HC Quashes Re-Advertisement; Intimate JU To Follow Selection Committee Recommendations


In a landmark Judgment the First Puisne Judge of J&K High Court Justice Rajesh Bindal has allowed a writ petition filed by Priyanka Arya W/o Dr. Satyapriya Arya R/o F-6, 101, Rohini Sector-15, New Delhi who despite recommendations in her favour by the Selection Committee had been denied appointment by the Jammu University for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Sanskrit under Open Merit Category and instead of appointing her the Jammu University had re-advertised the said post vide advertisement Notice No.Adm/TW/C&R/17/2053-73 dated November, 30, 2017 without finalizing the selection process initiated vide advertisement Notice No.Adm/TW(C&R)/16 /1642-92 dated April, 18, 2016 in which petitioner was a candidate and was shown at S.No.1 in the merit list.

After hearing Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed appearing for the petitioner whereas Advocate Sanchit Verma appearing for Jammu University, Justice Rajesh Bindal in an approved for reporting Judgment quashed the re-advertisement Notice dated November, 30, 2017 and directed the Jammu University that there is no requirement to fill up the same post for which recommendations had already been made in favour of the petitioner. The First Puisne Judge further issued directions to the Jammu University to act upon further on the recommendations made by the Selection Committee in accordance with law. The Court also directed, “to avoid any further litigation, it is clarified that in case the petitioner is appointed, she shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of her joining the post”.

After a marathon hearing in the matter, the First Puisne Judge Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that from the record of the Selection Committee, as was produced in Court, it is evident that the petitioner Priyanka Arya was awarded more marks in interview than Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra, in whose case biasness is sought to be alleged. There is nothing on record to suggest that any person was favouring the petitioner as the only allegation which came in the notice of the University after recommendations were made by the Selection Committee, was some link of that candidate with one of the Members of the Selection Committee. It is further evident from the recommendations made by the Selection Committee that there were two more candidates above Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra who had secured 72.60 and 72.40 marks as against 72.00 marks secured by him. Recommendation was made for selection and appointment of the petitioner, whereas Dr. Babua Narayan Mishra was directed to be kept in the waiting list. May be the other two candidates who had secured more marks than him may have better claim but this issue does not arise in the present case. As the candidate who was at S.No.1 in the merit list was recommended to be selected and appointed and there was no allegation of biasness in her case.

Justice Rajesh Bindal further observed that there is no dispute with the proposition of law that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment but equally good is the proposition that there has to be good reason to deny appointment to a candidate selected and recommended for appointment. In the case in hand, the reason assigned for denying appointment to the petitioner, who was No.1 in the merit list, cannot be justified merely because there are some allegations against one of the candidate, who was not selected. It is not even the case of the University that there was any biasness in the case of the petitioner for award of marks.

With these observations and directions the First Puisne Judge of J&K High Court Justice Rajesh Bindal allowed the writ petition and quashed the re-advertisement Notice and directed the Jammu University to fill up the same post for which recommendations had already been made in favour of the petitioner.