Rajasthan High Court
Chandra Prabha Meena D/O Shri Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1/2021
1. Chandra Prabha Meena D/o Shri Ram Chandra Meena,
Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post- Kalyanpura
Khurd, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur-303108.
2. Rajesh Dayma S/o Shri Nand Ram Dayma, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Luhakana (Khurd), Tehsil Viratnagar, District
Jaipur-303119.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
(Higher Education), Department Of Higher Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, Jln Marg,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
07/01/2021
The petitioner by way of this Court prays as under:-
"It is therefore, most respectfully and
humbly prayed that present writ petition be
allowed. It is further prayed that:
i. To pass any appropriate writ, order
or direction whereby Respondents be
directed to conduct the interview and
declare the result for the post of Assistant
Professor (Political Science) in terms of the
recruitment advertisement dated
22.5.2017.
(2 of 4) [CW-1/2021]
ii. To pass any appropriate writ, order
or direction, whereby Respondents be
directed to issue appointment order on the
post of Assistant Professor (Political
Science) in terms of recruitment
advertisement dated 22.5.2017, the order
of merit, with all consequential benefits in
favour of petitioners including that of
seniority.
iii. To pass any appropriate writ order or
direction whereby Respondents be directed
not to lapse the recruitment on the post of
Assistant Professor (Political Science) in
terms of the Recruitment Advertisement
dated 22.5.2017 and direction be issued to
complete the recruitment process.
iv. To pass any appropriate writ, order
or direction whereby if during pendency of
the writ petition respondents passes any
prejudicial order, same may be taken on
record and be quashed and set aside, with
all consequential benefits.
v. Any other order which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
Admittedly, no person has a right to appointment as held by
Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Versus Union
of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 as under:-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a
number of vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be
appointed which cannot be legitimately
denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
(3 of 4) [CW-1/2021]
amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any right
to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment
rules so indicate, the State is under no legal
duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
However, it does not mean that the State
has the licence of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the
vacancies has to be taken bona fide for
appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or
any of them are filled up, the State is bound
to respect the comparative merit of the
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment
test, and no discrimination can be permitted.
This correct position has been consistently
followed by this Court, and we do not find
any discordant note in the decisions in State
of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha
and Ors. MANU/SC/0400/1973 :
(1973)IILLJ266SC ; Miss Neelima Shangla v.
State of Haryana and Ors.
MANU/SC/0472/1986 : [1986]3SCR785 and
Jitendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab
and Ors. [1985] 1 SCR 899."
Admittedly the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant
Professor in Political Science under the advertisement issued in
2017 by the Rajasthan University ans is awaiting for interviews to
be conducted. However, it appears that on account of interference
by the UGC, the selection process was dropped. Learned counsel
submits that now the UGC has directed to conduct the selection
process and, therefore, the Rajasthan University ought to
complete the selection process and call the petitioner for
interview. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the letter dated
(4 of 4) [CW-1/2021]
22nd July, 2020 whereby the University of Rajasthan informed the
petitioner that committee has been formed to comply with the
directions issued by the UGC dated 7.3.2019 of treating University
as a one unit for the purpose of roster. Learned counsel submits
that such letter is of 2019 and more than one and half year lapsed
and nothing has been done at the level of the University. Such
contentions would have no basis in view of the aforesaid judgment
as no right is created in favour of an individual for seeking a
mandamus to get interviews conducted at a particular date or
within a particular period. Appointing authority has an exclusive
domain either to continue with the selection process or to drop the
same in between and start afresh.
Keeping in view the aforesaid principle the prayer made by
the petitioner does not have any basis.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAURABH/111
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
