1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1096/2012

(Manish Sharma Vs. The Central University of Raj. & Ors.)

Date of Order

:

11.04.2014

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr. B.S. Sandhu, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Joshi with

Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, for the respoandents.

BY THE COURT :

The instant writ petition is listed today for order in

the spirit of Lok Adalat.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has made

following prayers :-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that

this petition for writ in the nature of mandamus may

kindly be allowed and the entire selection process

undertaken by the respondent for the post of Private

Secretary in pursuance of advertisement dated

2

22.02.2011 (Annex.1) issued by the University may

kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set

aside.

(i)That in the alternate it is prayed that the scrutiny

result declared bythe respondent on the basis of

fields and the marks given may kindly be declared

illegal and the respondent may be directed to

prepare the merit list only after undertaking the

text and interview.

(ii)That further the petitioner prayers that the

rejection of the candidature of the petitioner may

kindly be declared illegal, and the respondent may

be directed to consider his candidature and place

him in merit at appropriate place and to give

appointment on the post of Private Secretary.

(iii)Further it is prayed that candidature of any other

candidate placed in merit list in place of the

petitioner and selection or appointment, if any, of

such candidate may kindly be declared illegal and

be set aside and the petitioner may be given

appointment as per his merit.

(iv)That further it is prayed that any further

proceedings for selection process for the post of

Private Secretary on the basis of scrutiny results

may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and

set aside, and the respondent may be directed to

initiate fresh selection proceedings in accordance

with law

(v)Any other order or direction which the court may

deem fit and proper be pass in favour of the

petitioner.”

3

Learned counsel for the respondents at the threshold

raised preliminary objection that the appointment of respondent

Nos.4, 5 and 6 are not under challenge so also their

appointments orders are also not on record to challenge but

these persons have been impleaded as party without specific

prayer for quashing their appointment order, therefore, this writ

petition may be dismsised.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in

prayer No.3 of the writ petition there is prayer that candidature

of any other candidate placed in merit list in place of petitioner

and selection or appointment, if any, of such candidate may

kindly be declared illegal and be set aside and the petitioner may

be given appointment as per his merit.

After perusal the aforesaid prayer, this Court is of the

opinion that although respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 were impleaded

as party subsequently but to challenge their appointment, the

petitioner was required to amend the writ petition and to

incorporate his grounds to declare appointment of respondents

illegal but there is no ground and specific prayer to quash the

appointment orders of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 on the post of

Private Secretary, therefore, there is no question to quash the

4

appointment order in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Surinder Singh Vs. Central Govt.,

reported in (1986) 4 SCC p.667 followed by this Court in case of

the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Poonam Chand

Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in WLR 1991 (S) Raj p.321 in

which it held that normally whenever an order of govt. or some

authority is impugned before the High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution, the copy of the order must be produ