65 candidates appeared for interview, out of which the Scrutiny Committee selected 8 candidates who are respondents 5 to 12 before us.
Their record of teaching so far has been excellent and unblemished.
Out of the 8, two were earmarked for the reserved posts.
6 and 7 were registered for Ph.D. on 22.1.1982 and 26.5.1982 respectively, by the time of the selection they had put in research work companynected with their thesis and in February 1985, viz.,
K. Jain for the Petitioner.
226 of 1991.
Out of 112 ap plications received, the Scrutiny Committee of the University on 25.4.1984 recommended 106 candidates for being interviewed, the remaining six being found ineligible for the posts.
the date of selection, they had about 3 years experience in research work.
6324 of 1992.
He further pointed out that the candidates had already been appointed in February 1985 and they have been working eversince till date.
Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lallta Kohli For M s Manoj Swarup Co. and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents.
Appeal No.
It was sought to be argued by Shri Manoj Swarup on behalf of the University that since at the time of the selection, respondent Nos.
The affidavit filed on behalf of the University shows that the minutes, if kept, were destroyed.
