Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13015 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Respondent :- University Grants Commission (Ugc) And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chaturvedi,Nitesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avanish Tripathi,Dhananjay Awasthi,Pranjal Mehrotra,Rijwan Ali Akhtar
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 28.09.2017 (annexure-I to writ petition) issued by respondent-4 Registrar, Harcourt Butler Technical University, Nawabganj, Kanpur.
2. Petitioner claims to be a prospective candidate for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor for UG Course in Department of Electronic Engineering persuant to an advertisement dated 28.09.2017. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that reservation policy has not been properly applied to the posts advertised. Aforesaid advertisement stipulates only one post of Civil Engineer, one Electrical Engineer and one Chamical Engineer reserved for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe. According to counsel for petitioner for the total 28 posts of Assistant Professor only 3 posts in different departments have been reserved for S.C./ST which according to counsel for petitioner is against the reservation policy.
3. Counsel for petitioner contends that all the vacancies ought to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of reservation.
4. Argument of counsel for petitioner is misconceived and cannot be accepted. A similar issue has been considered in the matter of teachers for equivalent posts in various departments of Banaras Hindu University by a Division Bench of this Court in Viveka Nand Tiwari vs. Union of India and 5 Others (Writ-A No. 43260 of 2016) decided on 07.04.2017 wherein Court has held that reservation should be applied various subjects wise.
5. It is next contended by counsel for petitioner that selection has been advertised without appropriate approval of State Government as provided in Section 29(1)(i) of the Act. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by petitioner annexing therewith a letter no. 3252/G.S. dated 18.05.2018 wherein it is stated that under section 29(1)(i) of Harcourt Butler Technical University Act 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2016') Executive Council of University is authorized to make appointments with the approval of State Government. Section 29(1)(i) of Act 2016 reads as under:-
"Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Harcourt Butler Technical University Act, 2016 prescribes the Power and Functions of the Executive Council.
Section 29(1) The Executive Council shall be the principal executive body of the University, and subject of the provisions of this Act, shall have the following powers and functions namely to:-
(i) to create, with the approval of the Government and appoint persons to academic as well as other posts in the University."
6. We do not find that aforesaid approval has to be applied at the stage of selection. At the stage of selection and recruitment no approval is contemplated under the aforesaid provision. Approval is needed before appointment, hence at the stage of advertisement and for making selection, no approval is needed.
7. It is further contended that Executive Council has granted approval for the said advertisement in its meeting dated 10.04.2018 which is more than six months after issue of impugned advertisement, hence, impugned advertisement is liable to be quashed. In this connection, we also find no force for the reason that we have not been shown that Executive Counsel is the Principal Executive body of the University for creation of the post and appointment of persons to academic as well as other post in the University. Once post was validly created the process of selection was undergone by University, no appointment can be made without the sanction of the Executive Counsel. No provision has been shown to us which requires that University could not proceed to make selection on the existing vacancies on duly created post and can get a subsequent approval to the process of selection from Executive Counsel particularly when no otherwise provision is shown to exists on statute of law. Moreover petitioner if claims to be an aspiring candidate to one of the posts advertised in question, nothing prevent him from offering his candidature provided he fulfills the requisite qualifications as advertised. We do not find at this stage any locus standi of part to challenge the advertisement itself on technical grounds. Suffice it to say that if petitioner fulfills eligibility qualification for the post advertised, he may apply for recruitment and can be considered by Competent Authority.
8. In view of above we find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Swati