M.B. Sharma, J.
1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner, who had applied for the post of lecturer in Political Science, seeks the quashing of the selections of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 for the appointment to the post of Lecturer in department of Political Science, University of Jodhpur.
2. Posts of lecturer in the department of Political Science in the University of Jodhpur were advertised. The petitioner, along with respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and others applied for the said posts. The statutory selection committee for the selection of lecturer, Political Science, was to meet on July 9, 1981 in which candidates were called for interview. The petitioner apprehended that the selections will not be fair, filed a representation on July 7, 1981 seeking some clarifications and also mentioned therein that in case she does not hear anything, she will not appear before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, with the Vice Chancellor as Chairman, interviewed respondent No. 3 to 6 along with others on July 9, 1981 and as required under the law, is said to have recommended the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 for appointment as lecturers.
3. The petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court on July 15, 1981 for the various reliefs including the relief which has been stated earlier. The recommendations of the Selection Committee have been challenged mainly on two grounds,-
(1) That neither the Jodhpur University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') nor the Statutes of the University framed under the Actor the Universities of Rajasthan Teachers' and Officers Act, 1974 (hereinafter, 'the Act of 1974,) lay down any guidelines or criteria for the selection of Lecturer or Reader, or Professor in the University of Jodhpur (hereinafter called 'the University'); and
(2) That respondent No. 2, the Vice Chancellor is interested in respondent No. 6 being her relation and as such, he was disqualified to sit in the Selection Committee having personal interest in one of the candidates and, therefore, the selections could not be and have not been fair.
4. The show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why this writ petition be not admitted and cause has been shown on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Preliminary objections have been raised to the maintainability of the writ petition and they are these:
(1) The recommendations of the Selection Committee may or may not be accepted by the Syndicate and, therefore, the writ petition is premature;
(2) the petitioner having not appeared in the interview, cannot be allowed to challenge the recommendations of the Selection Committee; and
(3) the writ petition suffers from the defect of concealment of material facts and false averments and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
5. I will presently show that the first preliminary objection of the learned advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 prevails and, therefore, I need not go into merits of the writ petition. Referring to the first objection, even at the cost of repetition, it may be observed that the recommendations are yet to be accepted by the Syndicate which is the appointing authority and only when they are accepted, the appointments can be made. Therefore, the writ petition is premature. Under the Act of 1974, that Selection Committee is to be constituted under Section 4 of the Act. Its procedure is provided in Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 deals with disqualification for sitting as a member in the Selection Committee. Rule making power is vested, under Section 10, in the Syndicate of the University. Under the Act, it is the Syndicate which is the appointing authority for a Lecturer or Reader or Professor, as the case may be. Under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1974, the Selection Committee has to make its recommendations to the Syndicate. If the Syndicate disapproves the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Vice Chanceller of the University has to submit such recommendations along with reasons for disapproval given by the Syndicate before the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. Lt may be stated here that earlier also, the Selection Committee interviewed the candidates for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and but those recommendations were not agreed to by the Syndicate and, therefore the selections could not finalised. Therefore, it is very clear that uptil now, only the Selection Committee has made its recommendations which, though as per the petitioner contained the names of respondent No. 3, and 6 but still are secret. The Syndicate will apply its mind and may or may not agree with the recommendations. It is only when the recommendations are accepted, the appointment can be made and then there will be occasion for any of the candidates aggrieved, to challenge the recommendations and consequential appointment on any of the grounds which may be available to item under the law. In Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow : (1977)ILLJ68SC , dealing with the appointments in similar situations, it was observed in para 16 as follows,-
It is also difficult to understand how the writ petition or for that matter the present appeal before us is maintainable when the recommendation of the Selection Committee has still to be scrutinized by the Executive Council of the University and either accepted or rejected by it and other remedies by way of representation to the Executive Council and an application for reference of the matter under Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974, to the Chancellor are still open be the appellant and have not been exhausted.
6. Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Kunda S. Kadam v. Dr. K.K. Soman : AIR1980SC881 where the recommendations were challenged on the ground of lack of necessary qualification in the recommenting body, held that the writ petition was premature and the decision of the Bombay High Court was set aside.
7. Mr. L.R. Mehta has referred to certain observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India : 1SCR457 . Their Lordships, dealing with the argument of the Attorney General that the Selection Board was only a recommendatory body and the final recommendations were to be made by the U.P.S.C, observed,-
Looking at the composition of the Board and the nature of the duties entrusted to it we have no doubt that its recommendations should have carried considerable weight with the U.P.S.C. If the decision of the Selection Board is held to have been vitiated, it is clear to our mind that the final recommendations made by the commission must also be held to have been vitiated. The recommendations made by the Union Public Service Commission cannot be disassociated from the selections made by the Selection Board which is the foundation for the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission.
It appears from the perusal of the aforesaid authority that the question as to whether a writ petition against the recommendatory body is premature or not did not arise and as such, it is not of any avail to the learned Counsel.
8. Whether the criteria or guidelines for the interview were fixed or not, whether the Selection Committee of its own could have laid down the guidelines and the criteria and whether the respondent No. 2 was interested in respondent No. 6 and therefore her selection is not fair and liable to be set side are all questions of merit and the writ petition against the recommendations of the Selection Committee being premature, it is too early to say anything about the merits.
9. In the result, the writ petition being yet premature, having been presented against the recommendations of the Selection Committee, is dismissed summarily.