Suresh Chandra Phulara vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is being disposed of by this order.

The petitioner herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos.3 and 4 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology) in the respondent-institute; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology) in the Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Pauri Garhwal.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner, who possesses a post-graduate degree in Biotechnology from the Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Pauri Garhwal in the year 2011 with first division, completed his Ph.D on 30.07.2018. The third respondent issued an advertisement for faculty positions in the Institute for different streams vide advertisement dated 08.06.2013 published in the daily "Amar Ujala" on 09.06.2013 which included, among others, four posts of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology), out of which one post was under the unreserved category. The petitioner submitted his application pursuant to the said advertisement, and was among the ten candidates who participated in the interview on 27.05.2018. The petitioner secured the highest marks in the interview. He was, however, not issued any letter of appointment. In the month of July, 2018, the petitioner claim to have learnt from one Jagdish Chandra Pandey that he had obtained some information from the Institute, under the Right to Information Act, as per which the Selection Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology). Contending that he ought to have been appointed, pursuant to the selection exercise undertaken in the year 2013, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent-Institute, the fact that the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology) has not been disputed. It is, however, stated that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment; after the advertisement was issued in the year 2013, the number of students in the Department of Biotechnology has decreased substantially over the past five years. The table extracted in the counter-affidavit gives details of total number of students, both in undergraduate and in post-graduate courses in Biotechnology, during the five year period i.e. 2014-15 to 2018-19. As against the total 143 undergraduate students in 2014-15, the table discloses that the number of undergraduate students in the Department of Biotechnology had drastically reduced to 23 in the year 2018-19. Likewise, as against the 33 post-graduate students during 2014-15 session, the total post-graduate students in Biotechnology during the year 2018-19 is said to have reduced to just four students. It is further stated that, since the number of students in the Department of Biotechnology was continuously decreasing every year, the department is facing closure; and appointing the selected candidate would cause financial loss to the department.

The contents of the table, extracted in the counter-affidavit, have not been disputed by the petitioner. His submission, however, is that even 27 candidates would suffice for his appointment as an Assistant Professor (Biotechnology). The table discloses continued reduction, in the total number of students in the Department of Biotechnology, during the last five years. The decision of the respondent-Institute not to fill-up the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology), in the light of the continued decrease in the number of students joining the said course, cannot be said to be so unreasonable as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Mere selection in the recruitment process would not automatically confer any right on the selected candidate to seek that he be appointed to the said post. It is always open to the respondent-Institute, for just and valid reasons, not to proceed with the advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology). In the present case, the continued depletion in the number of students, in undergraduate and post-graduate courses in the Department of Biotechnology, is said to be the reason for the respondent-Institute not appointing the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology) since, according to them, there is a distinct possibility of the Department of Biotechnology facing closure. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court, therefore, to issue a mandamus directing the respondent-Institute to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Professor (Biotechnology).

While we see no reason to grant the relief sought for in the Writ Petition, Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, even according to the respondent-Institute, the decision regarding filling-up the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology) has been deferred with the hope that the intake, in both undergraduate and post-graduate courses in Biotechnology, would increase in the near future. Suffice it, therefore, to make it clear that dismissal of this Writ Petitioner would not disable the respondent-institute, in case it chooses to fill-up the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology), to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.