At the hearing Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad submitted that in the 145th meeting respondent No.1 has approved the appointment. In my opinion, granting relaxation from possessing prescribed educational qualification in favour of a candidate is different from approving his appointment after the entire selection is over. Evidently, being conscious of the requirement of the approval by the competent authority, the screening committee has recommended the candidature of respondent No.3 “subject to the approval of the competent authority as per rules”. As reflected in the counter affidavit, evidently the University proceeded on the premise that respondent No.2 is the competent authority to give such approval and accordingly he has approved the recommendations of the Screening Committee. As undisputedly, it is the Executive Council which is the competent authority to give relaxation, the action of respondent No.2 in approving the recommendations of the screening committee is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Statute made thereunder. In the considered opinion of this Court, before respondent No.3 was permitted to appear before the Selection Committee, it was necessary for the competent authority, i.e., the Executive Council, to relax the prescribed qualification in his favour. Unless such relaxation is made, respondent No.3 has no legs to stand before the Selection Committee for consideration of his candidature. Thus, in my opinion, there was a serious procedural illegality in allowing respondent No.3 to appear before the Selection Committee and in selecting and appointing him as Executive Engineer. The approval of such illegal selection and appointment by the Executive Council of respondent No.1 cannot lend legitimacy to the otherwise illegal action of considering respondent No.3 for appointment without relaxation by the competent authority.
