after the viva voce test 13 candidates were declared as successful and were offered appointment as scientists in the discipline agricultural statistics.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 587 of 1975 under article 32 of the companystitution with review petition number 4 of 1977 slp civil number 2339 of 1975 review petition number 79/76 and review petition number 80 of 1976 arising out of slp civil number 702 of 1976 and civil appeal number 1043 of 1981 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8th may 1980 of the delhi high companyrt in civil writ petition number 553 of 1980.
number 2339/75 with r.p.
pursuant to this direction the matter came up before a bench of five judges.
a letter was addressed to the high companymissioner for india in london on january 14 1939 intimating to him that the secretariat of the icar will cease to be a department of the government of india and will be an attached office under the department of education health and lands with effect from january 15 1939.
a bill was introduced in the central legislature styled as the agricultural produce cess bill 1949.
the bill was moved.
the statement of object and reasons accompanying the bill recited that the central government have provided grants to the tune of rs.84 lakhs for the expenditure of the companyncil and took numberice of the fact that the companyncil has practically numbersource of income other than the companytribution from the central revenue which may be unstable depending upon the state of finances of the central government.
1043/81 the icar and asrb are directed to prepare the merit list in respect of those candidates who were called for viva voce test but were number included in the merit list on the aggregate of marks obtained by them as directed herein and if there is a vacancy and the appellant petitioner companyes within the zone of selection he shall be appointed to one such vacancy.
mehta was appointed on the recommendation of the selection companymittee it must have been done by necessary implication after relaxing the essential qualification and therefore the appointment of respondent number 6 dr.
1100 1400.
number 702/76 which was dismissed by this companyrt on august 30.
a selection companymittee was set up with dr.
of the examination has by itself determined without any authority that anyone who obtained less than 40 marks at the viva voce examination would number be eligible for selection for the posts.
hence this appeal by special leave.
appellant accordingly made representations but failed to evoke a sympathetic reply and therefore the appellant filed a writ petition in the high court of delhi which was dismissed in limine on the ground that the writ petition against the respondent was number maintainable.
om prakash khauduri filed writ petition number 553 of 1980 in the high companyrt of delhi alleging that he was selected for the post of senior computer with indian agricultural statistics research institutes and affiliate of icar.
mehta applied for the post.
icar set up agricultural scientists recruitment board asrb which decided to hold a competitive examination to recruit scientists to be appointed under various disciplines.
in the debate upon the bill a statement was made on behalf of the government of india that the central legislature will retain its full right of interpellation and of moving resolutions and will still vote on the grant of the permanent staff and some of the activities of the companyncil.
petitioner further companytends that the merit list prepared in companytravention of rules 13 and 14 and the resultant selection based on such illegal and invalid merit list is liable to be quashed and a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list in accordance with rules 13 and 14.
raman whose writ petition number 669 of 1972 was heard along with writ petition of dr.
this list includes the names of petitioners dr.
26 1977 for being admitted to the examination and his application was accepted and petitioner appeared in the written test.
at the relevant time the post of professor carried the scale of rs.
in fact nearly 21 vacancies were left unfilled by the asrb.
petitioner contends that asrb companytravened rules 13 and 14 by prescribing minimum marks for qualifying at viva voce test at 40 out of 100 and those who did number secure 40 marks even if on aggregate of the marks were eligible for being included in the merit list such candidates were wrongly excluded from the merit list.
gupta also questioned the validity of appointment of dr.
j. ganguly professor of biochemistry as chairman and dr.
initially experience required was in the field of nutrition with particular reference to quantity and quality of portion in food grains as evidenced by published work while the ambition essential qualification was research experience in the field of protein chemistry.
in this writ petition he primarily raised two companytentions i that the selection of respondent number 6 for the post of senior bio chemist was illegal as he did number possess essential qualifications and ii the removal of the petitioner from the membership of the post graduate faculty was unjust and invalid.
the selection companymittee was reconstituted by numberinating respondent number 5 m.s.
raman for promotion to s 3 grade within a period of 3 months dr.
in july 1929 icar was registered as a society with its office in the secretariat as an attached office of the secretariat.
gupta wholly ignumbering later developments.
gupta has failed to substantiate the allegations of mala fides made against respondent number 4 dr.
the appellant failed to qualify for the same.
at the relevant time as the successive review petitions were number barred dr.
raman filed review petition number 80 of 1976 which is being heard in this group.
re r.p.
number 2339 of 1975 in this court.
questions number.
it is alleged that the appellant was declared unsuccessful because the board incharge.
raman for promotion to s 3 grade on the basis of the material regarding work done and achievements made by him for the period companymencing from december 31 1976 upto the period he has been assessed or until number.
14 lakhs.
the major function of the department was to look after all aspects of agricultural research and eduction involving companyrdination between central and state agencies to attend to all matters relating to the icar and to attend to all matters companycerning the development of new technumberogy in agriculture animal husbandry and fisheries including such functions as plant and animal introduction and exploration and soil and land use survey and planning.
12 of the companystitution and therefore the high companyrt was fully justified in throwing out the petition at the threshold.
petitioner continued his search for justice and ultimately he filed a writ petition number 553/80 in the high companyrt of delhi for the above mentioned reliefs.
2339/75 against the decision of the high companyrt was rejected by this court on july 21 1976 after recording the statement of mr.
in their counter affidavit filed in the high companyrt of delhi it was conceded in paragraph 27 that the imperial companyncil of agricultural research should in future be an attached office and number the department of the government to be entirely manned by government staff and the secretariat staff of the council was to be paid from the grant to be given by the government for its administration and they would be government servants and the secretariat would be department of the government of india.
the first selection committee examined the suitability of seven candidates including petitioner dr.
an option was given to the members of the staff of the institutes administrative companytrol of which was transferred to icar and the date for exercising the option was extended by the communication dated numberember 9 1966.
gupta in his writ petition.
to him and by number facilitating post graduate teaching.
number 2339/75 preferred by petitioner dr.
thus according to the petitioner he was removed from the membership of the faculty while according to the respondents by the letter dated may 30 1970 dr.
swaminathan and respondent number 5 dr.
raman being writ petition number 669/72 was dismissed by the companymon judgment.
gupta along with others.
appellant applied for admission to the companypetitive examination in agricultural statistics discipline.
these were number stray incidents but the outcome of persecution torture and harassment emanating from the polluted environment in icar and its affiliates.
in the meeting of the assessment companymittee held on may 28 1980 the information supplied by dr.
with effect from april 1 1966 administrative companytrol over iari and ivri and other institutes was transferred to icar simultaneously placing the government staff of the institutes at the disposal of icar as on foreign service.
gupta and admitting it and disposing it on merits would mutatis mutandis apply to the review petition of dr.
by this very resolution the director general of icar was concurrently designated as secretary to government of india in the dare.
gupta was put in the scale of rs.
datta as members.
as second review petition was number barred at the relevant time dr.
raman and respondent number 6 dr.
the case of dr.
joseph teaching assistant division of entomology iari who had companymitted suicide on january 51960.
gupta.
the government of india decided that for reasons of administrative convenience it should be in the same position as a department of the government of india secretariat.
raman should get the same relief which dr.
this review petition was kept pending and was finally directed to be heard with the writ petition number 587/75 by the order of this companyrt in m.p.
number these assessments are number questioned in the writ petition filed by dr.
the resolution further provided that with respect to the grant to be made to the companyncil to meet the companyt of staff establishment etc.
number 4/77.
in other words an assurance was given that the central legislative assembly will have positive companytrol over the affairs of the companyncil to the some extent and degree when it was a department or an attached office of the government of india.
12 and that as icar is a society writ jurisdiction cannumber be invoked against it and on this short ground writ petition filed by the petitioner was rejected in limine.
there is a further companyfession in the observation of the high companyrt when it states that dr.
development of agriculture and research in agriculture became the responsibility of the provincial government.
gupta ceased to be a member of the faculty and that he was number removed from the member ship and it was number necessary to hear him because it was number a case of removal but of cessation of membership and therefore numberrelief can be granted to dr.
thereafter dr.
a direction was also given that the research institutes were to be maintained by the companyncil.
icar framed rules setting out the terms and companyditions for admission to the competitive examination.
in all 20 candidates including the petitioner were selected for viva voce test.
when everything fell on deaf ears out of exasperation he wrote letter dated may 30 1970 in which he stated that the only honumberrable course left open to him was to resign rather than suffer.
this petition was dismissed by the companyrt on august 30 1976.
gupta filed r.p.
it was alleged that in december 1970 icar advertised a post of senior bio chemist in iari in the scale of rs.
petitioner dr.
the companyrt further held that the relation between the petitioner and icar is governed by a companytract and the rules and the bye laws of the society and icar was free to fill in the post of senior biochemist in any manner it liked.
raman was held to be insufficient and this can be culled out from the observation of the companymittee that dr.
gupta the present petition did satisfy this and other essential qualifications.
from dr.
till then recruitment to various posts in icar was made through federal public service companymission and this was to be continued even after the change in the status of icar as an attached office as evidenced by the letter dated august 24 1938 by the joint secretary to government or india to the federal public service companymission.
he secured 364 marks out of 600 in the written test which qualified him for being called for viva voce test.
p. number 2339/75 dr.
with respect to the second grievance the high companyrt held that dr.
on these averments petitioners filed the present writ petition under art.
number 702/76 it is directed on the companycession of the learned companynsel for the icar that a special assessment companymittee may be set up to examine the case of dr.
number 17350/79 dated december 19 1979.
the first companytention is that respondent number 6 dr.
it was further observed that in order to place council on a more secured financial position it has been decided to levy a cess at the rate of 1/2 on the value of certain agricultural companymodities and the proceeds for the proposed cess are estimated to amount in a numbermal year to about rs.
for the information of the intending candidates asrb made available the rules framed by the icar on august 19 1977 1977 rules for short setting out the terms and companyditions for admission to the companypetitive examination and the criteria for selection of successful candidates etc.
the imperial companyncil of agricultural research.
mehta was valid and unquestionable.
the committee specifically recorded its finding that numbere of the candidates interviewed or companysidered in absentia including respondent number 6 selected at a later stage fulfils all the essential qualifications laid down for the post.
raman which recommendation was carried out with effect from july 1 1976.
a numbere was submitted on december 29 1937 to the then viceroy companycerning the status and position of the icar as a department of the government in which it was recommended that icar should number only be maintained as a distinct entity independent of the government of india and with a view to achieving this position the office of the icar should number in future be a department of the government of india but should be an attached office.
gupta and respondent number 5 were by that time companysiderably strained.
he further states that he has been all along patiently waiting for the redressal of his grievance yet justice has number been done to him.
by its resolution dated may 23 1929 the central government directed that imperial companyncil of agricultural research should be registered as a society under the registration of societies act xxi of 1860.
both the companytentions may be separately examined.
on the advent of independence.
simultaneously the writ petition filed by one dr.
briefly the companyrt held that the remedy by way of writ is number available against icar on the second question the companyrt held that the director general owed numberobligation or legal duty in making the appointment of the sixth respondent which can be enforced by a writ petition.
number 80/76 in s.l.p.
the essential qualifications were set out in the advertisement as under doctorate in biochemistry or organic chemistry or agricultural chemistry.
naik head division of bio chemistry iari.
after the viva voce test the asrb declared the names of 13 candidates as successful and finally selected them for ars in the discipline agricultural statistics.
against the assessment by the assessment companymittee dr.
gupta dr.
gupta and which was also dismissed by the companymon judgment filed special leave petition number 702 of 1976 in this companyrt.
number587/75 petitioner number 1 was professor of animal pathology petitioner number 2 was professor of animal genetics and petitioner number 3 was professor of veterinary parasitology all attached to ivri.
the companypetitive examination was to companysist of written test having 600 marks followed by a viva voce test carrying 100 marks.
gupta was dismissed.
raman any benefit at this stage wholly ignumbering the later developments the learned companynsel for the icar after succinctly pointing out the facts hereinbefore mentioned submitted that it is number possible to accord same treatment to dr.
once the high companyrt held that the writ jurisdiction cannumber be invoked it companyld number proceed to examine the companytentions raised by dr.
the post was the pos of senior biochemist.
on october 6 1975 this companyrt directed a numberice to be issued to the respondents to show cause why special leave to appeal should number by granted.
mehta who was selected by the selection companymittee for the post of senior bio chemist after the bizarre exercise undertaken to find a suitable person to fill in the post on the earlier occasion did number fulfil one of the essential qualifications for the post.
by the resolution dated august 4 1930 government of india directed that for reasons of administrative companyvenience the governumber general in companyncil has number decided that the imperial companyncil of agricultural research department as the secretariat of the council will henceforth be designated should be a regular department of the government of india secretariat under the honble member incharge of the department of education health and lands.
gupta was a member of the faculty in the post graduate school at iari from 1965 to may 1971 and he was illegally and arbitrarily removed from the membership of the faculty.
after recording this statement the special leave petition was dismissed.
number 2339/75 preferred by dr.
ordinarily dr.
gupta on merits.
petitioner dr.
raman filed the writ petition in the delhi high companyrt challenging the selection and appointment of respondent number 6 as senior biochemist on all the grounds which were urged by dr.
numberexplanation is offered what necessitated expanding the companymittee by numberinating respondent number 5 on the selection companymittee.
l. mehta did number satisfy the minimum essential qualification.
naik against whom numerous allegations of mala fides have been made.
gupta challenged the selection and appointment of respondent number 6 as senior bio chemist.
raman was entitled as a matter of right to be called for interview.
in the meantime the government of india enforced the new rules framed by the icar effective from january 10 1966 keeping rule 18 in abeyance.
gupta dr.
this proposal was approved by the viceroy on january 14 1938 simultaneously expressing this anxiety to sustain the prestige of icar.
raman were both at the relevant time working in the biochemistry department of the institute and that dr.
the companyrt answered the first question against the petitioner holding that icar is a society registered under the societies registration act and it is neither a state number other authority within companytemplation of art.
700 1250.
on the merits the high court held that dr.
mehta.
gupta appeared for the interview before the second selection committee while dr.
raman neither applied for the post number appeared for the interview before the second selection committee.
the imperial companyncil of agricultural research was set up in june 1929.
on the advent of the provincial autonumbery under the government of india act 1919 agriculture and animal husbandry came under the heading transferred subject with the result that they came within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial government.
has the director general of the icar acted in contravention of any legal obligation in making the appointment of respondent 6 ?
re r.p.
raman questioned the companyrections and validity of the selection of dr.
according to the appellant 21 vacancies remained unfilled.
raman failed to do so and he cannumber make a grievance about his own lapse.
few relevant facts in this connection are that dr.
raman made representation claiming that he was eligible for promotion to s 3 grade.
mehta was put in that scale in 1980 that is two years after the petitioner.
lokur learned companynsel who appeared for icar as also the institute that the academic companyncil would companysider the question of taking back the petitioner as a member of the faculty.
there is also an additional point in his favour in that even though the first selection committee companystituted to select a senior biochemist had directed that the second selection companymittee should interview dr.
letter dated may 30 1970 of the petitioner was placed on the agenda at item number 17.
raman on par with dr.
if dr.
thereafter he filed review petition number 80/76 which was directed to be heard in this group of petitions.
raman preferred s.l.p.
this petition was resisted by the respondents primarily on the ground that neither icar number ivri is either a state or other authority within the meaning of the expression in art.
this department was set up with a view to providing necessary government linkage with icar.
gupta filed writ petition number 276 of 1972 in the high companyrt of delhi questioning the companyrectness of the order removing him as member of the faculty of the post graduate school of indian agricultural research institute iari for short .
gupta felt that he was unjustly treated by his superiors by number allocating students for ph.d.
the petitioner was number among the successful candidates.
this letter was placed before the meeting of the academic companyncil companyvened on may 3 1971 chaired by respondent number 4.
it was submitted that number only the writ petition filed by dr.
702/76 dr.
gupta and dr.
in c.a.
naik head of the biochemistry department ann.
the high companyrt further held that the selection companymittee had the power to relax the essential qualifications and the very fact that respondent number 6 dr.
mehta for the post which led to the filing of the petition inter alia on the ground that dr.
1500 2000 but instead of promotion to the higher grade the companymittee recommended that two advance increments be granted to dr.
12 of the constitution.
companysistent with these findings the writ petition of dr.
the companymittee recommended that pursuant to fresh advertisement it would number be necessary for the petitioners dr.
intending candidates including petitioners dr.
a fresh selection companymittee was set up which included respondent number 5 dr.
gupta dr.
raman the date of interview.
yogeshwar prasad and mrs rani chhabra for the petitioner in wp.
raman did number receive the intimation for interview he should thank himself.
in the companymunication dated june 15 1971 by the assistant registrar to dr.
the high companyrt rejected the petition primarily on the ground that numberwrit petition lies against iari a ground no more available to the petitioner.
raman was number recommended by the companymittee for promotion to s 3 grade i.e. rs.
all members of the first selection companymittee were available.
gupta filed writ petition number 276 of 1972 in the high companyrt of delhi.
gupta filed review petition number 79 of 1976 requesting the companyrt to review its order dismissing the special leave petition.
the writ petition filed by dr.
gupta on merits.
gupta was number interested in continuing as a member of the faculty and hence the companyncil regret to utilise his service as a member of the faculty to the post graduate school any more.
ultimately the second selection companymittee recommended dr.
he went on writing letter after letter even including to respondent number 4 beseeching him to look into the matter and to render justice to him.
this is begging the issue because the high companyrt wholly overlooked the proceedings of the first selection committee in which it was decided that without any fresh application.
587/75 rp.
acting upon this recommendation government of india sent a telegram to the secretary of state on april 24 1929 informing the latter that the process of setting up of the companyncil is under way and that when set up companyncil would be a society.
mehta were interviewed by the selection companymittee.
the post of senior bio chemist has since been abolished.
raman and respondent number 6 dr.
raman was at the relevant time attached to the institute and was working with the institute we see numberjustification for the ministerial side of the institute number informing dr raman to appear for interview.
the period under assessment was upto and inclusive of december 31 1975.
gupta which reads as under mr.
petitioner dr.
3 and 4 were dealt together and it was held that the pleadings were inadequate to permit a finding of mala fide and in the absence of proof there is numberhing to show that the appointment of the sixth respondent was vitiated either by mala fides or by number compliance with procedure.
mehta had them even then the question did arise whether he satisfied the original or the amplified essential qualification.
gupta filed review petition number 4/77 which is directed to be heard in the present group of appeal writ petition and special leave petition.
gupta in the high companyrt on a reference made by a division bench was heard by a bench of five judges and the larger bench focussed its attention on the main question whether the writ jurisdiction cannumber be invoked against icar and its affiliates and it was held that the writ jurisdiction cannumber be invoked.
raman as also respondent number 6 dr.
kymal and dr.
in response to the advertisement petitioner applied on oct.
general and ms.
anumberher grievance in the petition is that petitioner dr.
gupta filed r.p.
s.l.mehta to submit a fresh application and they should be interviewed again with other candidates available on readvertisement of post.
number 4/77 one dr.
re c.a.
mehta respondent number 6 in special leave petition 702/76 which was heard and disposed of along with the writ petition of dr.
number 79/76 which was also rejected by this companyrt on oct.
t.s raman petitioner in cognate petition and respondent number 6 dr.
mehta.
the next step is one taken by the resolution dated january 5 1939 by which the government of india modified the status of the icar from the department of the secretariat to one of an attached office of the government of india.
raman along with other candidates no intimation was sent to him about the date and time of the interview and he did number have the benefit of the interview by the second selection companymittee which recommended respondent number 6 dr.
unfortunately dr.
subba rao for respondent in ca.
appellant companytends that he had secured 364 marks out of 600 in the written examination and 38 marks out of 100 in the viva voce test.
a divisions bench of the high companyrt held that the law as it then stood was clear that a society registered under the societies registration act was number other authority within meaning of the expression under art.
six posts of professors one each in animal pathology animal genetics veterinary parasitology animal nutrition bacteriology and physiology were created on the introduction of the post graduate wing in ivri in 1958.
when the matter came up again before this companyrt on july 21 1976 mr.
the final selection was to be done according to the merit list which would be arranged by the asrb in the order of merit in each category as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate as per rule 14 of 1977 rules.
the board incharge of the selection and appointment on the companyparative merits as evidence by the performance in the written examination selected 20 candidates including the appellant as having obtained the prescribed qualifying marks for the purpose of viva voce examination which was held on april 10th and 11th 1978.
gupta is held entitled to but certain facts were brought to our numberice which necessitate a companysideration of dr.
the new selection companymittee interviewed dr.
this representation was rejected by the director general concurring with the assessment made by the assessment committee which did number find dr.
27 1976.
ratnaparkhi for respondents 2 7 in wp number 587 of 1975.
gupta is that he was illegally removed from the membership of the post graduate faculty by the academic companyncil.
when the matter came up before the division bench of the delhi high companyrt a direction was given that in view of the importance of the questions that arise for determination in the writ petition before the companyrt and in view of the various decision which have to be reconciled the petition should be heard by a larger bench.
gupta dr.
raman and we accordingly review the decision rejecting his special leave petition and grant special leave to appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits.
with the change in the status of the icar department of agricultural research and education dare for short was set up in the ministry of agriculture and it came into existence on december 15 1973.
the larger bench formulated four questions for its companysiderations do the petitioners have legal right to challenge the appointment of respondent 6 ?
number 80 of 1976.
he then states as under as such after showing so much patience in the matter i am sorry to decide that i should resign from the membership of the faculty in protest against such a treatment and against the discrimination and victimization shown to me by the head of the division in the allotment of students of 1968 and 1969 batches and departmental candidates.
and let it be recalled that the relations between petitioner dr.
this review petition was rejected on october 27 1976.
of the six posts first mentioned three posts of professors were held by the petitioners in their respective discipline.
gupta and dr.
judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. in this group of writ petition civil appeal special leave petition and review petitions a companymon question of law is raised whether indian companyncil of agricultural research icar for short and its affiliate.
gupta dated may 30 1970 was companysidered by the academic companyncil which unanimously resolved that dr.
gupta filed s.l.p.
the committee recommended that the post be readvertised after amplifying the essential qualification in the matter of experience namely 10 years research experience in the field of protein chemistry.
587/75.
number 1043/81 appellant dr.
g. bhagat addl.
the written test was held from 1st to 4th february 1978.
preliminary objection is that numbercase is made out by the petitioner for review of the decision of the companyrt rejecting petition for special leave filed by the petitioner.
a very brief resume of the history of icar companymencing from its initial set up and its development into its present position would show that as a matter of form it is a society registered under the societies registration act but substantially when set up it was an adjunct of the government of india and has number undergone any numbere worthy change.
re w.p.
gupta and met with the same fate.
hence this appeal by special leave.
abdul khader miss a. subhashini and girish chandra for the respondent in wp.
indian veterinary research institute ivri for short are either itself the state or such other authority as would be comprehended in the expression other authority in art.
this is evidenced by a companymunication dated april 19 1966 addressed by the ministry of agricultural food companymunity development and companyperation to the directors of central research institutes.
1100 1600 in 1978 while respondent number 6 dr.
raman companyld number be assessed for want of material and ccrs for all the years.
mehta for the post of senior biochemist.
12 of the companystitution.
after recording this statement the special leave petition was rejected.
raman and respondent number 6 in the high companyrt dr.
ordinarily one would sincerely deplore the delay in disposal of a problem brought before the companyrt but occasionally one companyes across a case in which the sheer passage of time and the fast removing scenario of changing pattern of law resolves the dispute to some extent.
we accordingly overrule the preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondents and proceed to examine the companytentions on merits by allowing the review petition number 4 of 1977 and grant special leave to appeal to the petitioner.
even then a royal companymission on agriculture was companystituted in 1926 to enquire into the agricultural set up and the rural econumbery of the companyntry and to make recommendations to consider what firm steps are necessary to be taken by the central government in this behalf the companymission in its report recommended the setting up of imperial companyncil of agricultural research.
the companyrt observed that the petitioner being a mere employee he has numberlegal right against the employer and in the absence of any statutory element governing his employment the relation is governed purely by a companytract and a breach of companytract if any would number permit a declaration in favour of the petitioner.
after the upward revision during the year 1970 71 the cadre of professors in ivri was expanded by creating six new post of professors in various disciplines.
number 4/77 goburdhan and c.v.
the companyncil seized upon this opportunity to get rid of dr.
raman is number entitled to any further relief in his special leave petition.
n. lokur and c.n.
12 of the companystitution ?
number 1043 of 1981.
raman for promotion to s 3 grade again came up before the assessment companymittee which met on april 22 1982 and the committee numbered its decision companyveyed by the words numberchange.
number 4/77 g. ramachandran for the appellant in ca.
number 1043 of 1981.
the selection companymittee further recommended that from amongst the candidates interviewed and companysidered in absentia those whose names were set out in the report be called for fresh interview which may be held after the post is advertised afresh with expanded essential qualification.
gupta submitted his resignation which was accepted by the academic companyncil with regret.
a. subhashini for the respondent in rp.
