Delhi High Court
Sonia Sareen vs Shaheed Sukhdev College Of ... on 31 January, 2014
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.01.2014
+ W.P.(C) 746/2014
SONIA SAREEN ..... Petitioner
versus
SHAHEED SUKHDEV COLLEGE OF
BUSINESS STUDIES ..... Respondent
ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE:
For the Petitioner: Mr Adit S. Pujari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr Amit Bansal, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
CM No. 1499/2014 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
WP(C) 746/2014
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr Amit Bansal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. In
view of the order, that I propose to pass, he states that he does not
wish to file a reply.
4. The petitioner seeks, broadly, the following prayers by way of
the present writ petition:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
directing the respondent college to expedite the recruitment process
for the post of placement officer on permanent basis; and
(ii) Direct the respondent college to place on record any rules/
notifications office orders/ similar documents indicating the eligibility
criteria as to the age of an applicant to the post of placement officer.
5. The writ petition has been filed in the background of the
following brief and relevant facts.
5.1 The petitioner claims that she was appointed, on ad hoc basis,
as a placement officer with the respondent college. The ad hoc
appointment of the petitioner continued from 2008 to January, 2013.
5.2 In January, 2013, the respondent college commenced the
process of inducting a placement officer on permanent basis.
Interviews for the said post were conducted between 3 rd and 7th June,
2013. It is not in dispute that the selection committee has concluded
its process. The results, however, have not been announced with
respect to this process. It is also not in dispute that in the
advertisement issued in January, 2013, no age criteria was prescribed.
5.3 The petitioner had approached this court earlier by way of a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. That writ petition
was numbered as WP(C) No. 70/2014. That writ petition was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
court at the appropriate stage. At that stage, the writ petition was
withdrawn on consideration of the fact that the matter was pre-
mature. This order was passed on 06.01.2014.
5.4 I may only note that, there is an inadvertent typographical error
in the order dated 06.01.2014, in as much as, it indicates that the
petitioner had not taken part in the recruitment process, whereas the
petitioner had actually taken part in the recruitment process. In other
words, the word "not" in the following sentence in the order dated
06.01.2014, has crept in inadvertently due to a typographical error:
"....The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement
issued has not taken part in the recruitment process..."
6. The petitioner has approached this court for the second time
basing her case, primarily, on an advertisement issued for
appointment of a placement officer, albeit on contractual basis, for the
period of six months. The respondent college, as per the
advertisement, proposes to appoint a placement officer by resorting to
walk-in-interview. The process is to commence on 01.02.2014.
There is an indication of the eligibility age of the prospective
candidate; which is pegged at 35 years. Quite curiously, the age
eligibility criteria does not indicate as to whether, this should be the
minimum or maximum age. I am informed by Mr Bansal, learned
counsel for the respondent college, that the intention is to prescribe 35
years, as the maximum age.
7. Mr Bansal has also placed before me, in court, a
communication sent by the respondent college to the University of
Delhi with regard to the recruitment process, which was commenced
in January, 2013. The respondent college, therein, had indicated that
it had somehow missed out the age criteria in the January, 2013
process. Respondent college sought advice from the University of
Delhi with regard to how it should proceed further qua the process,
which was commenced on January, 2013 for permanent appointment
to the post of placement officer. Mr Bansal says that the response of
the University of Delhi, is awaited.
8. Mr Bansal also informs me that, for the post of placement
officer, which is a non-teaching post, the rules and regulations
applicable to the Assistant Registrar, would be applicable. He basis
this submission on the communication dated 03.07.2013, issued by
the University of Delhi to the respondent college. He also draws
my attention to that part of the said communication wherein, the
University of Delhi has indicated that non-teaching staffs'
appointments, in the University of Delhi, are being made purely on
contractual basis, and not, on ad hoc basis. Mr Bansal says that it is
in this background that the instant advertisement has been taken out.
Mr Bansal says that the respondent college being in need of a
placement officer; would require one, till a final decision is taken
with regard to process which commenced in January, 2013.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused
the record, according to me, prayers, as made in the writ petition,
cannot be granted. All that, which can be directed, at this stage, is
that the University of Delhi should render requisite advice or, send a
communication in response to the respondent college's letter dated
11.12.2013, as expeditiously as possible. It is directed accordingly.
The University of Delhi shall render its response to the said
communication with expedition, though not later than six weeks from
today. Needless to say the respondent college will, thereafter, take
an appropriate decision in the matter.
10. With the aforesaid directions in place, the writ petition is
disposed of.
11. A copy of this order will be placed by the respondent college
before the concerned authority in the University of Delhi.
12. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 31, 2014
kk
