Dismissed

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin v. The Osmania University

Telangana HC12 Mar 2024WP/15197/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his non-selection as part-time Urdu lecturer at Nizam College despite being sole applicant to that college's notification. The court found no irregularity: a centralized UGC-guideline selection placed petitioner 14th and respondent No.3 third in merit. Writ petition dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed writ petition without costs; respondents may consider petitioner for part-time lecturer (Urdu) appointment if a vacancy is available.

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin Vs The Osmania University — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15197 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin, S/o. Late. Md. Khaja Moinuddin, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Part Time Lecturer, Rl/o H.No. 19-2-1 1/92, IMisrigunj, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Osmania University, Rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad.

¶12

Nizam College (Autonomous), Rep. by its Principal, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶13

Mr. Md. Khushtar, S/o. Not known,lo the Petitioner, Age. Major,^Rl/o. Cio. Urdu Department, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad

¶14

...RES'.NDENT'

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitulion of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st respondent in trying to appoint the 3rd respondent as^part time lecturer (Urdu) in the 2nd respondent college, though the 3rd respondent have not applied, and not appointing the^petitioner as Lecturer though he is fully^qualified, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article¹⁴ and 16 of constitution of lndia

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased} pleased to direct the 1st respondent not to appoint the 3rd Respondent^{as Part} Time Lecturer (Urdu) in the 2nd Respondent^{College, pendingdisposal of the} main writ^petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD^{ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI}

¶19

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI^{CH JAGANNATHA RAO} SC FOR OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

¶20

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2^{& 3:} ---

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HOIVOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.151 97 of 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is fired seeking to declare the action of the l"t respondent in trying to appoint the 3.d respondent as part Time Lecturer (Urdu) in the 2nd respondent college, though the 3.a respondent has not applied and not appointing the petitioner as l,ecturer though he is fully qualified, as arbitrar5r, illegal and violative of Articles 14 ald 16 of Constitution of India.

¶27

2 Heard Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned standing counsel for Osmalia Universit5r, appearing on behalf of respondent No. l.

¶28

3' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed Post Graduation in M.A (Urdu) in first division in the year 2OO2, qualilied in TS-SET in October, 2O1g and working as guest lecturer /part time lecturer from 2OO3 onwards in various colleges in Hyderabad including the 2"a respondent college. In response to the notification issued by the 2-d respondent college in october, 202 1, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of part time lecturer in Department of Urdu, the petitioner has submitted his application and no other candidate has applied for

the said post. Thereafter he attended the written test on^12.02.2022 and faced interview on 16.O2.2O22 satisfactorily. Subsequently,^the petitioner came to know that tl.e 2nd respondent has^{selected the} 3.d respondent, who has applied for^{the post of pa-rt time lecturer} (Urdu) in University College for Woman,^Koti, by^{ignoring his} candidature. Though separate^{notif,rcationsfor different colleges} were issued, but in an arbitrary manner, the^{1"t respondentselected} the 3.d respondent for appointment in^{2"d respondent college} erroneously. Hence, the learned^{counsel prays this Court to issue} necessary directions in the Writ^Petition-

¶33

¶34

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel^{for the respondent No.l} -^{Osmania Universit5r submits that the recruitmentfor the post of} part time lecturers in Urdu Department^{is a centralizedprocess} done at Osmania University^{by following UGC guidelines,which} includes Deans, HODs and experienied^{teachers who are panel} members for above recruitment.^{Further, basedon written test and} oral interview, a merit list^{was preparedby the panel members} wherein the petitioner stood at^{14ta place and the 3'a respondent} stood at 3rd place. l,earned Standing^{Counsel further submits that} though separate notifrcations^{were given at collegelevel, the entire} process of selection was done at the University level by following rules and regulations framed by UGC and by conducting a^common

1 \

] I

written test and interview for all the subjects. Further, the 3.d respondent was selected based on the marks secured in the written test and interview by duly following the UGC guidelines and no discrimination was shown between men and women, as alleged by the petitioner, and the entire process of selection was done on merit after conducting written test and interview. Hence, the learned counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶39

This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective Counsel and perused the material.

¶40

A perusal of the record discloses that separate notifications were issued by respondent University and its constituent Colleges inviting applications for the posts of Part-Time lecturer in Urdu. In response to the notif-rcation issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has submitted his application whereas the third respondent has submitted his application for the post of PTL (Urdu) 1n Universit5r College for Woman, Koti. Further, a centralized selection process was undertaken at the University level by following the UGC guidelines. After conducting written test and interview, a merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner stood at 14tr, place and respondent No.3 stood at 3ra place. Therefore, the petitioner could not come up for selection. Hence, this Court does not Iind

¶41

¶42

¶43

any lrregularity in the selection process. Further, the contention of the petitioner that only his ca,didature has to be considered for filling up the post in 2.d respondent College cannot be accepted as the action of the respondent University in conducting a centralized selection process cannot be faulted with.

¶44

7 . In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the in the Writ petition ald the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents may consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of part-Time lccturer (Urdu), if any vacancy is available.

¶46

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶47

SD/.A.V.S.P RASAD STBAR //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGIsv

¶48

To,

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

One CC to Sri Mohd lslamuddin Ansari Advocate tOpUCt 2. One CC j-"j1lgh^Jagannatha Rao, SC ror Oimihia Jn:'versity (OPUC) 3. Two CD uopres MBC GJP a

/,.t1 4 \v^.;.

"f;

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210312024

---:.a.:.': --
/a <br>1A )+
ii
ri, r _"':!
l. 3il l,r-:l -.- -l

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.15197 of 2022

¶58

DTSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶59

elt
w

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin v. The Osmania University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin v. The Osmania University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chatari Nagendram Vs The State of Telangana

Savithri Karre Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Nagesh Vs State of Telangana

K.v.Haripriya Vs The District Educational Officer

C.Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana

Naresh Samala, Vs The State of Telangana