WPSB/272/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2872 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
                             AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA


            WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 272 of 2021


                              05th AUGUST, 2021


Between:

Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava.
                                                                    ...Petitioner

and


Uttarakhand Ayurved University and others.

                                                               ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner.       :   Mr. P.K. Chauhan, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent no.    :   Mr. Suyash Pant, the learned counsel.
1.

Counsel for the respondent nos.   :   Mr. K.N. Joshi, the learned Deputy
2 and 3.                              Advocate General for the State of
                                      Uttarakhand.




The Court made the following :


JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)


              The petitioner has challenged the legality of the

advertisement, dated 09.07.2021 issued, by the Vice

Chancellor of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University, wherein
 two posts for Professor, in the Department of Panchkarma,

were advertised.


2.           Briefly, the facts of the case are that the

petitioner had completed his Graduation (BAMS), in the

Indian Medicine in 2002, from the Government Ayurvedic

College, Varanasi.    His name is registered as Doctor with

the    Bhartiya      Chikitsa        Parishad,     Uttar       Pradesh.

Subsequently, in 2004, he completed his MD from the

Banaras Hindu University.           Thereafter, on 03.07.2005 he

joined as a Lecturer in the Rishikul Government Ayurvedic

College, Haridwar. In 2008, he joined as a Lecturer in the

Ayurved       and   Unani        Tibbia     College,     New     Delhi.

Subsequently, on 12.01.2011 he again joined the Rishikul

Government      Ayurvedic        College,   Haridwar.      While     the

petitioner was teaching at the said College, in 2013 he

completed     his   Ph.D    in    Panchkarma.          Thereafter,   on

20.02.2015 he was promoted to the post of Associate

Professor.     He was duly nominated as a Professor on

26.12.2016. While he was discharging his academic duties,

he also acted as the Deputy Registrar and Proctor of the

University.




                                    2
 3.           According to the petitioner, on 14.02.2020, the

faculty members were asked by the University to submit

their applications for promotion to the post of Professor, as

provided under the Career Advancement Scheme under the

Uttarakhand Ayurved University Rules and Regulations,

2015.      Pursuant to the said request, the petitioner claims

that he had submitted his application for promotion.

Although, the petitioner has submitted his application for

quite some time, the University is sitting over the entire

issue.      Therefore, on 09.12.2020, the petitioner had

submitted     a   representation       to   the   University.   Even

thereafter, on 01.02.2021, he has submitted another

representation to the University.            Consequently, he was

called for interview on 24.02.2021 for the post of Professor

in   the    Department    of   Panchkarma.             However,   on

23.02.2021 he received a letter from the University

informing him that the interview has been cancelled. But,

no reasons were assigned for the same. Further, according

to the petitioner, on 09.07.2021, suddenly the University

has issued an advertisement for two posts of Professor in

the Department of Panchkarma.               Hence, the present writ

petition before this Court.




                                   3
 4.        Mr. Suyash Pant, the learned counsel for the

University, informs this Court that, in fact, there are four

sanctioned      posts   of   Professor   in   the   Department   of

Panchkarma. Out of the said four posts, two posts are for

promotion, and two for direct recruitment.            Already one

promotional post is occupied. However, the second post for

promotion is lying vacant. Against this very post, the name

of the petitioner is being considered.          Two posts, which

were for direct recruitment, have been advertised by the

impugned advertisement.           Therefore, according to the

learned counsel, the University is justified in advertising the

two posts for direct recruitment.              By the impugned

advertisement, the civil and fundamental rights of the

petitioner are not adversely affected. According to him, the

case of the petitioner is already under consideration for

promotion.      Therefore, according to the learned counsel,

the present Writ Petition is highly misplaced


5.        Mr. P.K. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, requests that the statement of the learned

counsel   for     the   University    should    be    recorded   as

abovementioned.




                                  4
 6.        Since, the petitioner's case is already under

consideration against the one vacant promotional post, no

further direction needs to be issued by this Court.


8.        Therefore, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.




                    _____________________________
                    RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.



                                  ___________________
                                  ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 05th AUGUST, 2021 Rahul