Sweta Sandhu vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Business Management, advertised by respondent No. 1 University, is aggrieved by her non - selection, and the selection and appointment of respondent No. 3, Dr. Rashmee Chaudhary, against the post, reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.

Respondent No. 1 advertised three posts of Assistant Professors in Business Management. One post was in the Discipline / Specialization of Marketing Management, another in Human Resource Management and the third one in Financial Management. Petitioner has passed B.Sc. in Horticulture and done MBA in Agribusiness. Admittedly, she was eligible for the post, educational qualification-wise and other eligibility conditions were.

Respondent No. 3, who has done M.Com.also applied for one of the aforesaid three posts. She, being a Master Degree Holder in Commerce, presumably applied for the post in the Discipline / Specialization of Financial Management. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 applied against the post, reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. It may be stated that one of the three posts aforesaid, was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.

Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 did not fulfil educational qualification, as also the other eligibility conditions, inasmuch as she did not possess degree of Ph.D. or degree of M.Sc. or degree of MBA or equivalent, and also, she has not qualified National Eligibility Test, in the Discipline/ Subject, she had applied for. It is also alleged that she has been wrongly awarded three marks for experience, though she did not submit any documentary proof, in support of her claim that she had some experience, for which 5 marks were allocated by the Selection Committee.

Respondents have pleaded that while the petitioner had applied for appointment in the Discipline / Specialization of Human Resource Management, respondent No. 3 had applied for appointment in the Discipline/ Specialization of Financial Management, and that one candidate in the Discipline/ Specialization of Human Resource Management, one in Marketing Management and one in Financial Management, were to be recruited in the Department of Business Management, and that two candidates in the same Specialization / Discipline could not have been appointed. According to them, another candidate, who applied for appointment in the Discipline / Specialization of Human Resource Management, namely Dr. (Ms. ) Yasmin Janjhua, was found more meritorious and better suited for the job compared to the petitioner and, therefore, she was selected and has also been appointed. It has been stated that petitioner cannot be appointed, even if appointment of respondent No. 3 is set aside, because in that situation, there will be two persons in the Discipline/ Specialization of Human Resource Management, though there is only one post.

Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, submits that in the appointment letters issued to the three selected candidates, which are Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-9, it is not mentioned that they have been appointed for any particular Discipline/ Specialization and, therefore, plea raised by the respondents is nothing, but an after-thought. Submission cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that in the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that though all the three posts were in Business Management Department, yet one post was in the Discipline / Specialization of Human Resource Management, one in Marketing Management and the third one in Financial Management. This fact indicates that the plea, taken by the respondents, is not incorrect.

Since a more meritorious and better suited candidate has already been appointed in the Discipline/ Specialization of Human Resource Management, against which post the petitioner applied and she has not challenged the appointment of that candidate, namely Dr. (Ms. ) Yasmin Janjhua, she cannot be granted any relief in the present writ petition and, therefore, it will be an exercise in futility, to look into the question, whether respondent No. 3 Dr. Rashmee Chaudhary, was eligible for the post or not. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.