High Court · 2025

Mr. D.S. Bora, St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand / respondent no. 3.

4. Mr. I .D. Paliwal, St andij ng Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t ar Pradesh/ respondent no. 4.

5. Mr. Anil Ant hwal, Advocat e, holding brief of Mr. C.S. Rawat , Advocat e for respondent no. 5.

6. Ut t arakhand Sanskrit Universit y issued an advert isem ent on 22.04.2015 invit ing applicat ions for various facult y posit ions, including t wo post s of Assist ant Professor ( Educat ion) , which were reserved for Scheduled Cast e cat egory. Pet it ioner, who belongs t o Scheduled Cast e cat egory, part icipat ed t he select ion process. Upon conclusion of select ion process, t wo candidat es nam ely ( i) Mr. Dinesh Kum ar; ( ii) Ms. Meenakshi were recom m ended appoint m ent against post s reserved for Scheduled Cast e cat egory. Appoint m ent let t er offered t o t hese t wo candidat es select ed t he post of Assist ant Professor ( Educat ion) indicat ed j oining t im e upt o

30.09.2016. Ms. Meenakshi j oined dut ies well w it hin t he deadline indicat ed in t he appoint m ent order. The ot her candidat e, select ed for t he post of Assist ant Professor ( Educat ion) , nam ely Mr. Dinesh Kum ar, however, could not j oin dut ies wit hin t he t im e indicat ed t he appoint m ent order, t herefore, he sought ext ension of t im e by m aking an applicat ion. Such applicat ion w as m ade on 08.11.2016 and t he Vice Chancellor of t he Universit y accept ed t he request m ade by Mr. Dinesh Kum ar and Mr. Dinesh Kum ar ult im at ely j oined dut ies as Assist ant Professor ( Educat ion) on 11.11.2016.

7. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner cont ends t hat as per Sect ion 31 ( 7- B) of t he St at e Universit ies Act , 1973, t he Select ion Com m it t ee is requir ed t o prepare a wait ing list . He furt her cont ends t hat t he Select ion Com m it t ee prepared a m erit list , in which, Mr . Dinesh Kum ar was placed on t op by virt ue of his score of m arks, Ms. Meenakshi st ood second in order of m erit and pet it ioner st ood t hird im m ediat ely aft er Ms. Meenakshi. He cont ends t hat since Mr. Dinesh Kum ar failed t o j oin dut ies wit hin given t im e, t herefore, one out of t he t wo reserved vacancies on t he post of Assist ant Professor ( Educat ion) ought t o have been offered t o pet it ioner, as he was t he next candidat e in order of m erit .

8. Pet it ioner filed Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 402 of 2016 seeking a direct ion t o t he respondent s t o prepare a wait ing t he post of Assist ant Professor ( Educat ion) . He also filed Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 32 of 2017 seeking a direct ion t o respondent nos. 1 & 2 t o cancel t he appoint m ent of Mr. Dinesh Kum ar on t he post of Assist ant Pr ofessor.

9. Law is well set t led t hat m ere select ion does not confer indefeasible right of appoint m ent , as held by Const it ut ion Bench of Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of I ndia, ( 1991) 3 SCC 47. Para 7 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - 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 cannot be legit im at ely denied. Ordinarily 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 t est , and no discrim inat ion can be perm it t ed. This correct posit ion has been consist ent ly followed by t his Court , and we do not find any discordant not e in t he Chander decisions Marwaha [ ( 1974) 3 SCC 220: Neelim a Shangla v. St at e of Haryana [ ( 1986) 4 SCC 268, or Jat inder Kum ar v. St at e of Punj ab [ ( 1985) 1 SCC 122 . Haryana v. Subash recruit m ent in St at e t he

10. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner cont ends t hat ext ension of j oining t im e sought by Mr . Dinesh Kum ar should not have been grant ed; offer of appoint m ent m ade t o Mr. Dinesh Kum ar, t hus, is liable t o be cancelled and appoint m ent should be offered t o t he pet it ioner, as he was next in order of m erit .

11. We are not im pressed by t he said subm ission. Every em ployer has an inherent right t o indicat e t he t im e wit hin which a select ed candidat e should j oin dut ies in t he let t er of appoint m ent and also t o ext end t he j oining t im e, if need be. I n t he present case, Vice Chancellor of t he Universit y was com pet ent t o fix t he t im e wit hin which a select ed candidat e should j oin dut ies, t herefore, t here is not hing wrong if Vice Chancellor exercised his right of ext ending j oining for perm it t ing Mr. Dinesh Kum ar t o j oin dut ies on t he post of Assist ant Professor ( Educat ion) .

12. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference in t he m at t er. Bot h t he writ pet it ions fail and are dism issed. ( Vi v e k Bh a r t i Sh a r m a , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

07.03.2025 Nav in