Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“1. To issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction directing respondent no.2 to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Registrar consequent to his selection and placement at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list of the Unreserved Candidates with all consequential benefits regarding seniority etc. or for any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a process was initiated by the respondent-IIT to fill-up the posts of Assistant Registrar vide Advertisement No.IIT Mandi/Recruit./NTS/2024/04, dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). In all, 6 posts were advertised. 1 post was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category, 2 posts for OBC Category and 3 posts for Unreserved Category. The petitioner being eligible to participate in the process, participated in the same against unreserved quota. To cut the controversy short, the result of the process undertaken by the respondent-IIT for the selection of candidates against the posts of Assistant Registrar, was declared on 06.02.2025 and against the Unreserved Category, candidates with Roll Numbers 11446, 11691 and 11781 were declared as selected.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the information provided to him under the Right to Information Act, copy whereof is appended with petition as Annexure P-6, the petitioner was 4th in the overall merit, having scored 70.30 marks, which is evident from the marks mentioned against his Roll Number, 11467, yet the respondents have not offered him appointment, after two of the selected candidates failed to join the posts.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the process of selection undertaken by the respondents, the petitioner was fourth in overall merit. Once the posts remained vacant on account of the selected candidates not having joined, the respondents should have offered the posts to the next in line and as the petitioner was next in line on merit, the post should have been offered to him. Denial thereof to the petitioner according to the learned counsel, is bad in law. Accordingly, he prayed that the said act of the respondents be declared as bad and a mandamus be issued to the respondents to offer the post which has not been occupied by the selected candidates to the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-

“i) Shankarsan Dash Versus Union of India, (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 47.

ii) Asha Kaul (Mrs) and Another Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 573.

iii) R.S. Mittal Versus Union of India, 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 230.”

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent-Institute submitted that the respondent-Institute has framed the Non-Faculty Staff Structuring and Recruitment and Promotion Norms, 2016. She submitted that these are the Norms which govern the recruitment of the Non-Faculty Staff and in terms of said Norms, there is no provision of maintaining any Waiting List during the course of carrying out recruitment qua the Non-Faculty Staff members. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the absence of there being any such provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Norms, the petitioner cannot claim any right to be offered appointment against the posts not occupied by the selected candidates, as there is no Waiting Panel and the process stands exhausted after the candidates were selected de hors as to whether they joined the posts or not. In support of her contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-

“i) Bihar State