High Court · 2025

1. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for t he pet it ioner.

2. Dr. K.H. Gupt a, learned counsel for t he respondent / Universit y.

3. Pet it ioner part icipat ed in a select ion held by DBS ( PG) College, Dehradun for as Assist ant Professor appoint m ent ( Zoology) , pursuant t o advert isem ent published in newspapers on 26.10.2012. According t o her, select ion com m it t ee prepared a panel of 4 nam es in order of m erit , in which one Dr. Aradhana was placed at Sl. No. 1, while pet it ioner’s nam e was placed at Sl. No. 4; Com m it t ee of Managem ent of t he College sent t he panels of nam es for approval t o HNB Garhwal Universit y, however, t he Universit y t urned down t he proposal for approval on t hat Dr. Aradhana was not qualified as per UGC norm s. The Universit y t hereaft er issued a let t er t he 18.07.2014, Com m it t ee of Managem ent of DBS ( PG) College, t o re- advert ise t he vacancy on t he post of Assist ant Professor ( Zoology) . t he ground asking I n t his writ pet it ion, pet it ioner has

4. sought t he following reliefs: - ( 1) a writ , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of m andam us direct ing t he respondent No. 2 t o recom m end t he nam es of select ed candidat es t he post s of Assist ant Professor Zoology in order of t heir m erit in t he select list prepared by t he Select ion Com m it t ee for approval t o t he Universit y and t he Universit y be direct ed accordance wit h law. t o consider t he sam e ( 1- A) t o issue a writ of cert iorar i t o call for t he record of t he case and quash t he order dat ed 18.07.2014 passed by respondent No. 1, cont ained in Annexure No. 7 t o t he writ pet it ion. ineligible, appearing

5. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel pet it ioner t hat since pet it ioner’s nam e cont ends was included at Sl. No. 4 in t he panel prepared by t he Select ing Com m it t ee, t herefore, if Dr. Aradhana was found t o t he Com m it t ee of t hen Managem ent ought t o have offered appoint m ent t o t he pet it ioner, as she possessed all requisit e qualificat ions for appoint m ent t he post . Thus, he subm it s t hat t he direct ion issued by t he Universit y t o re- advert ise t he vacancy is concerned unsust ainable Aut horit y be direct ed t he pet it ioner. t he t o appoint t o The cont ent ion raised on behalf of 6. pet it ioner is unsust ainable. As pet it ioner was placed at Sl. No. 4 in t he panel, t herefore, t wo candidat es, who were found t o be m ore m erit orious t hen her, by t he Select ion Com m it t ee and pet it ioner’s claim for appoint m ent is, t hus, wit hout any basis. t here were There was only one vacancy on t he 7. post of Assist ant Professor ( Zoology) , t herefore, preparing a panel of nam es and sending t he ent ire panel t o t he Universit y t he absence of any enabling provision, does not appear t o be proper. for approval,

8. As t here are ot her t wo candidat es, who were placed above pet it ioner in t he panel, t herefore, she cannot claim t o have been select ed. Even a select ed candidat e do not have indefeasible right of appoint m ent , as held by Hon’ble Suprem e Court Sh a n k a r sa n D a sh v s. U n i o n o f I n d i a report ed in 1 9 9 1 ( 3 ) SCC 4 7 . Para 7 of t he said j udgm ent reads as under: - t he “ 7. I t is not correct t o say t hat if a num ber of vacancies are not ified for appoint m ent and adequat e num ber of candidat es are found fit , t he successful candidat es acquire an indefeasible right t o be appoint ed which legit im at ely denied. Ordinarily cannot be t he not ificat ion m erely am ount s t o an invit at ion t o qualified candidat es t o apply for recruit m ent and on t heir select ion t hey do not acquire any right t o t he post . Unless t he relevant recruit m ent rules so indicat e, t he St at e is under no legal dut y t o fill up all or any of t he vacancies. However, it does not m ean t hat t he St at e has t he licence of act ing in an arbit rary m anner. The decision not t o fill up t he vacancies has t o be t aken bona fide for appropriat e reasons. And if t he vacancies or any of t hem are filled up, t he St at e is bound t o respect t he com parat ive m erit of t he candidat es, as reflect ed at t he recruit m ent t est , and no discr im inat ion can be perm it t ed.”

9. Thus, we do not find any scope for int erference in t he m at t er. The Universit y was j ust ified in asking t he Managem ent t o re- advert ise t he vacancy in t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he writ

10. pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

23.06.2025 Aswal 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, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58 531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL