Back
2024 Supreme(HP) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another - Respondents
CWP No.1414 of 2024
Decided on : 01-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, M/s Archana Dutt, alongwith Ms. Priyanka Chandel,
Headnote:
Mandamus - Assistant Professor - The court dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the university to conduct an interview for the post of assistant professor in commerce, finding that the petitioner's claim had become stale and that the amendment to the university's policy was prospective, not retrospective.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the university to call him for screening and interview for the post of assistant professor in commerce, as no interviews were held despite the petitioner being the only candidate who had applied for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim had become stale and that the amendment to the university's policy was prospective, not retrospective. It also noted that the notification only dealt with shortlisting of candidates for interview and did not specify the minimum number of candidates required for the appointment process.
Issues: Staleness of claim, prospective nature of policy amendment, misreading of the notification, and the need for an appropriate advertisement for future selection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim had become stale, and the amendment to the university's policy was prospective, not retrospective. It also found that the notification only dealt with shortlisting of candidates for interview and did not specify the minimum number of candidates required for the appointment process.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and it was observed that if the post is advertised afresh, the petitioner may participate for selection if eligible.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer and Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate appearing with Ms. Priyanka Chandel, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-
i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with the direction to the respondents to call the petitioner for screening and interview for the post of assistant professor (commerce). In pursuance to advertisement no.-Rectt.21/2020 dated 07.12.2020.
ii) That the respondents may also be directed to consider his candidature for the post of assistant professor (commerce).
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the process which was initiated by the respondent-University vide advertisement Annexure P-2, dated 07.12.2020, for inter alia filling up one post of Assistant Professor in the International Centre for Distant Education and Open Learning, in the stream of Commerce, reserved for ex-servicemen, was not taken to its logical conclusion as no interviews were held.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner happened to be the only candidate, who had applied to the post in issue, it is for this reason that the respondent-University did not hold any interview for the post. Learned Counsel further submits that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 4512 of 2021, titled as Shri Arun Vatsyayan vs. H.P. University and another, vide judgment dated 06.09.2021, the then existing policy of the respondent-University stands amended vide notification dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P-6), relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
“4. Shortlisting for interview: Candidates shall be invited for an interview in order of merit according to marks obtained by them in the Academic Score Component (Tally Sheet) accordingly to following criteria:-
(i) For one vacancy maximum of 20 (twenty) candidates shall be invited.
(ii) For every additional vacancy a maximum of 10(ten) additional eligible candidates be invited.
(iii) In case of single candidate of the reserved category the policy and programme will apply vertically and horizontally for ensuing proper representation, which otherwise entitles him/her to be shown in the open general category and eligible for screening for the advertised post. As a consequential effect the concerned candidate of reserved category will be eligible for the consideration of the said post.”
5. Learned Counsel accordingly submits that on account of these changed circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and a mandamus requires to be issued to the respondent-University, to hold interview for the post in issue and thereafter offer appointment to the petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that the advertisement, subject matter of this writ petition, was issued as far back as on 07.12.2020. The claim of the petitioner has become stale. Learned Counsel further informs the Court on instructions that in the event of the respondent-University intending to fill up the post in issue in future, then the same will be done by issuing a fresh advertisement so that all eligible candidates can participate in the process of selection, including the petitioner.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel for the respondent-University, this Court is of the considered view that the writ of the petitioner cannot be allowed. This is for the reason that there is no plausible explanation in the entire writ petition as to why the petitioner has approached this Court after almost three years as from the date of advertisement. Besides this, it is settled law that whenever there is an amendment carried out in policies etc. then the same is prospective until and unless the same is expressly made retrospective vide the notification in terms whereof the amendme
