The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering suitable candidates for a position based on academic qualifications and the nature of the appointment, as well as the court's discretion in directing appropriate relief based on the circumstances of the case.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 11.02.2004 in C.W.P. No. 3542/1990. The present Appellant had filed a writ proceeding seeking various reliefs in the form of directions. By the impugned judgment that writ petition, seeking the reliefs against the Delhi University, was dismissed.

2. The writ petitioner, an engineering graduate claims to have had 16 years working experience when he applied to the post of University Engineer on 16.11.1977, in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-50-1600. He was offered appointment as temporary work-charged Executive Engineer, through a letter dated 29.05.1978 which he accepted. In 1990, the Appellant filed the writ petition seeking several reliefs including a declaration that his appointment should be treated as on to a regular post of University Engineer. During the course of hearing in the appeal, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that in view of the subsequent events especially having regard to the fact that the Appellant and the other contender to the same position, (who was arrayed as second Respondent in the writ petition i.e. Mr. S.P. Goel have now both superannuated)dispute pressed would only be in respect of whether the Appellant was legally or justifiably overlooked for the post of Superintending Engineering 1986. It is a matter of record that Mr. S.P. Goel, the second Respondent who was also working as Executive Engineer, was in fact considered and promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 15.12.1986.

3. It was also contended on behalf of the Appellant that he was a graduate engineer and that merely because he accepted the position of Executive Engineer in a work-charged establishment, the University could not decline him regular appointment, having regard to his qualification and work experience. Learned counsel relied upon the advertisement which he said nowhere disclosed that the post sought to be filled was a work-charged post, but was likely to continue. It was also stated during the course of proceedings that in its affidavit, Delhi University had not denied that the Appellant was applying for a temporary position.

4. To continue the narrative, Mr. S.P. Goel, who had been appointed prior to the Appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, on a work-charged basis on 24.10.1977; he was recommended and subsequently, absorbed as a regular employee in that post, pursuant to the Executive Council’s resolution No.393 dated 22.09.1982. Mr. S.P. Goel was appointed w.e.f. 22.11.1983. Subsequently, on 11.12.1986, Mr. S.P. Goel was selected or recommended to the post of Superintending Engineer; he was, in fact, promoted to that post on 15.12.1986. The present Appellant U.V.Uttamchandani was subsequently promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on work-charged basis w.e.f. 08.02.1989. It is also a matter of record that the existing post of Executive Engineer was upgraded on 19.03.1988 through Resolution No.184 of the Delhi University. The resolution stated that the up-gradation was to be to the work-charged post.

5. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that other things being equal his candidature could never have been ignored when the first up-gradation of the Executive Engineer took place in 1986 to which Mr. S.P. Goel was appointed on 15.12.1986. Elaborating on this, learned counsel submitted that even though the Appellant was appointed by the University subsequently, the fact remained that Mr. S.P. Goel was a diploma holder and, the resolution absorbing his service to the permanent or regular post expressly had relaxed the essential condition even at the lower cadre level i.e. Executive Engineer. In these circumstances, when the occasion to fill up the up-graded post of Superintending Engineer arose in 1986, the Appellant’s case stood in a better footing considering his previous work experience and undeniable educational qualification of graduat