The importance of timely assertion of rights and adherence to the terms and conditions of advertisement notifications and relevant statutes in employment appointments.

1. Through the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following relief’s :

“(a) quash the Order No. AUJ/Adm/06-07/2367-71 dated 21st July, 2006 issued by respondent No. 3 through the medium of which respondent No. 4 was appointed as Medical Assistant in Sher-e-Kashmir, University of Agriculture Sciences & Technology, Jammu by way of backdoor appointment and without advertising the post of inviting applications from other eligible candidates including the petitioner.

(b) Command and direct the respondents to consider and consequently appoint the petitioner as Medical Assistant in Sher-e-Kashmir, University of Agriculture Sciences & Technology, Jammu.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 8th September, 2006, he was initially engaged as Laboratory Assistant on Adhoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 for a period of 89 days and thereafter the official respondents granted various extensions in his favour. The last extension was granted for a period of 89 days w.e.f. 30th May, 2008 which was extended upto 30th August, 2008. However, the respondents extracted the work from the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant upto December, 2008. In this regard reliance is placed on attendance sheet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner moved various representations requesting the respondents to regularize his services on the ground that during his continuance as Laboratory Assistant in the respondent-Department, he became over-age, therefore, rendered himself ineligible to seek employment elsewhere. It is further stated that before engagement of the petitioner on Adhoc basis, the respondents had issued a Notification No. 23/Est. of 2005 dated 31st March 2005, inviting applications for various posts including that of Medical Assistant and accordingly, pursuant to the said Notification, the petitioner also applied for the post of Medical Assistant and consequently, one Deepak Sharma came to be selected and appointed against the post of Medical Assistant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the disengagement of the petitioner, he came to know in the year 2009 that private respondent No. 4-Sanjeev Kumar has been appointed as Medical Assistant in the respondent-department without advertising the post in the news paper inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Petitioner applied before the official respondents under Right to Information Act for issuance of appointment order of respondent No. 4. Thereafter, vide communication dated 18.05.2009, appointment order of respondent No. 4-Sanjeev Kumar dated 31.07.2006 was provided to the petitioner.

5. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment order of respondent No. 4 dated 31.07.2006, passed by respondent No. 3, on the grounds that respondent No. 4 has been appointment as Medical Assistant by the official respondents without inviting applications from the eligible candidates by advertising the post in Newspaper. It is stated that respondent No. 4 was appointed by the official respondents through the medium of backdoor entry, as the post was never advertised and that respondent No. 4 was not eligible to seek consideration for the reason that he was overage at the time of appointment as Medical Assistant. It is further stated that appointment of respondent No. 4 as Medical Assistant is the result of favoritism and nepotism.

6. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed their objections.

7. The stand taken by the official respondents is that the instant petition is barred by inordinate delay and laches as the selection/appointment of respondent No. 4 has been called in question after a period of more than three years. In the objections, it has been admitted that respondent No. 4 came to be appointed as Medical Assistant pursuant to the recommendations of the Selection Committee by virtue of order dated 31.07.2006. The further stand taken by the respondents is that respondent No. 4 applied for the post i