IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CWP-4985-2015 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 Shally Gupta …Petitioner Versus Panjab University and others …Respondents Present: - Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure P-25) whereby her claim to de-reserve the post of Professor (Oral Pathology) was declined. She is further seeking direction to respondents to treat her appointment as regular w.e.f. 02.08.2010.

2. The respondent vide Advertisement No.2/2008 invited applications for the post of Professor (Oral Pathology) on regular basis under General Category. No candidate came forward, thus, post was re-advertised vide Advertisement No.6/2008. Again, no candidate applied. The respondent third time vide Advertisement No.6/2009 invited applications. The post was declared as regular and under General Category. There was only one candidate and vacancy could not be filled up. The respondent again vide Advertisement No.1/2010 invited applications. No candidate applied for the post. The respondent vide Advertisement No.3/2010 again invited applications. This time the petitioner applied and she was called for interview on 09.07.2010. During the interview, she was informed that she does not have requisite publications to be appointed as Professor. She submitted letter dated 09.07.2010 (Annexure R-3) whereby she agreed to join on contract basis for a specified period/till publications in specified journals. She joined on 02.08.2010. The respondent vide Advertisement No.3/2012 advertised post of Professor (Oral Pathology) under reserved category. The petitioner submitted representation claiming that single post cannot be reserved. In a joint meeting of academic and administrative staff held on 20.04.2012, it was resolved that either post be de-reserved or an additional post under General Category be created to accommodate the already appointed candidate. The Vice Chancellor of the University vide communication dated 05.06.2012 rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that post be filled as per roster. She preferred CWP No.5050 of 2013 before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to respondent to decide her representation. The respondent referred the matter to duly constituted committee. The respondent formed an opinion that post of Professor (Oral Pathology) exists at Serial No.1 as per roster policy of University Grants Commission (for short ‘UGC’), thus, it will go to reserved category.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per judgment of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. K. Govindappa and another, (2009) 1 SCC 1, single post cannot be reserved because it amounts to 100% reservation. The petitioner applied against a regular post and she was compelled to join as contractual employee. She got requisite research papers published, thus, she complied with requirement which was imposed while compelling her to join as contractual employee.

4. Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate submits that there were six vacancies in the Dental Faculty, thus, post at Serial No.1 was reserved. The petitioner is wrongly claiming that there would be 100% reservation if post in question is reserved. The respondent is also of the opinion that if there is one post in a particular faculty, it cannot be reserved, however, there were six posts in the faculty, thus, post in question could be reserved and was rightly reserved. The petitioner was selected against advertisement meant for regular post, however, she was not having requisite publications, thus, she was asked to join as contractual employee. She without any coercion joined as contractual employee. She is wrongly holding post in question for last 15 years.

5. I have heard the arguments