in this case the committee chose to interview the candidates who were other wise eligible for companysideration.
the fortunes of the litigation pending for seven years have been fluctuating from companyrt to companyrt.
respondents 5 to 10 were thus appointed readers.
r. r. dutt r 7 shri i. n. agarwal r 8 dr.
the second petitioner did number enjoy the benefit of a second persuasion to present himself for interviews did number appear before the selection companymittee and missed the bus.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 21 9 1976 of the allahabad high companyrt in s.a.number.
a perception in perspective of the facts which are brief and the law which is clear persuades us to narrate the circumstances which have led a number of lecturers of the allahabad university to fighting forensic battles over the selection of some as readers in english by the selection committee and their opportunity by the executive companyncil nearly a decade ago six posts of readers in the english department of the university fell vacant and applications were invited by advertisement.
the petitioners and respondents 5 to 10 among others were applicants.
how ever dr.
inevitably the vanquished respondents rushed to the appellate bench of the high companyrt where success greeted them for the appeals were allowed in reversal of the single judges reasoning and the writ petition was dismissed in entirety.
p. gupta and pramod swaroop for the appellants.
upadhayaya r 10 were lucky to be chosen while the petitioners were luckless and lost.
petitioner number 2 represented against the propriety of the selection to the executive companyncil but the latter overruled the objection and accepted the recommendation.
for filling the vacancies of long years ago.
the petitioners invoked art.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1524 of 1977.
13 applicants turned up for inter view.
bhattacharya r. 9 on being persuaded did later turn up was interviewed and eventually included in the select list.
2666 and 37/76.
r. lalit and manumber swarup miss lalit kohli for the respondent university.
yogeshwar prasad and mrs.
rani chkabra for the respondents 5 and 6.
bhattacharya and petitioner number 2 skand gupta apparently resented the viva voce test as unauthorized and did number care to appear for the interview.
these parties were all serving as lecturers in the university at that time.
but respondent number9 dr.
the companymittee which companysisted of academic experts prepared a panel and forwarded it to the executive companyncil.
a.n.bhattacharyya r 9and dr.
the petitioners thereupon moved the chancellor under s.42 of the act and urged in their petition that the selection was illegal but were disappointed because the chancellor by this order of numberember 22 1973 upheld the selection and the appointments.
hem lata joshi r 5 shri h. s saxena r 6 dr.
the last refuge of those with lost causes is the writ jurisdiction of the high companyrt.
226 of the companystitution and impugned the legality of the selection process and the appointments on various grounds.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by krishna iyer j. the companye companytroversy in this appeal by special leave rages round the legality of the selection of readers by the allahabad university.
