Point of Law : Selection process - Mandamus issued by the learned Writ Court directing the respondent University to proceed and conclude the selection process is not in accordance with law and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Writ Court in WP(C) No.944/2020 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) against respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The appeal has been filed by the Union Territory of J&K though it was not a party to the writ petition. In terms of the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by this Court, the appellant has been permitted to file the appeal against the impugned judgment.

2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the writ petitioners filed a petition against respondent Nos.5 to 7 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing them to conclude the selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement notice No.02 of 2019 dated 07.03.2019 and notice dated 26.03.2019 for selection and appointment of Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist in the discipline/stream of Veterinary Physiology, Live Stock Production Management, Veterinary Public Health and Veterinary Biochemistry with a further direction to accord consideration to the case of the writ petitioners by subjecting them to interview/test after assessing their comparative merit and to offer the writ petitioners appointment in case they make the grade.

3. The case of the writ petitioners before the Writ Court was that pursuant to advertisement notice No.02 of 2019 dated 7th of March, 2019, they offered their candidature for the posts of Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist in the specialty/discipline of Veterinary Science. The aforesaid advertisement notice was modified in terms of notice dated 26th of March, 2019. The writ petitioners alleged that despite lapse of about nine months since the date of issuance of the advertisement notices, the selection process has not progressed beyond the screening stage. According to the writ petitioners, the delay in conclusion of selection process has prejudiced their rights and interests.

4. The respondent Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (“the respondent University” for short hereinafter) filed its reply to the writ petition in which it took a stand that in view of circular dated 4th July, 2019, issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir the selection process has been put on hold and in this regard correspondence between the Finance Department and the respondent University is going on.

5. It appears that the learned Writ Court without impleading the Government of Union Territory of J&K as party to the proceedings, directed the Government counsel to report instructions in the matter. The Government appears to have filed its compliance/status report in which it took a stand that the Finance Department has issued a circular on 4th July, 2019, in terms whereof respondent University was required to seek financial concurrence prior to advertisement of the posts in question and it had to route the proposal through Administrative Department i.e., Agricultural Production Department.

6. The Writ Court after taking into account the stand of respondent University as well as that of the Finance Department proceeded to observe that the Government order, whereby financial concurrence of the Government prior to issuance of advertisement notice has been made mandatory, is prospective in nature and the same does not have any bearing on the case in hand, inasmuch as the advertisement notice in question has been issued much prior to the issuance of Government order. Accordingly, the Writ Court vide the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2020 issued a direction to respondent University to proceed with and conclude the selection process notwithstanding the Government order in question. It is this judgment which has been challenged by the Union Territory of J&K by way of instant appeal.

7. It is contended by the appellant that the respondent University depends upon the Government for financial assistance and, as such, financial concurrence is mandatory prior to making