The principle of constructive res judicata cannot be applied to bar an adjudication on an issue which was neither necessary to be raised, nor adverted to by the court in the earlier proceedings.

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. The Petitioner has by the present writ petition, impugned the order dated 3rd July, 2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3757/2011 whereby the original application filed by the Petitioner (Applicant) has been dismissed.

2. The admitted facts as noticed by the Tribunal, are that the Petitioner (Applicant therein), had been appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer (now known as Assistant Professor) on 10th September, 1999 in the Department of History, Army Cadet College which is a wing of the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, pursuant to the selection based on an advertisement published in the Employment News. The Petitioner continued iservice with some breaks when the Respondents issued an advertisement dated 15th April, 2001 inviting applications for ad hoc appointment to posts of Lecturers in various subjects including the post of Lecturer (History) which the Petitioner had been holding on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 10th September, 1999.

3. Being aggrieved by the issuance of advertisement issued by the Respondents for appointing fresh persons on ad hoc basis by terminating the already appointed adhoc Lecturers, a batch of OAs were filed by the ad hoc lecturers including the Petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the batch of OAs including OA No.1348/2001 filed by the Petitioner, came to the conclusion that an ad hoc lecturer could not be replaced by anyone other than a regularly selected lecturer and, therefore vide its order dated 13th December, 2001, quashed the advertisement dated 15th April, 2001 inviting applications for appointment to the post of ad hoc lecturer, including the post which the present Petitioner had been holding. In its order, the Tribunal further directed that the Petitioner and other similarly placed persons, should be permitted to continue to work on the posts which they were holding on ad hoc basis, without being subjected to any fresh selection or interviews, for holding such ad hoc posts till such time they are replaced by regularly selected lecturers, and also directed that all the Applicants therein (including the present Petitioner) would be entitled to appear for selection for regular appointment in accordance with the Rules.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner continued to work as an ad hoc Lecturer (History) for the next many years when the Respondent no.3 issued an advertisement published in the Employment News dated 8th to 14th January, 2011 for filling up posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects and stated therein that the post of Assistant Professor (History) was reserved for scheduled caste candidates.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner who belongs to General Category and had been precluded from applying for regular appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (History), approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application No.3757/2011 for quashing the aforesaid advertisement dated 8-14 January, 2011 whereby the solitary post of Assistant Professor (History) in the Army Cadet College, Indian Military Academy, Dehradun, had been reserved for scheduled caste candidates.

6. The contention of the Petitioner before the Tribunal was that there was only one post of Assistant Professor in the Department of History, ACC, IMA and as such, there could not be any reservation for the said post. In support of his contention before the Tribunal, the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. K. Govindappa & Anr. reported at (2009) 1 SCC 1.

7. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioner had further contended that the advertisement had wrongly prescribed an upper age limit of 35 years, though, as per the UGC guidelines, there was no upper age limit for the recruitment of Assistant Professor in colleges.

8. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent nos.1, 2 & 4 before the Tribunal, the main defence taken by th