Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Chander vs Guru Angad Dev Veterinary And ... on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-3864-2014
Reserved on 01.12.2022
Date of Decision: 08.12.2022
Ashwani Chander .... Petitioner
Versus
Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Khehar, Advocate, for the respondents.
----
JAISHREE THAKUR.J
1. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking directions
to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Senior Radiographer being fully
eligible for the said post.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-Guru Angad
Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, advertised various
posts including two posts of Senior Radiographer, vide advertisement
No.02/2012. The petitioner, claiming to be fully eligible, participated in the
selection process. Against the said two posts, 20 applications were received and
after scrutiny and interview, the Select Committee found three applicants in
order of merit. Petitioner was one of them who stood at second position. Their
names were sent for approval to the competent authority. However, the
competent authority approved to fill up only one post.
1 of 4
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that there
were two posts advertised and he got second position in the order of merit, he
was denied appointment illegally.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would
contend that the competent authority gave no reasons for not giving approval to
fulfill the second post. It is submitted that in order to give extension in service
to one Subhash who was going to retire from the post of Senior Radiographer,
the respondent-University did not approve to fill the second post. It is contended
that grant of extension to a person in service at the cost of career of the
petitioner, is not justified.
5. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
would submit that against two posts of Senior Radiographer, the Select
Committee recommended three persons i.e. Harmesh Lal, Ashwani Chander
(petitioner herein) and one Sumir Gill. Harmesh Lal scored 83, the petitioner
scored 69 and the third one scored 65 marks out of 100. It is submitted that
since the score of the petitioner and Sumir Gill was far behind than Harmesh
Lal, the competent authority took a decision to approve only one post.
Moreover, as per advertisement No.02/2012, the respondent-University had the
right to increase or decrease or withdraw any post.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and have gone through the
pleadings of the case.
7. The petitioner is claiming the right of being appointed against
the second post advertised having scored the second highest marks.
Admittedly, against the two posts advertised for the post of Senior
2 of 4
Radiographer, the petitioner stood second in the order of merit, however, the
competent authority approved only one post to fill up against the two posts
considering the fact that there was much difference in the score of the
candidate(s) than the score of the person who stood first in the order of merit.
The principle is well settled that mere selection does not confer an
indefeasible right upon the candidate to compel the employer to give him
appointment. In this regard reference can be made to the judgments rendered
by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash
Versus Union of India 1991 AIR (Supreme Court) 1612 and in State of
Bihar Versus Secretary Assistant Successful and Examinees, 1994(3) RSJ
604; Union of India Versus S.S. Uppal, AIR 1996 SC 2340; Hanman
Prasad Versus Union of India, 1996 (10) SCC 742; Bihar Public Service
Commission and others Versus State of Bihar and others, AIR 1997 SC
2280; Syndicate Bank and others Versus Shanker Paul and others, AIR
1997 SC 2091; Vice Chancellor University of Allahabad Versus Dr. Anand
Parkash Mishra and others, 1997(3) SCT 588; Punjab State Electricity
Board Versus Seema, 1999 SCC (L&S) 629; All India SC & ST Employees
Association Versus A. Arthur Jeen, 2001(2) SCT 737; Vinodan T. Versus
University of Calikut, 2002(2) SCT 1046; S. Renuka Versus State of
Andhra Pradesh and others, 2002(2) SCT 568 and Baitariani Gramiya
Bank Versus Pallab Kumar and others, AIR 2000 SC 4248.
8. It is imperative upon the employer to see as to whether the
candidates, those have applied and come on the select list, had adequate merit.
The difference between the person who had secured first position and the
petitioner was almost of 14 marks which prompted the respondents not to fill up
3 of 4
the second vacancy, especially when the advertisement itself stated that the
respondents had reserved a right to increase or decrease the posts so advertised.
The petitioner would have had a cause of action in case a person having lesser
marks than him had been appointed, but that is not the case herein. Merit cannot
be compromised under any circumstance.
9. The judgments as relied upon by the petitioner in Asha Kaul
Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1993(2) SCC 573 and in CWP
No.25920 of 2017, Gaurav Kumar Versus Central University of Haryana and
others, decided on 07.09.2022 are distinguishable on facts and hence not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
JUDGE
08.12.2022
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
