1. The intra court Appeal in W.A. No.100030/2022 (S-RES) inter alia by the University and the companion appeal with request for leave by the aspiring candidates in W.A. No.100076/2022 (S-RES), call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 04.12.2021, whereby private Respondents’ W.P.No.104236/2021 (S-RES) having been favoured, the subject recruitment process has been set at naught reserving liberty to the University to initiate a fresh one.

2. The Private Respondents being represented by their counsel and the State through the learned Government Advocate resists the appeals making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. However, he makes legal submissions in justification of the Government Order (hereinafter G.O.) dated 23.11.2018, which too has been quashed by the learned Single Judge.

II. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:

(i) The Appellant – Farm University initiated recruitment process for selection & appointment to the posts of officers enlisted under section 24(iv) to (ix) of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009 (hereinafter ‘2009 Act’) vide Recruitment Notification dated 15.07.2019. Certain qualifications & conditions as recommended by the High Level Committee (hereinafter ‘HLC’) and in terms of G.O. dated 23.11.2018 were incorporated in the said notification.

(ii) The 1st Writ Petitioner – Mr. Ramanagouda Patil and assertedly some members of the 2nd Petitioner – Teachers’ Association had staked their claim for appointment. However, not being happy with the prescription of certain guidelines & scorecard whereby applications were called for the posts in question, they had knocked at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the recruitment process in a wholesale way inter alia on the ground that the Govt. could not have prescribed the qualifications & conditions for the appointment. The petition was stoutly opposed by the university by filing the Statement of Objections.

(iii) A learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the entire recruitment process finding fault with the alleged governmental interference in the affairs of university, reserving liberty to initiate the recruitment process de novo. The Board of Management (hereinafter ‘BOM’) proceedings which prescribed the qualifications/conditions arguably stipulated at the instance of govt. vide G.O. dated 23.11.2018 have also been voided by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal by the University. The aspirants/participants in the subject recruitment process are also before this Court in the companion appeal against the same order, of course craving leave, contending that though they were not parties eo nominee to the subject Writ Petition, they too are aggrieved. Leave needs to be and accordingly is granted, since prima facie they have a litigable interest, and no prejudice will be occasioned to any of the parties, by such grant.

III. THE ISSUES DEBATED AT THE BAR:

In that light of pleadings of the parties and the rival contentions advanced at the Bar, the following broad questions have been framed for consideration:

IV. OUR EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER:

Both the sides have made extensive submissions placing their own interpretation on the provisions of the 2009 Act and pressing into service certain rulings. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

1. AS TO AUTONOMY OF THE UNIVERSITIES & GOVERNMENTAL INTEREFERENCE:

(a) Autonomy of Universities is explained by S.R Dongerkerry S.R Dongerkerry, University Autonomy in India (1967) as:

“…a university’s right to self government, or its right to govern its own affairs, and particularly its right to carry on legitimate activities of teaching and research without interference from any outside authority…”

What Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court observed in SWEEZY vs. NEW HAMPSIRE 354 U.S. 234 (1957) illuminates the point:

"…In a university, knowledge is its own end, not merely a means to an end. A university ceases to be true to its own nature if it becomes the tool of Church or State or any sectional interest. …"

(b) Historically, India has a very ancient tradition of having highly sophisticated organisational structures for education since ages. These institutions of higher learning enjoyed autonomy both in respect of administration and academics. The march of time witnessed recognition of this “autonomy principle” for promoting academic excellence. However, there is nothing like absolute autonomy, whichever be the institution, constitutional or statutory, is also true. It is a question of degree, i.e., relative. Showing deference to autonomy of these institutions is the norm, and intervention is an exception, which the intervener has to justify. Learned Single Judge has quashed the subject G.O. as being incompetent and also as amounting to governmental interference in the affairs of universities; therefore, the recruitment process is held to have been vitiated in its entirety, and that does not call for a deeper examination at the hands of this Court, is the submission of learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners.

(c) Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Khatawi appearing for the Appellant – University contended that the impugned judgment is faultsome, there being no demonstrable interference as such. Learned GA appearing for the State submitted that all these universities have taken huge lands & funds from the State, and therefore, the Government too is justified in having its say at least in some matters and to an extent. They both take the Court through certain provisions of 2009 Act, in support of their submissions. The question whether the Govt. can interfere in the affairs of universities need not much detain us any longer in view of our latest pronouncement in THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES vs. SRI. DR. DIGAMBARAPPA & OTHERS(W.A No.100263/2022 between THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES vs. SRI. DR. DIGAMBARAPPA & OTHERS3 disposed off on 24.06.2022), wherein a deep anguish has been expressed against the unjustified interference of Govt. Secretaries in the affairs of Universities, as if they are notional extension of Govt. Departments. However, we hasten to add that what has been stated therein is only a general principle of autonomy, in the specific fact matrix of the case, which aspect we discuss infra.

2. AS TO WHO SHOULD PRESCRIBE ELIGIBILITY & QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY:

(a) The question whether government can prescribe conditions & qualifications for the university’s recruitment process of the kind, need not retard us much, the answer being a firm ‘NO’. Reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, the universities by their very nature are autonomous bodies and therefore,3 government, even when it gives property & funds has to stay away from their internal affairs, as a matter of general policy enacted in the subject legislation. Secondly, it is the university who is the employer and therefore, ordinarily it is employers’ prerogative to prescribe eligibility conditions & qualifications for appointment to the posts/offices and others unless authorised cannot intervene. Thirdly, the posts enlisted in section 24(iv) to (ix) of the 2009 Act are predominantly academic in nature and therefore, in the very fitness of things, such matters should be deferentially left to the wisdom of University who is aided & advised by its statutory authorities, as rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners.

(b) It is relevant to mention what the U.S. Supreme Court in SWEEZY, supra as to significance of autonomy of universities:

“…It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail 'the four essential freedoms' of a university -- to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study…”

As a general norm, the Govt. of the day has to keep away from the affairs of Universities, cannot be disputed. However, this is not the end of matter, there being much beyond. Thus, the question that still remains at large is whether the subject G.O. apparently having mandatory language amounts to interference in the affairs of the University beyond the justifiable limits in general and the recruitment process in particular. This has to be answered keeping in view various provisions of the 2009 Act.

3. AS TO POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE ITS SAY IN MATTERS RELATING TO AFFAIRS OF THE UNIVERSITY:

(a) Now, let us scan the provisions of 2009 Act, which indicate some role to the Government as such, and permits participation of its high functionaries in the affairs of Farm Universities. Section 5(2) of theempowers the State Govt. to direct the Universities to reserve seats for women, SC & ST, agriculturists, children of agriculturists, candidates from other States, foreign students, defence personnel, Ex.- Servicemen & their children, etc. It also states that the University shall abide by the direction of the State Govt, issued in this regard.

(b) Section 8(1) of thegives a right to the Govt. to request the Chancellor to cause inspection or enquiry into several activities of the University and its institutions. Sub-Section (5) of Section 8 empowers the Govt. to direct the Vice-Chancellor to comply with the instructions of the Chancellor and sub-Section (7) straight way vests power in the Government to issue directions in the interest of the University. Sub-section (10) of Section 8 vests a wide power in the Govt. to annul any order, notifications, resolutions or any proceedings of the University that are not in conformity with the, the Statutes, Regulations or Ordinances or the policy of the State Govt.

(c) Clause (e) of Section 9 empowers the Govt. to transfer excess teachers & other employees of certain Farm Universities, inter se; this provision being exercised in consultation with the Vice-Chancellors. Section 10 gives power to the State Govt. to recommend to the Chancellor to issue directions to the Universities in the interest of their administration & academic function, etc.

(d) Section 41 provides for institution of pension, gratuity, insurance, provident fund, etc., by the University with the prior approval of the Govt. Section 42 directs the State Govt. to make annual grants to the Universities, subject to they being accountable to the Govt. Section 43 provides for the formation of Finance Committee which inter alia comprises of Principal Secretary to the Finance Department and the Principal Secretary to the Agricultural Departments or their nominees, as its Members. Section 47 empowers the Govt to permit the closure of any affiliated colleges or any course in such colleges. In addition to these, there are other provisions as well, which recognise some role for the Govt. to play.

4. AS TO MEDIATE INTERFERENCE OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH ITS OFFICERS:

(a) Under this Act, half a dozen farm universities have been established in the State, is not in dispute. Chapter III of the enlists five principal authorities of whom three are relevant viz, (i) Board of Management, (ii) Academic Council, & (iii) Research Council. These are statutory bodies. Section 12(1) speaks of composition of BOM: four Principal Secretaries each heading their respective departments, i.e., Agriculture, Finance, Environment & Forest and Horticulture happen to be Members; Commissioner of Agriculture, Govt. of Karnataka is another Member. Section 13 specifies powers & functions of the BOM and makes it responsible inter alia for the conduct of all administrative affairs of the university. It also has power to create teaching & non – teaching posts with the approval of State Govt. It is the BOM which has to consider and approve the recommendations of Academic Council, Research Council and Extension Education Council.

(b) The Academic Council is created under section 14(1) of theand it comprises of as many as ten members, of whom the Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Karnataka happens to be one. The council’s powers & functions are specified under section 15 which include making recommendations for the institution of posts of teachers & researchers and for the requisite qualifications for their appointment.

(c) Section 16 provides for the creation of the Research Council comprising of eighteen members of whom eight high functionaries are from the Govt; they are Directors of four departments i.e., (i) Agriculture, (ii) Agricultural Marketing, (iii) Horticulture, (iv) Women & Child Welfare, (v) Sericulture, (vi) Watershed Management, (vii) the Chief Conservator of Forests & (viii) the Chief Engineer from Water Resource Development Organization. Similarly, the Extension Education Council created under Section 18 comprises of fifteen members of whom the same eight Govt. functionaries do figure ex-officio. This apart, there are officials from the Departments of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Co-operation, Water Resources, Karnataka State Seeds Corporation, Karnataka State Seed Certification Agency, & Karnataka Agro- Industries Development Corporation.

(d) More importantly, Section 67(1) of 2009 Act creates the State Co-ordination Committee for Agricultural Education, Research & Extension, inter alia comprising of Minister for Agriculture as its Chairperson, & Secretary to Agriculture Department as its Member Secretary. The functions of this body are mentioned in sub-Section (3). A duty is also cast upon this committee; in so many words, to ensure autonomy of the universities is also true.

(e) Section 26 of themakes the Minister of Agriculture for the State of Karnataka, the Pro-Chancellor of the University, ex officio. Section 27(2) empowers the Government to constitute a Search Committee for the selection of candidates for the post of Vice Chancellors. This Committee comprises of four Members of whom a nominee of the Government shall be one; it is the Government which appoints one of such Members to be the Chairman of the Committee. It also provides that the Secretary to the Department of Agriculture or his nominee shall be its Convener. Sub-sections (3) & (4) provide for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors by the Chancellor with the concurrence of State Govt. Section 38 empowers the Govt. to cause audit of the accounts of the University; Section 40 imposes the duty on the Vice-Chancellor and the Board of Management of the University to submit accounts and reports to the Govt.

5. PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION IN CAMPUS AFFAIRS AND DR.DIGAMBARAPPA CASE:

(a) A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of 2009 Act shows that the statutory policy does not erect an impregnable wall between the Govt. on the one side and these Universities on the other. Therefore, the obligation imposed vide Section 67(3)(a) on the State Co-ordination Committee for “Ensuring Autonomy of Agricultural Universities in the state” has to be construed in the light of other provisions of the which specifically assign to the State Govt. and its functionaries some role to play in certain affairs of the University as already discussed above. A holistic & meaningful reading of the provisions of the makes it abundantly clear that the roles envisaged for the State and University in effectuating the purpose of the enactment is not distinct, separate & independent but on most of the significant aspects of the activities of the University, a collaborative & participative one involving both these players.

(b) It is significant to note that these Government Officials, who become ex officio members of authorities of the Universities under various provisions of the statute, act as limbs of the Government and not as independent agencies, subject to a few exceptions. This apart, it has been a cardinal principle of Interpretation of Statutes that all provisions of an Act should be construed as an integral whole so that none of its provisions is rendered otiose. A close reading of the G.O. shows that it is not an order in the sense in which govt. orders are usually understood but it is the product of a process of deliberation, consultation, exchange of notes & arriving at a consensus ultimately culminating in a decision, namely that there shall be common guidelines & qualifications for the purpose of appointment to the subject posts in the farm universities all coming under one umbrella. That it is so, is evident from the reference at the top of the subject G.O. and its preamble.

(c) Agriculture is the lifeblood of our country; in India, it is a way of life. Several social values have evolved from agriculture. Apex Court in M.C MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA 2020 7 SCC 530 observed: “…Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of this country. Its interest cannot be overlooked…when the State has the obligation towards the agriculture…”.. The Govt. is interested in ensuring the confluence of courses & curriculum in the farm universities and the welfare objectives of its policies. Farm universities are the nurseries for the future agricultural planners of this country. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom permits the say of the govt. even in university affairs. The subject of agriculture is advisedly put in the List–2 (Item 14), Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, although, education figures in List–3 (Item 25). The 2009 Act under which six farm universities are established in the State focuses on the science and technology of agriculture & allied branches of knowledge. The trained candidates coming out from the campus contribute something that directly concerns the livelihood of people. Presumably, because of this, this Act is a bit differently worded compared to other Acts such as the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 when it comes to measure of interference of the State Govt in the affairs of farm universities. This inarticulate premise also needs to be kept in mind while adjudging the permissible limits of such interference.

(d) The decision in DR. DIGAMBARAPPA, supra heavily relied upon by the writ petitioners was essentially framed in the light of fact matrix of the case which plainly fell into the precincts of the proviso to Section 30 of the Act, which provided for appointment “as a temporary measure” when the recruitment process for regular appointments, was in the air. This decision referred to a ruling of a learned Single Judge in DR. PARAPPA SHANKARAPPA vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ILR 1999 (1) KAR 282 whereby an examination of the provisions of the erstwhile Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, gave least power to the Govt. in the matter of University affairs. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition laid down in the conspectus of the facts of a case and that it cannot be mechanically invoked disregarding the differentials involved in the case at hands. This view draws support from Lord Halsbury’s opinion in QUINN vs. LEATHAM 1901 A.C. 495.

6. AS TO CONSTRUING THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 28.11.2018:

(a) The Co-ordination Committee formed under section 67(1) of thein its Proceedings dated 11.02.2015 had resolved to constitute a Committee of Directors of Education & Registrars of all farm universities in the State for suggesting ‘Common Guidelines & Score Card’ for the purpose of recruitment of officers & teachers. Apparently, the HLC comprises of experts & academicians. The Co-ordination Committee in the subject Resolution had given a broad mandate as to what exercise this HLC should undertake in genus, Item No. 7 thereof being in species. The HLC accomplished the task & submitted its report both to the govt. and to the university, which fact Mr. Kathavi passionately draws our attention to, from the record. True it is, that the Govt. vide G.O dated 23.11.2018 had ‘directed’ all the farm & allied universities in the State to incorporate certain recommendations as the common ‘yardsticks’ for recruitment to the posts in question. It is not the case of Writ Petitioners that what has been contained in this G.O. is not substantially similar to what is recommended by the HLC, as discussed and approved by the BOM of the university that too after obtaining views of the Academic Council.

(b) It would be pertinent to note that orders of co- ordinate branches of government are not mere products of ‘lexicographical exercises’; they are made with some underlying purposes. To put it in the words of Lord Millett: “We are all purposive constructionists now.” What the eminent Israeli judge Mr. Aharon Barack in his book, ‘Purposive Interpretation in Law’ (Princeton University Press 2005) writes is worth adverting to:

“All legal interpretation must start by establishing a range of semantic meanings for a given text, from which the legal meaning is then drawn. In purposive interpretation, the text’s “purpose” is the criterion for establishing which of the semantic meanings yields the legal meaning. Establishing the ultimate purpose — and thus the legal meaning — depends on the relationship between the subjective and objective purposes; that is, between the original intent of the text’s author and the intent of a reasonable author and of the legal system at the time of interpretation…”

The above observations although focus on the instruments of law they nonetheless come handy in construing Govt. orders as well.

(c) Govt. has only a corporate personality. The walk, talk and acts of the Government have to be carried out by its functionaries i.e., the officials. The decisions of the Govt. are ordinarily expressed in traditional forms, at times with incorrect texts. If language is not properly used, then what is said is not what is meant. This has happened in the case at hands. The instruments of Govt. such as orders, notifications, circulars, memoranda, letters, & notes need to be construed subordinating their form to the substance, unless the law itself mandatorily sanctifies the form. Linguistically, a formatted text may look to be an order; however, a deeper examination whereof may reveal its spirit & intent, that belie the same.

(d) The G.O. could have been structured in a different textual form so that there was no scope for the complaint of ‘governmental interference’ in the affairs of the University is beside the point. The said G.O. is issued by an Under Secretary in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Karnataka. It does not mention any provision of any Act or Rules. The intent & purport of this G.O. is to make the recruitment process in all the farm Universities uniformly normative. Therefore, keeping that in view, it has asked these Universities to follow the common guidelines & scorecard method. What is suggested by the G.O. through the enclosures is substantially similar to the HLC recommendations that have been duly considered by the Academic Council, the BOM and by the Vice Chancellors. The contra is not the case of Writ Petitioners. Therefore, the argument of Governmental interference in the affairs of the University cannot be countenanced.

(e) Statue 13 of the First Statue of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad provides as to how the qualifications for the posts of Officers are to be prescribed. It has the following text:

“13. Prescribing Qualifications for Appointment: The qualifications of the teachers shall be as prescribed by the UGC/ICAR and amended from time to time by UGC/ICAR. In respect of Officers, the Vice-Chancellor shall prescribe qualifications in consultation with the committee constituted by him and approved by the Board.”

This process has happened in the case at hands. The recruitment notification dated 15.07.2019 refers to G.O. dated 23.11.2018, is true. The Academic Council treated the matter in its 27th Meeting held on 07.01.2019; the BOM deliberated on the matter in its Meetings held on 25.01.2019 & 05.07.2019; the Vice Chancellor too looked into all these and sanctioned the prescriptions vide order dated 15.07.2019.

(f) All the above is reflected in the face page of the recruitment notification itself. It is not that something new and alien is prescribed by the G.O. It is not that either the Vice Chancellor, the BOM, the Academic Council or the Extension Education Council or such other statutory body had raised eyebrows on the contents of the G.O. Mr. Kathavi is more than justified in saying that the substance of G.O. is treated as a worthy input material which the University in its autonomy and accumulated wisdom has made use of in framing the recruitment notification and therefore, writ petitioners are not correct in raising hue & cry over the same. How the arguable invalidity of the G.O. of the kind can infect the proceedings of the BOM and the recruitment process in a wholesale way, eminently remains unanswered.

7. NOTHING OBJECTIONABLE IN THE RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION & NO PREJUDICE TO THE PARTICIPANTS & ASPIRANTS:

(a) The BOM, which is a body similar to Syndicate that obtains in other conventional Universities, has considered the recommendations of the HLC along with the views of Academic Council, in the backdrop of subject Government Order. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in several universities the general guidelines of the kind and the score card methods are employed for adjudging the comparative merits of candidates in the selection fray. What eligibility conditions & qualifications should be prescribed for the recruitment of officers is for the university to decide and accordingly it has deliberated, and decided too. It is not the case of Writ Petitioners that something weird & obnoxious has been prescribed in the recruitment notification or in the G.O. dated 23.11.2018 and that all they have been put to prejudice, thereby.

(b) Universities are the pulsating centres of academic excellence & expertise. If the actions of universities are in accordance with the 2009 Act, Writ Courts would loathe to undertake a roving inquiry only to falter them on some insignificant infirmities. Added, if government should respect the autonomy of these universities, Courts being a Co-ordinate branch of the State too have to show due deference, as a matter of policy & principle, saving exceptions. Autonomy of these institutions is not sectarian; it is all pervasive and avails as of necessity qua the Courts too. An otherwise argument would make the autonomy a farce.

8. AS TO APPROBATION & REPROBATION OF IN THE CONDUCT OF FIRST PETITIONER:

(a) The very Recruitment Notification, at it’s first page mentions the G.O. dated 23.11.2018, BOM proceedings, recommendation of the Academic Council, and Vice Chancellor’s order. The said G.O. was the outcome of deliberations of the government functionaries, all the Vice Chancellors & Registrars of six farm universities who had discussed the issue on 12.10.2018 & 23.10.2018. It is not a case of university acting under dictation of the Govt, abdicating its role. We have already held above that the subject G.O. does not amount to an unjustifiable interference with the affairs of university. There is nothing that vitiated the recruitment process. The 1st Writ Petitioner – Prof. Ramanagouda Patil has participated in the selection process unconditionally with full knowledge of the Recruitment Notification. In such a fact matrix, the Writ Petitioners could not have pressed into service the decision of the Apex Court in DR. (MAJOR) MEETA SAHAI vs. STATE OF BIHAR 2019 20 SCC 17 [LQ/SC/2019/1901 ;] ">2019 20 SCC 17 [LQ/SC/2019/1901 ;] [LQ/SC/2019/1901 ;] to contend that even the participants can put in challenge the recruitment process. They were as yet not called for the interview does not much matter.

(b) It is not that the 1st Petitioner is a peasant or a labourer; he is a professor with a doctoral degree and enjoys very attractive pay packages. It is not his case that he did not know anything about the G.O. dated 23.11.2018, at the time he entered the selection fray. When the recruitment process was half way through, all of a sudden, wisdom dawned on him and he rushed to the Writ Court raising hue & cry. The Apex Court in MUSTAFA vs. UNION OF INDIA (2022) 1 SCC 294 [] while considering a similar point held:

“When a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted.”

Thus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate & reprobate.

9. AS TO LOCUS STANDII OF 2ND PETITIONER – TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION TO COMPLAIN AGAINST RECRUITMENT PROCESS:

(a) 2nd Petitioner is only an association of teachers. Ordinarily, in matters of recruitment, it is only the aggrieved candidate, who can complain against arguable illegalities in the process. Others cannot. Teachers’ Association of the kind cannot espouse the individual/personal cause of its members. Espousal of such causes is not shown to have been authorised by any statute like the Trade Unions Act, 1926 & Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provide for collective bargaining & espousal of individual causes of workmen. It is not that the Member Teachers of the Association are a vulnerable section of the society, who on their own could not come before the Court to lay a challenge to the recruitment process. Nor are they poor & disabled and therefore espousal was warranted. Added, what right of the association as such, is infringed is also not forthcoming from the pleadings of the writ petitioners or the submissions made on their behalf.

(b) The above view gains credence from a decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in SAND CARRIER'S OWNER'S UNION AND ORS. vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES AIR 1990 CAL 176 [LQ/CalHC/1989/219] wherein paragraph 14 reads as under:

“…Unincorporated associations are not legal persons and as such, writ petitions are not maintainable. An association could be formed to protect the interest of consumers, tenants or other groups with the common interest but such group cannot move writ application. No aspect of the representative law has been changing more rapidly than the law governing standing and the standing barrier has been substantially lowered in recent years, but on the basis of the law relating to standing as in England or in America as also in India, it can be held without any difficulty that the writ petition at the instance of an association is not maintainable where the association itself is not affected by any order. The members of such association may be affected by common order and may have common grievance, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members, writ petition at the instance of such association is not maintainable…”

In the above circumstances, these Appeals being meritorious, succeed, costs having been made easy. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set at naught. The University to accomplish the recruitment process, from the stage it was interdicted by the impugned order, on a war footing.

Before parting with the case, this court places on record, its deep appreciation for the able research & assistance rendered by its official Law Clerk Cum Research Assistant, Mr. Faiz Afsar Sait.