Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 444 of 2021 Appellant :- Dr Ashutosh Chaturvedi Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Puneet Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun,Vikram D. Chauhan
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
The defects raised by the Registry is condoned.
Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
By this appeal, challenge is made to the judgment dated 10.12.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by petitioner/appellant to seek appointment on the post of assistant professor was dismissed. It is a case where an advertisement was issued to invite application against one post of Assistant Professor (Kaya Chikitsak). The petitioner/appellant apart from the others applied for the post and appeared in the selection. Pursuant to the selection, one candidate was selected and appointed on the post.
Petitioner/appellant made a claim for his appointment alleging availability of one more vacancy in the faculty. It was in reference to paragraph 25 of the advertisement inviting online applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that in terms of the advertisement, the University should have appointed the petitioner/appellant against the available vacancy. When they fail to carry out their discretionary power, the writ petition was filed after making an application under Right to Information Act, 2005. The application under the said Act was submitted to get a copy of the minutes of the selection committee. The copy of the minutes was not supplied on the pretext of confidentiality. The petitioner/appellant has not preferred appeal against the said order but made a claim for appointment on the post of assistant professor which has not been accepted by the learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has made a claim in reference to paragraph 25 of the advertisement but without showing his right because para 25 gives a discretion to the University and not a right to the candidate to get appointment. The aforesaid is only one part otherwise there is nothing on record to show that petitioner/appellant stood at no.2 in the panel so as to claim appointment, even if the discretionary power would have been used by the University. It could have been to give appointment to the candidate stood at no.2 in the panel. Thus, a claim for appointment has been made on assumption of the merit position without realizing that other candidates appeared in the selection along with the petitioner/appellant may have secured higher position than him. It is also that when only post advertised by the respondents was filled by a meritorious candidate.
Taking the aforesaid into consideration, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition when the only post advertised was filled from meritorious candidate and claim for appointment cannot be made even if another vacancy occurred during the course of selection and that too by a candidate who has no knowledge about his merit position in the selection.
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Madhurima (Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, ACJ)