Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Petitioners in present bunch of matters have applied on different posts in pursuance of a recruitment process initiated on basis of Adv. No. 2/2013-14 issued by respondent-University.

2. Petitioners have claimed that after going through process of shortlisting, objective and subjective written examination, they were qualified and called for interview and Selection Committee conducted interview of petitioners also.

3. It is further case of petitioners that recruitment process was stalled on the basis of a communication between the State and University and a decision was taken not to continue with recruitment process.

4. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners have filed present bunch of writ petitions with a prayer that their results be declared.

5. An interim order was passed by this Court whereby it was directed that fresh procedure can continue but it will remain subject to outcome of present bunch of writ petition and in one writ petition, a post was also reserved.

6. During exchange of pleadings, inquiry report dated 30.12.2015 is placed on record and a decision thereof taken by Executive Council on 10.02.2016 is also placed on record wherein it was resolved that envelope containing recommendations of Selection Committee held between 17.02.2014 and 15.06.2014 for direct recruitment on vacant teaching, non-teaching and school teaching positions be not opened and the post be advertised afresh.

7. S/Sri Seemant Singh, Jitendra Sarin, Rajesh Kumar Singh and Man Mohan Singh, learned Advocates for petitioners in bunch of petitions have submitted that Executive Council was not empowered to recommend not to open an envelope containing recommendations of Selection Committee.

8. Learned Advocates have also referred paragraph 27(3) of Chapter II (The Schedule) of Statute of the University (BHU) that “In case they (Executive Council) were unable to accept any recommendation made by Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and forward case to Visitor for orders”.

9. In support of their submissions, learned advocates for petitioners have placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Pramod Pathak vs. Vice Chancellor, BHU, Varanasi and others, 1985 SCC Online All 389.

10. Per contra, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.P. Singh, learned counsel for B.H.U. and Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for Union of India have opposed above submissions and have submitted that for appointment of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Teaching posts as well as Registrar, Controller of Examination and Librarian, details of Selection Committee are provided and for reference, table is quoted below :-

“27.(1) ……..

(b) Every Selection Committee shall consists of the Vice-Chancellor who shall be the Chairman thereof and a person nominated by the Visitor, and, in addition, the Selection Committee for making recommendations for appointment to a post specified in column (1) of the Table below shall have as its members the persons specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table.

Table