IMPORTANT POINT
The government order on select list validity does not apply to non-government aided institutions, allowing the petitioner’s appointment.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.12.2017 issued by respondent no.2, whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected and further a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 i.e. Director Sanskrit Education to give approval to the select list dated 25.02.2012, annexure-4 to the writ petition, sent by Committee of Management on the recommendation given by the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 25.11.2011, an advertisement was issued by respondent no.3 after seeking approval from the respondent no.4 for supplying vacancy on two posts of Assistant Lecturer Navya Vyakaran ¼uO; O;kdj.k½- Out of two posts, undisputedly, one post was meant for general category. The petitioner, undoubtedly, belongs to general category and he submitted his application for the said post. The selection process ensued and in that selection process, a short list was prepared as per the Rules and three candidates were short-listed. The name of the petitioner is at serial no.3 of the said merit list. The person at Serial No.2 i.e. Sunil Dutt Bijalwan has raised an objection of the placement of Beni Prasad Sharma at Serial No.1 with regard to the teaching experience certificate submitted by Beni Prasad Sharma which objection later on found to be true and, therefore, his name was struck out of the said merit list. The person at Serial No.2 i.e. Sunil Datt Bijalwan was appointed in the Institution, namely, Ved Mahayavidyalaya, Rishikesh, therefore, only the petitioner remained in the select list. The petitioner now wanted that select list to be given effect to give him appointment.

4. But, when this was done by the respondent-authorities, petitioner moved this Court by filing a WPSS No.618 of 2014 (Darveshwar Prasad Thapliyal vs. State of Uttarakhand & others) and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Competent Authority i.e. Director, Sanskrit Education, Uttarakhand to look into the matter and take appropriate decision regarding approval to the selection made in the Institution i.e. Sri Jagatdev Singh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Saptsarovar, Haridwar for the post in-question. Such decision was directed to be taken within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order dated 20.09.2017.

5. The respondent no.2 has taken a decision vide order dated 22.12.2017 and the matter was disposed of on the ground that there was no post vacant in the Subject Navya Vyakaran at the time when it was advertised as the person who was holding the post was working as In-charge Principal of the Institution in-question and since there was no substantive vacancy on the post, therefore, an advertisement was wrongly issued and petitioner could be given appointment against the post which was not vacant.

6. It is against this order dated 22.12.2017, petitioner is before this Court.

7. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Navya Vyakaran was denied by respondent no.2 only for the reason that one Shri Kanta Prasad Badola who was working on the said post was given charge of officiating principal of the Institution, therefore, it was held by respondent no.2 that Shri Kanta Prasad Badola had his lien over the post and since the post was not substantively vacant when advertisement was issued, therefore, petitioner cannot be given appointment upon the said post on which Shri Kanta Prasad Badola has his lien.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputed this factual position saying in the writ petition that when the advertisement was issued on 25.11.2011, the post was vacant, it is only after seeking approval from the respondent no.2, an advertisement was issued and the selection process was ensued in which he participated.

9. Learned State Counsel has filed its counter affidavit and in para