HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 918/2020
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13582/2020
Dr. Kshitiz Maharshi S/o Dr. C.B. Sharma, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o 113, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines, Jaipur-302006.
----Appellant
Versus
1. University Of Rajasthan, Through Vice-Chancellor,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
2. Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.K. Sharma, Advocate through Video Conferencing HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS Order 01/07/2021 [Per : Manoj Kumar Vyas, J.] This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2020, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
It was the case of the appellant in the writ petition that certain vacancies for appointment on the posts of Assistant Professor for different subjects, were advertised on 22.05.2017 by the respondents. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in EAFM (Economic Administration and Financial (Downloaded on 06/07/2021 at 09:16:36 PM) (2 of 7) [SAW-918/2020] Management). The petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (EAFM) in general category. The petitioner received a communication dated 10.07.2018 from the respondents to appear before the Selection Committee on 19.07.2018. In the meanwhile, when the process of interview by the Selection Committee was in progress, a communication was sent from the Office of Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) New Delhi to the Registrars of all the Central Universities and all State Universities to postpone the recruitment process, if it was already underway, till further orders, owing to the pendency of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arising out of a judgment delivered by Allahabad High Court. As a consequence of the aforesaid communication dated 19.07.2018, instructions were issued by the Office of H.E. the Governor of Rajasthan and Chancellor, University of Rajasthan, to the Vice-Chancellors of all the Universities within the state of Rajasthan to strictly adhere to the directives issued by the Joint Secretary in this regard. The petitioner had undergone the entire process of recruitment and was hopeful of being selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (EAFM), but due to communication dated 19.07.2018 the recruitment process has been kept in abeyance till further orders. While on one hand recruitment process for the purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (EAFM) was kept in abeyance, however, other candidates who had appeared for the same post in other subjects in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.05.2017, had already been given appointments. Hence the writ petition was filed with following prayers:-
(Downloaded on 06/07/2021 at 09:16:36 PM)
(3 of 7) [SAW-918/2020] "It is therefore prayed, that the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for the entire record pertaining to recruitment made by the official respondent in pursuance to advertisement dated 22.05.2017 for carrying out recruitment on the post of Asst. Professor (EAFM) and after examining the same be pleased to declare the action of official respondents in not declaring the result of Asst. Professor (EAFM) to that extent the action of the official respondents be declared null and void and be quashed and set aside.
By further appropriate order, writ or direction, the official respondents be directed to immediately declare the result of the post Asst. Professor (EAFM) for which the interview have already taken place including then that of the petitioner and in case if the name of petitioner finds place in the selected list amongst the merit list now, to be prepared after declaration of result in the matter of appointment on the post of Asst. Professor (EAFM) in that eventuality, the order of appointment be issued in favour of petitioner on the post of Asst. Professor (EAFM) with all consequential benefits thereto. By further appropriate order, writ or direction, if any order prejudicial detrimental to the interest of petitioner is passed during the pendency of the writ petition including any adverse order, the same may kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside.
Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Cost of Writ Petition may also be awarded to the Petitioner." The learned Single Judge by order dated 20.11.2020 dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this special appeal.
It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that pursuant to the same advertisement posts of Assistant Professor for other subjects have been filled-up, but the process of recruitment for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (EAFM) has been kept in abeyance till further orders. The appellant is suffering for no fault of his. However, the said SLP has already been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.01.2019 and the SLP has been dismissed. In such circumstances, the official respondents ought to have declared the result for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (EAFM) immediately.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record available on the file carefully. From record it is revealed that in pursuance to advertisement dated 22.05.2017, (Downloaded on 06/07/2021 at 09:16:37 PM) (4 of 7) [SAW-918/2020] (Annexure A-1 to the writ petition), applications were invited for appointment on certain posts of Assistant Professor. The appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (EAFM). The appellant had been informed to appear before the Selection Committee constituted under the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers Act, 1974 on 19.07.2018.
It is also revealed that one communication dated 18.07.2018 addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) was sent by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) Government of India, which reads as under:-
"Subject: SLPs filed by MHRD and UGC in the case of WA No.43260 of 2016 filed by Shri Vivekanand Tewari & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors. in Hon'ble Supreme Court-regarding.
Please refer to the UGC letter No.1-5/2006(SCT) dated 18.07.2018 stating that some Universities have advertised/initiated the process of recruitment for the teaching positions taking into consideration the Department as a Unit. Vide the letter, the UGC has requested to provide advice/further direction on the matter.
As you are aware, the SLPs have been filed by MHRD and UGC in the case of WA No.43260 of 2016 filed by Shri Vivekanand Tewari & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors. in Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same are slated for hearing tentatively on 13.08.2018.
Hence, it would be appropriate if UGC issued a direction to all the institutions to postpone the recruitment process, if it is already underway, till further orders."
In pursuance to the above mentioned communication a circular was issued by the Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) to all Central Universities and all State Universities (Annexure A-4 to the writ petition), which reads as under:-
"Subject: Implementation of reservation policy of the Government of India.
Reference is invited to this office letter of even number dated 20th April, 2018 on the above mentioned subject wherein it was informed that Union of India and the University Grants Commission has filed separate petitions in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India seeking special leave to appeal the final order and judgment dated 07.04.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WPA No.43260 of 2016, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.(Downloaded on 06/07/2021 at 09:16:37 PM)
(5 of 7) [SAW-918/2020] In this context and in pursuance of the letter No.1-7/2017-CU- V(pt.) dated 18th July, 2018 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India (copy enclosed), you are requested to postpone the recruitment process, if it is already underway, till further orders."
Pursuant to this circular (Annexure A-4), the Secretary to H.E. the Governor of Rajasthan issued a communication dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure A-5 to the writ petition) to all Universities. Annexure A-5 reads as under:-
"--i;k la;qDr lfpo] fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx] ubZ fnYyh ds ifji= Øekad ,Q 1&[email protected] ¼,llhVh½ fnukad 19-07-2018 ckcr "Implementation of reservation policy of the Government of India" dk lanHkZ ysosa tks mi lfpo] ekuo lalk/ku fodk; ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh ds i= Øekad 1&[email protected]&CU-V (pt.) fnukad 18-07-2018 ftlesa fo'ofo|ky;ksa esa 'kS{kf.kd inksa ij HkrhZ] ;fn dksbZ izfØ;k esa gS rks] dks LFkfxr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa tkjh fd;k x;k gS] dh izfr funsZ'kkuqlkj ikyukFkZ layXu dj izsf"kr gSA --i;k ikyuk fjiksVZ ekuuh; jkT;iky ,oa dqykf/kifr egksn; ds voyksdukFkZ fHktok;saA "
Thus, it is revealed from the record available on the file that though the appellant was informed to appear before the Selection Committee of the University in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.05.2017 (Annexure A-1 to the writ petition), however, in the meanwhile on 19.07.2018, the pending recruitment process in all Universities of Rajasthan were directed to be kept in abeyance by a communication issued by the Secretary to H.E. the Governor of Rajasthan (Annexure A-5 to the writ petition).
Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Appointing Authority has a right to proceed further with any advertisement and if in their wisdom, they choose not to proceed further with the advertisement, they can do so and no right is created to any individual to participate in the Selection Process. The Selection Process can be cancelled for several reasons.
The learned Single Judge has also relied upon the judgment passed by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Versus Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47, whereas it has been held as under:-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates (Downloaded on 06/07/2021 at 09:16:37 PM) (6 of 7) [SAW-918/2020] are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Ors. (1973) II LLJ 266 SC ; Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1986] 3 SCR 785 and Jitendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. [1985] 1 SCR 899."
Thus, it has been held that ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any absolute right to the post. Unless the relevant rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, this is a subject to the caveat that decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons.
A perusal of the record reveals that the selection process was kept in abeyance in pursuance to the directions issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) Government of India and consequent direction issued by Secretary to H.E. the Governor of Rajasthan. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision to keep in abeyance the selection process under challenge, suffered from arbitrariness, malafide or violated the right to equality before law. The appellant has also not been able to prove any discriminatory treatment, as the record reveals that the other posts which were filled-up by the respondents in pursuance to the same notification, were filled-up before (Downloaded on 06/07/2021 at 09:16:37 PM) (7 of 7) [SAW-918/2020] 19.07.2018, before the issuance of Annexure A-5 to the writ petition.
In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J (SABINA),J
Aks/-32
(Downloaded on 06/07/2021 at 09:16:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)