Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/147/2016 on 23 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5294-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSB/147/2016
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
1. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Dr. K.H. Gupta, learned counsel for
the respondent/University.
3. Petitioner participated in a selection
held by DBS (PG) College, Dehradun for
appointment as Assistant Professor
(Zoology), pursuant to advertisement
published in newspapers on 26.10.2012.
According to her, selection committee
prepared a panel of 4 names in order of
merit, in which one Dr. Aradhana was
placed at Sl. No. 1, while petitioner's
name was placed at Sl. No. 4;
Committee of Management of the College
sent the panels of names for approval to
HNB Garhwal University, however, the
University turned down the proposal for
approval on the ground that Dr.
Aradhana was not qualified as per UGC
norms. The University thereafter issued a
letter on 18.07.2014, asking the
Committee of Management of DBS (PG)
College, to re-advertise the vacancy on
the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology).
4. In this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following reliefs:-
(1) a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to
recommend the names of selected candidates
for the posts of Assistant Professor in
Zoology in order of their merit in the select
list prepared by the Selection Committee for
approval to the University and the University
2025:UHC:5294-DB
be directed to consider the same in
accordance with law.
(1-A) to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the
record of the case and quash the order dated
18.07.2014 passed by respondent No. 1,
contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ
petition.
5. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for petitioner
contends that since petitioner's name
was included at Sl. No. 4 in the panel
prepared by the Selecting Committee,
therefore, if Dr. Aradhana was found to
be ineligible, then the Committee of
Management ought to have offered
appointment to the petitioner, as she
possessed all requisite qualifications for
appointment to the post. Thus, he
submits that the direction issued by the
University to re-advertise the vacancy is
unsustainable and the concerned
Authority be directed to appoint the
petitioner.
6. The contention raised on behalf of
petitioner is unsustainable. As petitioner
was placed at Sl. No. 4 in the panel,
therefore, there were two candidates,
who were found to be more meritorious
then her, by the Selection Committee
and petitioner's claim for appointment is,
thus, without any basis.
7. There was only one vacancy on the
post of Assistant Professor (Zoology),
therefore, preparing a panel of four
names and sending the entire panel to
the University for approval, in the
absence of any enabling provision, does
not appear to be proper.
8. As there are other two candidates,
who were placed above petitioner in the
panel, therefore, she cannot claim to
2025:UHC:5294-DB
have been selected. Even a selected
candidate do not have indefeasible right
of appointment, as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of
Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India
reported in 1991 (3) SCC 47. Para 7 of
the said judgment reads 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 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."
9. Thus, we do not find any scope for
interference in the matter. The University
was justified in asking the Management
to re-advertise the vacancy in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
10. In such view of the matter, the writ
petition fails and is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
23.06.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f
3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
ASWAL
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58
531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.06.23 21:39:05 -07'00'
2025:UHC:5294-DB
