The judgment established that an appointment made as a result of court directions and benevolence, rather than merit, does not entitle the appointee to claim retrospective effect to the appointment or seniority over other candidates.

JUDGMENT :

1) Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he had responded to the Advertisement Notice No.01 of 2004 dated 19.11.2004, whereby applications were invited by the respondent University for appointment to the posts of Computer Programmer (Training Assistant), now designated as Programme Assistant (Computer). According to the petitioner, despite being fully eligible and qualified for the post, he was denied appointment, as a result of which he had to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The said writ petition bearing SWP No.778/2007 was allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 29.11.2014 and the official respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner against the available post of Computer Programmer (Training Assistant). It was also held by the Court that respondents No.3 to 6 were not eligible but the Court without disturbing their appointment directed the appointment of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the judgment was upheld in appeal and despite this, the official respondents did not implement the same, which compelled him to file a contempt petition before this Court. The official respondents thereafter issued impugned order No.824 (Est) of 2015 dated 24.09.2015, whereby the petitioner was appointed as Programme Assistant (Computer) from the date of the said order.

2) It has been contended that because the petitioner, in terms of judgment dated 29.11.2014, was entitled to appointment immediately on conclusion of the selection process, as such, the official respondents were bound to give effect to his appointment from the date the other candidates were appointed pursuant to the aforesaid selection process. It has been further submitted that respondents No.3 to 6, who were held to be ineligible by the Court, have to be placed below the petitioner in the order of seniority.

3) It has been submitted that the petitioner approached the official respondents with a detailed representation on 16.12.2015 but no decision has been taken by them on the said representation. It is contended by the petitioner that his appointment has been delayed solely for the reasons attributable to the official respondents and, as such, he is entitled to appointment with retrospective effect as also to fixation of his seniority over and above respondents No.3 to 6.

4) The official respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. In their reply, the said respondents have taken a stand that as per the judgment dated 29.11.2014, no direction was issued for retrospective appointment of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has accepted the appointment and now he cannot turn around and seek retrospective effect to his appointment after having accepted the terms of his appointment. It has been contended that the post against which the petitioner was adjusted, was occupied by one Riyaz Ahmad Pandit, who was respondent No.6 in the earlier petition. The appointment of the petitioner on the said post was made after the death of Shri Riyaz Ahmad Pandit, which took place in the year 2013. On that basis, it is contended that no retrospective effect to the appointment of the petitioner can be given. It has also been contended by the official respondents that the petitioner was figuring at serial No.33 in the overall merit and even if the private respondents would have been removed from the select list, the petitioner would not have made it to the select list. According to the respondents, it was only because of the Court directions that the petitioner has been appointed despite having secured low merit. On this ground it is urged that the petitioner cannot claim retrospective effect to his appointment.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6) The main ground urged by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was denied appointment to the post of Programme Assistant (Computer) not because of any of