Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1255
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Subhash Upadhyay, JJ
RITU KASHYAP – Appellant
Versus
H.N. BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY – Respondent
WPSB/147/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.D. Upadhyaya
For the Respondents: K.H. Gupta
The court upheld that candidates selected do not have an indefeasible right to appointment, emphasizing adherence to eligibility criteria established by governing educational standards.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Directing authority to recommend candidates for appointment based on merit versus eligibility standards set by the higher educational authority - Relates to appointment processes within educational institutions governed by norms set by UGC. (Paras 4, 6, 8)
(B) Employment - Rights of selected candidates - The court upheld that selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and must respect comparative merit when not all vacancies are filled. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner claims a right to appointment as an Assistant Professor after being placed fourth in the selection committee's list, arguing that disqualifications of higher-ranked candidates warrant her appointment. The university rejected the committee's proposed candidates, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.
Findings of Court:
The university's decision to re-advertise the vacancy is justified due to the failure to conform to eligibility norms and maintaining the integrity of the selection process.
Issues: Whether the university could require re-advertisement for the position and the validity of the petitioner's claims based on panel placement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the selection committee's report does not guarantee appointment rights, affirming that institutions must follow UGC standards in evaluating candidate eligibility. Courts cannot interfere in administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary or malafide.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
SL. N o .
D a t e
Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s
COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
2 3 4 1 W PSB/ 1 4 7 / 2 0 1 6 H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J. . Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for t he pet it ioner. Dr. K.H. Gupt a, learned counsel for . t he respondent / Universit y. . Pet it ioner part icipat ed in a select ion held by DBS ( PG) College, Dehradun for appoint m ent as Assist ant Professor ( Zoology) , pursuant t o advert isem ent published in newspapers on 26.10.2012. According t o her, select ion com m it t ee prepared a panel of 4 nam es in order of m erit , in which one Dr. Aradhana was placed at Sl. No. 1, while pet it ioner’s nam e was placed at Sl. No. 4; Com m it t ee of Managem ent of t he College sent t he panels of nam es for approval t o HNB Garhwal Universit y, however, t he Universit y t urned down t he proposal for approval on t he ground t hat Dr. Aradhana was not qualified as per UGC norm s. The Universit y t hereaft er issued a let t er on 18.07.2014, asking t he Com m it t ee of Managem ent of DBS ( PG) College, t o re- advert ise t he vacancy on t he post of Assist ant Professor ( Zoology) . . I n t his writ pet it ion, pet it ioner has sought t he following reliefs: - ( 1) a writ , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of m andam us direct ing t he respondent No. 2 t o recom m end t he nam es of select ed candidat es for t he post s of Assist ant Professor in Zoology in order of t heir m erit in t he select list prepared by t he Select ion Com m it t ee for approval t o t he Universit y and t he Universit y
5 7 8 6 ( be direct ed t o consider t he sam e in accordance wit h law. issue a writ of cert iorar i t o call for t he 1- A) t o record of t he case and quash t he order dat ed 18.07.2014 passed by respondent No. 1, cont ained in Annexure No. 7 t o t he writ pet it ion. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior . Counsel appearing for pet it ioner cont ends t hat since pet it ioner’s nam e was included at Sl. No. 4 in t he panel prepared by t he Select ing Com m it t ee, t herefore, if Dr. Aradhana was found t o be ineligible, t hen t he Com m it t ee of Managem ent ought t o have offered appoint m ent t o t he pet it ioner, as she possessed all requisit e qualificat ions for appoint m ent t o t he post . Thus, he subm it s t hat t he direct ion issued by t he Universit y t o re- advert ise t he vacancy is unsust ainable and t he concerned Aut horit y be direct ed t o appoint t he pet it ioner. The cont ent ion raised on behalf of . pet it ioner is unsust ainable. As pet it ioner was placed at Sl. No. 4 in t he panel, t herefore, t here were t wo candidat es, who were found t o be m ore m erit orious t hen her, by t he Select ion Com m it t ee and pet it ioner’s claim for appoint m ent is, t hus, wit hout any basis. . There was only one vacancy on t he post of Assist ant Professor ( Zoology) , t herefore, preparing a panel of four nam es and sending t he ent ire panel t o t he Universit y for approval, in t he absence of any enabling provision, does not appear t o be proper. . As t here are ot her t wo candidat es, who were placed above pet it ioner in t he panel, t herefore, she cannot claim t o
