Narendra Singh Panwar vs State Council Of Educational ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 2391 Del

JUDGMENT

Hima Kohli, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for reconsideration of the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Senior Lecture (CMDE) as advertised by respondent No. 2 in Advertisement No. 6/04.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that the petitioner is a physically disabled person affected by post polio residual paralysis, belongs to the OBC category and fulfillls the eligibility criteria for being considered for appointment to the aforesaid post, the respondent No. 1 has not appointed the petitioner to the said post and instead, kept the said post as vacant till date.

3. Counsel for the respondent submits that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the candidature of the petitioner was duly considered by the Selection Committee. In the meeting held by the Selection Committee on 2nd March, 2005, it was observed that though the petitioner was interviewed, that he was not found suitable for selection to the said post. An extract of the minutes of the meeting held by the Selection Committee on 2nd March, 2005 is handed over and taken on record.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is intentionally keeping the aforesaid post vacant which is reserved for being filled up by a physically handicapped person, by giving filmsy excuses and that the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment.

5. It is settled law that a candidate cannot claim a legal right for appointment to a particular post and at best, a candidate is entitled for consideration for being appointed to a post,

6. It is undisputed that the petitioner was duly considered by the respondent for the post in question and an expert body constituted by the respondent comprising of five members, out of which four were outsiders, undertook the entire exercise for considering the candidature of the petitioner and having been found unsuitable for selection to the said post, rejected his case.

7. In these circumstances, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondent calling upon it to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for the post in question as claimed by the petitioner or for that matter, to compel the respondent to fill up the vacancy as it is for the respondent to take a decision on the administrative side, as to whether any suitable candidate is available to fill up the said post.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the prayers made in the writ petition are declined and the petition is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.