Delhi High Court
Dr. Umesh Kumar vs Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi & ... on 3 June, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd June, 2010.
+ W.P.(C) 4203/2011 & CM No.8647/2011 (for stay)
% DR. UMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI & ANR .. Respondents
Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui & Mr. Kamran
Malik, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
for Mr. Jatan Singh, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 7th February,
2011 of the respondent No.1 University, has applied inter alia for the post of
Assistant Professor under the ST category in the Department of
Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics. He has filed this writ petition
averring that without disclosing the outcome of the selection procedure, the
respondent No.1 University has appointed somebody else, who had not even
participated in the selection process, on contractual basis on the said post
and is also intending to confirm him to the said post. The writ petition has
been filed seeking a direction for appointment of the petitioner and for
payment of compensation etc.
2. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner is invited to judgment dated
3rd May, 2011in W.P.(C) No.178/2011 titled Dr. Prem Lata Vs. GNCT of
Delhi wherein the case law in this regard has been noticed, holding that an
applicant for a post has only a right to be considered therefor and even if
selected, has no right to seek appointment. Reference may also be made to
State of Bihar Vs. Kaushal Kishore Singh (1998) 9 SCC 104. In that view
of the matter, the only question which remains is whether the petitioner has
been considered or not.
3. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University appearing on advance
notice has handed over documents which are taken on record, including the
proceedings held on 8th April, 2011 i.e. of the same day when the petitioner
was interviewed, of the Selection Committee and which disclose that the
post for which the petitioner had applied was agreed to be re-advertised, as
the petitioner being the only candidate who had applied, had not been found
suitable.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner fulfills the
qualifications required; he has produced the certificate of good character
from All India Institute of Medical Sciences from where the petitioner has
done his MDS; that the petitioner has been found suitable in the interview
held in Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences where he has been given
temporary appointment; that he has been wrongly disqualified owing to the
bias against the Scheduled Tribes. It is further contended that the decision
pursuant to interview is bad. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ajay Hasia
Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981)1 SCC 722 laying down that selection
on the basis of interview alone is bad.
5. However, Ajay Hasia (supra) is a case relating to admission in an
educational institution. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner is invited
to Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159 where the Apex
Court has observed that the judgments concerning interview and relating to
appointment to educational institutions do not apply to recruitments where
interview is the only way to determine the suitability of the candidate for the
post advertised.
6. The counsel for the petitioner however refers to the judgment of the
Single Bench of this Court in Smt. Tara Wati Vs. S.C.E.R.T. 106(2003)
DLT 235 wherein Ajay Hasia was relied upon in a case of recruitment.
7. However, in view of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court, the
principles of Ajay Hasia cannot be applied to the present case. Moreover,
Tara Wati (supra) is also a case of admission to educational course and not
of recruitment.
8. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University has also rightly
contended that the petitioner having participated in the selection process as
advertised for recruitment, cannot upon being unsuccessful challenge the
same. Reference in this regard may also be made to the recent dicta of the
Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC
576.
9. Even otherwise, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of
the Selection Committee in not finding the petitioner suitable especially
when save for general averments of bias no other ground is made out.
10. As far as the allegations of bias is concerned, the post which the
petitioner is seeking is reserved for ST category candidates only. The
counsel for the respondent has also stated that the respondent is intending to
re-advertise the post. On enquiry, as to for how much period the contractual
appointment has been made, the counsel invites attention to the Office Order
dated 9th May, 2011 in the bunch of documents handed over which shows
the same to be for a period of 180 days or till regular selection is made or till
further orders. He further states that the decision is to re-advertise shortly.
11. Be that as it may, to allay any apprehensions, it is deemed appropriate
to fix a time schedule during which the said post shall be advertised to
prevent the respondent from perpetuating a contractual appointment against
a regular post.
12. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, the respondent No.1
University is directed to re-advertise the posts within eight weeks of today.
The counsel for the respondent No.1 University has also fairly stated that the
petitioner shall be eligible to apply again for the said post and to in
accordance with the rules participate in the selection procedure.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
JUNE 03, 2010
gsr
