IMPORTANT POINT : A person, seeking to be appointed as Workshop Assistant must essentially possess qualification prescribed.

Judgment :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

This intra-Court appeal is directed against judgment dated 21.10.2021 [“the impugned judgment’] passed by the learned Single Judge [“Writ Court’] in SWP No. 1405/2011 titled “Mehraj Ud Din Najar vs. SK University of Agriculture and others’. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant on numerous grounds. However, before we advert to these grounds of challenge, we deem it appropriate to notice few facts relevant to the disposal of this appeal.

Vide Advertisement Notice No. 06/2008 dated 04.06.2008, respondent No.2 invited applications from the eligible persons for different posts including four posts of Workshop Assistant. Three posts of Workshop Assistant were earmarked for open merit category and the remaining one for RBA Category. Subsequently, respondent No.2 came up with fresh Advertisement Notice bearing No. 03/2009 dated 22.08.2009 in which, amongst other posts, four posts of Workshop Assistant were re-notified with a stipulation that the candidates, who had already applied for the posts in response to the earlier Advertisement Notification, need not apply again. The qualification prescribed for the posts of Workshop Assistant as indicated against item No.11 of the Advertisement Notice dated 22.08.2009 (supra) reads thus:—

2. In response to the Advertisement Notification(s) issued, the appellant, respondent No.1 and few others submitted their application forms. The appellant as well as respondent No.1 (the writ petitioner) participated in the selection process. Upon completion of the selection process, the respondent-University vide its order No. 322 (Est.) of 2010 dated 19.04.2010 appointed four candidates including the appellant (03 under open merit category and 01 under RBA) as Workshop Assistants. This order of appointment was purportedly issued by the respondent-University on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the approval accorded by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The writ petitioner, who did not figure in the select list, filed SWP No. 1405/2011 praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned selection and the appointment order dated 19.04.2010 (supra) insofar as it related to the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ petiton). A writ of mandamus was also sought to direct the officials respondents to select and appoint the writ petitioner against the post of Workshop Assistant on the basis of his overall merit in the selection process. There was obviously a delay of almost one year in approaching the Court. However, the writ petitioner explained the delay in approaching the Court by contending that in the month of April 2011, when the then incumbent Registrar of the University/Chairman of the Selection Committee was shifted from the post, a vital information leaked out that one of the appointed Workshop Assistants had not even applied pursuant to the Advertisement notification(s), but got selected for extraneous considerations. This made the writ petitioner to move an application under Right to Information Act [“RTI Act’] to seek copy of application forms submitted by the appointed candidates as also the interview call letters issued to them. The requisite information sought for by the writ petitioner was supplied which, as per him, revealed that the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ petitioner) had submitted her application form much after the cut off date and even after the call letters for interview had been dispatched to other candidates including the writ petitio