Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Anish And Others vs Chaudhary Devi Lal University Sirsa And ... on 26 April, 2024
CWP No.9418 of 2024 1
2024: PHHC:057583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.109 CWP No.9418 of 2024
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
Dr. Anish and others .... Petitioners
Versus
Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHITYA
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate for the petitioners.
3 2k 3
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash the orders dated 17.02.2024 and 22.02.2024, Annexures P-4 and
P-6 respectively, whereby the government has put on hold recruitment
process for filling up teaching and non-teaching posts in the University.
Further, a prayer has been made to direct the University to finalise the
selection and make appointment of eligible candidates.
2. Briefly, as per pleaded case of the petitioners, they are
applicants for the posts of Assistant Professor advertised for different
departments by the University, vide advertisement dated 29/30.12.2022. The
petitioners were interviewed in July/August 2023, but the selection process
could not be finalised due to interim orders passed by this Court in CWP
No.9537 of 2023 and CWP no.9121 of 2023, dated 29.08.2023 and
15.09.2023, Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. The petitions were finally
dismissed vide common judgment dated 06.02.2024, Annexure P-3.
3. Thereafter, the University called a meeting of the Executive
Council on 16.02.2024 to finalise the selection process. However, before it
2024.05.03 15:37 cguid be done, the government vide impugned memo dated 17.02.2024,
I attest to the accuracy an
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
2024: PHHC:057583
decided that 'the recruitment process for filling up of teaching and non-
teaching posts at your University be put on hold immediately till further
orders. Status quo for each post shall be maintained in this matter in letter
and spirit. This issues with the approval of the State Government.'
4. The Vice-Chancellor sent a letter, dated 21.02.2024, Annexure
P-5, to the government to allow the University to convene the Executive
Council meeting scheduled on 23.02.2024, so that the already completed
recruitment of an old advertisement be processed to avoid further litigation.
The government again, vide impugned memo dated 22.02.2024, reiterated
the decision conveyed earlier vide memo dated 17.02.2024. In this
background, the instant petition has been filed.
5. Learned senior counsel contends that no infirmity in the
selection process has been pointed out and, resultantly, the government had
no basis to direct the University to put the recruitment process on hold. The
petitioners are applicants for the advertised posts and are awaiting
appointments. Besides, the Associate Professors/Professors, who were
recruited pursuant to the same advertisement against which the petitioners
had applied, were allowed to join after approval of the selection by the
Executive Council in its meeting on 20.10.2023, and the government raised
no objection to it. Therefore, in the petitioners' case also, there is no
justification to prevent the University from approving the selection.
6. Heard.
7. The petitioners are applicants for the posts of Assistant
Professors in different departments who participated in the process of
selection. Result thereof has not been declared, and as of now they are not
even selected candidates. Accordingly, no right of theirs has been violated by
the impugned memos issued by the government directing to put on hold the
2024,05.03 15:37 recruitment process for filling up teaching and non-teaching posts in the
I attest to the accuracy an
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
2024: PHHC:057583
University, and they have no locus standi to file the petition. Besides, the
memos have not been issued to restrain any particular selection process. It is
a general order directing the University to put on hold recruitment process
for all teaching and non-teaching posts. No illegality about the same could
be pointed out. Still further, no benefit can be drawn by the petitioners on the
basis of appointment given to Associate Professors/Professors by the
Executive Council on 20.10.2023, since that was prior to issuing of the
memos, dated 17.02.2024 and 22.02.2024.
8. There is another aspect of the matter. The impugned memos
have been issued by the government to the University, by turning down its
request to complete the recruitment process of old advertisements. It is the
University, if at all, which can be aggrieved of the direction issued, but it is
not before this Court, nor has any grievance been raised on its behalf. On
this account also, the petition cannot be entertained.
9. For the reasons recorded herein above, there is no ground to
entertain the petition, and it stands dismissed in limine.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA)
JUDGE
26.04.2024
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned --_: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
