Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shruti Chopra vs Guru Angad Dev Veterinary And Animal ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150617
CM-17468-CWP-2024 in/& -1-
RA-CW-55-2023 (O&M) in
CWP-3256-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106+281 CM-12693-CWP-2023 in/&
RA-CW-55-2023 (O&M)
CWP-3256-2018
Date of Decision :19.11.2024
Shruti Chopra ...Petitioner
Versus
Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal
Science University, Ludhiana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate
for the applicant-respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for non-applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
CM-12693-CWP-2023
As prayed for, application is allowed.
CM-3642-CWP-2023
The present application has been filed for condonation of delay
of 49 days in filing the present review application.
Notice of the application was issued to the
non-applicant/petitioner.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application which
are duly supported by an affidavit as well as the reply filed, the application is
allowed. Delay of 49 days in filing the present review application is
condoned.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150617
CM-17468-CWP-2024 in/& -2-
RA-CW-55-2023 (O&M) in
CWP-3256-2018
RA-CW-55-2023 (O&M)
Present review petition has been filed for the review of the
order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by
which, the writ petition has been allowed and a direction has been given to
the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant professor
(Livestock Economics) in pursuance to advertisement dated 20.08.2017
(Annexure P/1).
Learned counsel appearing for the review-applicant submits that
claim of the petitioner has been allowed by Coordinate Bench of this Court
by holding that the rules of the game have been changed during the selection
process so as to incorporate the minimum requirement of 50% marks in the
interview to be eligible to be selected, which criteria never existed at the
time when the advertisement was issued.
Learned counsel for the review-applicant further submits that
the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench that there was no requirement
of 50% marks in the interview to be eligible at the time of issuance of
advertisement and the same should be ignored, is contrary to the decision of
the Academic Council dated 20.08.2015, appended with the review petition
as Annexure A-2 wherein, the requirement of 50% marks in the interview
has been approved by the highest authority i.e. Academic Council, which
decision was implemented while finalizing the selection in question.
Learned counsel for the review-applicant further submits that
even the Selection Committee while recommending the names of the
candidates adhered to the said criteria by putting "astricks" against the
names of the candidates, who failed to secure 50% marks in interview so as
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150617
CM-17468-CWP-2024 in/& -3-
RA-CW-55-2023 (O&M) in
CWP-3256-2018
to be eligible for selection in question.
Learned counsel for the review-applicant further submits that
there was no change of criteria at any stage and the said criteria of minimum
50% marks in interview was formulated by Academic Council as far back as
on 20.08.2015 whereas, the advertisement in question was issued on
20.08.2017 i.e. after a period of two years, due to which fact, the judgment
of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 05.12.2022 needs to be
reviewed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there
was no criteria of 50% marks to be obtained in the interview to be eligible
for selection as the same was a "Practice" which was being followed without
there being any specific regulation or decision taken by the competent
authority and hence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
05.12.2022 needs to be upheld by dismissing the present review petition.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that
though, he was proceeded ex-parte but keeping in view the fact that as the
petitioner has already been appointed as per the direction given in the order
sought to be reviewed, there is a likelihood that the services of the
respondent No.4 will be terminated so as to accommodate the petitioner,
which will cause prejudice to respondent No.4, who is in service from the
last seven years.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Prima facie, there is a merit in the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the review-applicant. The Academic Council, which is a
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150617
CM-17468-CWP-2024 in/& -4-
RA-CW-55-2023 (O&M) in
CWP-3256-2018
highest body to prescribe a criteria for selection, had already taken a
decision dated 20.08.2015 so as to prescribe 50% marks to be obtained in
the interview so as to be eligible for selection. The said criteria remained in
operation even on the date when the advertisement dated 20.08.2017
(Annexure P/1) was issued in pursuance to which the petitioner is claiming
benefit of appointment. Once, a criteria was already in place and the
Selection Committee has only followed the said criteria, which existed on
the date of advertisement, it cannot be said that rules of the game were
changed after the advertisement so as to oust the petitioner from the zone of
consideration.
Keeping in view the said fact the findings recorded by the
learned Single Judge in order dated 05.12.2022 that the rules of the games
were changed after issuance of the advertisement is not correct and the said
portion of the findings cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly
modified.
The factual position which existed as of now is that both the
petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have already been appointed in
pursuance to the judgment given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
Once, the appointments have already been made, the feasibility of
adjustment of both petitioner as well as respondent No.4 is to be adopted as
throwing them out from service at this stage will cause more prejudice to
both of them. The petitioner has already been appointed in pursuance to the
direction given and respondent No.4 is working for the last seven years.
Learned counsel for the review-applicant after seeking
instructions submits that appropriate adjustment of both petitioner as well as
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150617
CM-17468-CWP-2024 in/& -5-
RA-CW-55-2023 (O&M) in
CWP-3256-2018
respondent No.4 on the post in question will be done keeping in view the
exceptional circumstances of the present case and prays that the same will
not be treated as precedent.
Ordered accordingly.
It is directed that for all intent and purposes, the respondent
No.4 shall remain senior to the petitioner in the cadre in question.
The present review petition is disposed of in above terms.
Civil miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of.
November 19, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
