Rajeev Kaushal vs Institute Of Liver & Biliary ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1802 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               W.P.(C) No. 1965/2015 & C.M.No.3529/2015

%                                                         2nd March, 2015

RAJEEV KAUSHAL                                                  ..... Petitioner
                                Through:   Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate.
                       versus

INSTITUTE OF LIVER & BILIARY SCIENCE & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr.Priyabrat Sahu, Advocate for R- 1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner seeks the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor

(Research) against the SC vacancies in the year 2013. Petitioner is an SC

candidate and prays that he ought to be declared successful in the selection

process of the year 2013.

2. During the course of arguments, I put it to the counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is claiming appointment to the post of Assistant

Professor (Research) in which process, whether of 2013 or of 2014 or of

2015, and counsel for the petitioner replies that no relief is claimed for the

interview process of 2014 and 2015 facts of which are mentioned in the writ

petition, and the relief is only claimed for the petitioner being declared

successful in the 2013 process.

3. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not

aware of the result of 2013 selection process and hence he should now be

granted appointment. Counsel for the petitioner however is not stating the

correct facts because in para 2.7 of the petition itself, the petitioner has

written that he was not declared successful in the 2013 selection process

because the Selection Committee did not find him suitable for the post of

Assistant Professor (Research) in SC category during the interview. I

therefore fail to understand as to how the petitioner has taken up a case that

the petitioner does not know the result of the 2013 selection process.

4. The writ petition is also otherwise without any merit for three reasons.

Firstly, this Court cannot substitute itself for the decision of the selection and

interview committee, and which is a body which is entitled to decide the

suitability of a person for the post. The said body/Selection Committee has

held the petitioner not to be suitable for the post of Assistant Professor

(Research) in the 2013 process, and no reasons are given in the writ petition,

much less falling within the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,

as to why the petitioner should be declared successful for the 2013 selection

process.

5. The second reason is that the petitioner has in the entire writ petition

not given the parameters of selection to the post of Assistant Professor

(Research), and which post as per a reading of the writ petition is a selection

post and not an automatic promotion post. Petitioner's right was only

therefore to be considered for the post, and the petitioner was considered,

but the petitioner was not found successful. Once the petitioner was

considered in the selection process, the petitioner can have no grievance if

he was declared unsuccessful because the Selection Committee did not find

him suitable.

6. The third reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that the

2013 selection process cannot be challenged by means of filing of a writ

petition in 2015, because, even as per the writ petition itself, the 2013

selection process was followed up by the 2014 selection process, and

therefore the 2013 selection process cannot survive once the subsequent

process has commenced and which in fact is complete, and, even possibly

the 2015 selection process is now in motion.

7. Dismissed.

MARCH 02, 2015                                      VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
KA