Nitin vs H.P. University

CMP No. 19730/2013 in CWP No. 9048/2013 CMP No. 19740/2013 in CWP No. 9051/2013 CMP No. 19747/2013 in CWP No. 9055/2013

Allowed and disposed of. Parties are duly represented.

CMP No. 19817/2013 in CWP No. 9048/2013

Translated copies of the documents as also fresh documents are allowed to be taken on record. Application stands disposed of.

CWPs No. 8048, 9051 & 9055 of 2013

Response be filed within a period of four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

List on 9.1.2014.

We clarify that if possible on that date, the petition itself shall be finally heard on merits.

CMP No. 19729/2013 in CWP No. 9048/2013 CMP No. 19739/2013 in CWP No. 9051/2013 CMP No. 19746/2013 in CWP No. 9055/2013

Response be filed within a period of four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

For filling up various posts of Lecturers/Assistant Professors, advertisements were issued by respondent-University. In fact, the process for filling up such posts, which commenced in the year 2006, was not completed till the year 2010, despite the fact that repeated advertisements were issued in that regard.

Eventually, in a petition filed by some of the aggrieved persons, this Court vide judgment dated 4.1.2012, passed in CWP No. 6479/2011-G, titled as Surender Sharma and others versus H.P. University, directed the respondent-University to place recommendations of the Selection Committee, dated 23.9.2010 and 24.9.2010, before the Executive Council of the University, within a period of four weeks and thereafter make appointments. Court further directed the University to fill up the remaining un-filled posts within a period of three months. At that time, the Court had called for the record of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and after perusing the same, it was returned in a sealed cover to be kept in a safe custody.

Aggrieved thereof, respondent-University field Special Leave Petition, being SLP No. 12122/2012, titled as H.P. University versus Surender Sharma and others, before Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India, which stood dismissed on 23.4.2012, with the following observations:

The SLP is dismissed being wholly meritless and misconceived.

The petitioner is directed to implement the directions given by the High Court within four weeks from today and submit a report in the Registry of the High Court. Thereafter, the matter be listed before the concerned Bench. If it is found that the petitioner has not complied with the directions given in the impugned order, then the High Court shall initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned officers of the University.

The matter did not rest there. On 8.4.2013, the Executive Council of the respondent-University passed resolution, disbanding the selection process, which had commenced pursuant to the advertisement issued on 21.10.2011, which was subject matter of Surender Sharma (supra). This action of the respondents was challenged in CWP No. 2429 of 2013, titled as Des Raj Thakur versus H.P. University and connected matters, wherein vide judgment dated 25.9.2013, the Court issued following directions:

In the circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of all these petitions by setting aside the decision of the Executive Council dated 8th April, 2013 disbanding the selection process commenced on the basis of advertisement bearing No. 3 of 2011; and instead direct the Executive Council to re-consider all the recommendations made by the Selection Committee from time to time, only, qua, the candidates who had applied pursuant to the said advertisement bearing No. 3 of 2011, uninfluenced by any other subsequent developments. In case, recommendation to appoint candidates who had applied pursuant to advertisement No. 3 of 2011 has already been accepted by the Executive Council, nothing more in respect of those appointments need to be done. The exercise of re-consideration by the Executive Council, therefore, will be in respect of other recommendations which are yet to be considered by the Executive Council on its own merits and in accordance with law and the requirement of advertisement bearing No. 3 of 2011.

We place on record that the learned Advocate General relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash Versus Union of India, which has taken the view that inclusion of the names of the candidates in the selection list does not give them indefeasible right to be appointed against the vacancy advertised. As aforesaid, the Executive Council, while reconsidering the recommendations, will have to examine as to whether the recommendees are fulfilling the requirements specified in the advertisement bearing No. 3 of 2011 and as per other mandatory requirements of the Rules governing the selection process and take final decision on that basis. That process shall be completed by the Executive Council not later than two months from today.

We once again make it clear that the candidates, who have validly applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st October, 2011 bearing No. 3 of 2011, and whose names have been recommended by the Selection Committee, in respect of only those candidates the Executive Council will consider the matter. No other candidate who has applied subsequently or pursuant to the addendum after the amendment of the Rules will be eligible to be considered qua the selection process commenced on the basis of advertisement dated 21st October, 2011. Only the valid applications received pursuant to advertisement dated 21st, 2011, will have to be taken to its logical end in terms of the decision of this Court in CWP No. 6479 of 2011 decided on 4th January, 2012 and as affirmed by the Apex Court on 23rd April, 2012 in SLP (C) 12122 of 2012.

Now, on 1.11.2013, the Executive Council of the respondent-University has taken a decision (Annexure P-18), in terms whereof, respondent-University is now trying to conduct interviews of such of those candidates who though had applied in terms of advertisement dated 21.10.2011, but could not be interviewed earlier.

Prima facie, we are of the considered view that this action of the respondent-University is neither in consonance with the spirit nor inter terms of the directions issued by the apex Court in SLP No. 12122/2012 (supra), and this Court in Surender Sharma (supra) and Des Raj (supra).

The Court clearly dealt with posts which were required to be filled up in terms of advertisement issued on 21.10.2011. Observations made by this Court in Para-9 of the judgment in Des Raj (supra), prima facie, cannot be construed to mean that it would be open for the respondent-University to reopen the entire selection process for the posts, which stood advertised, in relation to which interview was conducted and recommendations made by the Selection Committee. Prima facie, we are also of the view that it is neither within the domain, nor within the power of the Executive Council to issue directions for conducting interviews of certain candidates.

Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, we stay the operation of impugned decision dated 1.11.2013 taken by the Executive Council of the respondent-University, being item No. 14, in its meeting held on 1.11.2013. Time to comply with the judgment in Des Raj (supra), is extended till the next date.

Copy dasti.