117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 04.02.2026 GAJENDER SINGH .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF HARYANA VILLAGE JANT PALI, DISTRICT MAHENDERGARH AND ANR.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Prayer

1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying or the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to treat petitioner's original application (Form No.2300085883) submitted under the 2024 advertisement, Annexure P1, as a valid fresh application for the current recruitment process in lieu of Advertisement dated 24.6.2025, Annexure P5, ensuring that petitioner is not excluded from the selection process, and his candidature be considered along with other applicants, and grant him an opportunity to participate in the ongoing selection process for the post of Associate Professor in Library and Information Science under the current advertisement as the petitioner is a qualified candidate;

Brief Facts

2. The respondent University issued an advertisement dated 23.12.2024 inviting applications for various teaching posts, including Associate Professor in the Department of Library and Information Science under the OBC category and the petitioner, being fully eligible, applied within the prescribed time, submitted all requisite documents, and deposited the prescribed application fee. His application was duly acknowledged by the respondent University and scrutiny results were communicated to him through his registered email address.

3. Subsequently, the respondent University withdrew the said advertisement and issued a fresh advertisement dated 24.06.2025, requiring candidates to submit fresh applications along with a new application fee. No individual communication regarding the withdrawal of the earlier advertisement, issuance of the fresh advertisement, or requirement to apply afresh was sent to the petitioner, despite the fact that email had been consistently used by the respondents for prior recruitment-related communication. As a result, the petitioner remained unaware of the changed recruitment process and was excluded from participation in the ongoing selection. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation-cum-legal notice seeking permission to participate in the recruitment process or adjustment of his earlier application, but no response was received from the respondents.

Contentions On behalf of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was fully eligible and had complied with all the requirements stipulated under the original advertisement. By acknowledging the petitioner’s application and communicating the scrutiny results through email, the respondents created a legitimate expectation that all subsequent communications relating to the recruitment process would also be conveyed through the same mode. The failure of the respondents to inform the petitioner about the withdrawal of the earlier advertisement and the issuance of a fresh advertisement is stated to be arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Learned counsel further alleges that the said action has resulted in denial of the petitioner’s fundamental right to fair and equal opportunity in matters of public employment as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the exclusion of the petitioner from the selection process, despite being similarly situated and duly qualified, amounts to discrimination. The retention of the application fee without consideration of his candidature is also asserted to constitute unjust enrichment on the part of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel submits that the respondents failed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation-cum-legal notice within a reasonable