No provision for seniority prior to the date of appointment and no legal right established for notional seniority in appointment disputes.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"i. a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the decision dated 15.09.2020 (Annexure P-7) being totally arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory and without any logic and basis;

ii. a writ in the nature of mandamus may also be issued directing the respondent to give the date of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Department of Human Development and Family Studies of the University with effect from 14.07.2010 i.e. the date when Dr. Santosh Sagwan was appointed and allowed to join the said post against which the petitioner has now been appointed consequent upon the quashing of the selection and appointment of the said Dr. Sangosh Sagwan in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, as has been done by the respondent itself in case of others under similar circumstances consequent upon the directions of this Hon'ble Court as well as at their own, with all consequential benefits including the benefit of seniority and arrears of salary with interest @ 12% per annum for the entire period;"

2. Some facts are required to be noticed. The respondent issued a recruitment notice on 17.08.2009 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS) in respondent university. Certain candidates including the petitioner applied. On recommendation of the Selection Committee, Dr. Santosh Sangwan was appointed. The petitioner filed CWP-15950-2010 challenging her selection which came to be allowed on 17.05.2017, the concluding part whereof is extracted as under:-

"13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, selection and appointment of the 2nd respondent to the post of Assistant Professor (HDFS) is set aside and selecting authority is hereby directed to re-do the interview process and further directed that interview committee shall not have the benefit of looking into the marks awarded to each of the candidate in respect of qualifications academic + additional, experience, academic awards, publications in relevant field and quality of publications so that interview committee members would not be influenced by any marks for the aforesaid heads in order to avoid arbitrariness in award of marks for the performance and expression in interview. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from receipt of copy of this order."

3. Pursuant to the directions, the Selecting Authority re-conducted the interviews and selected the petitioner. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter on 16.03.2020. It may be noted here that the judgment passed by learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench in LPA-819-2017 and therefore, the decision of the Selection Committee was initially kept in a sealed cover. Ultimately, LPA was disposed of as infructuous, as in the meantime, Dr. Santosh Sangwan attained the age of superannuation on 04.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued the appointment letter on 16.03.2020.

4. Now, the petitioner claims that she is entitled to the seniority from the year 2010 because she was wrongly denied appointment.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance perused the paper book.

6. At the time of hearing, learned counsel representing the petitioner, has fairly admitted that there is no provision in the Service Rules, Regulations or Instructions to grant seniority prior to the date of appointment. In other words, there is no provision to grant seniority before an employee is born in the cadre. However, he submits that there are precedents and therefore, this Court should issue a writ of mandamus. Learned counsel relies upon a decision in CWP-10718-1995 (Annexure P-8) on 05.02.2019. In the aforesaid case, the Court was deciding the writ petitions after a period of 14 years. The petitioners had sought the q