Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdev Singh vs Punjabi University on 4 July, 2012
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Jain
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No.12319 of 2012
Date of Decision: 4.7.2012
Jagdev Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Punjabi University, Patiala and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.
Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) This writ petition has been filed invoking the PIL jurisdiction of this Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash advertisement dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P3) issued by respondent No.1 to fill up 200 posts of Clerk on regular/contract basis and also the advertisement dated 20.6.2012 for filling up the vacancies of various teaching as well as non-teaching staff.
The facts borne out of the record go to show that earlier writ petition was filed in this Court registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 11556 of 2009 challenging therein the appointments made on the posts of Clerks, teaching and non teaching staff by the University-respondent No.1 through back door entries without issuing any advertisement. This Court in that writ petition had directed respondent No.1 to fill up the posts through advertisement and till then ad-hoc/contractual employees Civil Writ Petition No.12319 of 2012 2 were allowed to continue. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, respondent No.1 has issued advertisement dated 14.5.2012 for filling up 200 posts of Clerks and another advertisement dated 20.6.2012 inviting the applications for filling the posts of teaching as well as non-teaching staff. In both the advertisements a condition has been imposed requiring the candidate to have experience of working on such post for which he is applying. The experience prescribed for the post of Clerk is to the following effect:-
"1. XXX XXX XXX
2. Minimum one year experience as Clerk in any recognized University or College or other Higher Educational Institution.
3. XXX XXX XXX
4. XXX XXX XXX."
A note has also been appended to the advertisement wherein it has been laid down that preference shall be given to the candidate having experience of working in any University. Similar qualification and note has been inserted in the advertisement issued for filling up the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff though the period of experience prescribed varies from post to post.
The petitioner, inter-alia, has challenged in this writ petition the qualification regarding experience extracted above and also the note appended to both the advertisements impugned herein, on the ground that by laying down the said qualification and giving preference to the candidates who have earned experience from the Universities only the Civil Writ Petition No.12319 of 2012 3 respondents have tried to extend benefit to those candidates who are already appointed on the posts through back door entries without issuing any advertisement. He further contends that the qualification impugned herein would give benefit to such employees and they will steal march over the other candidates having earned experience from the other institutions. In these circumstances, he has made a prayer to quash the impugned advertisements or in the alternative to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give benefit of past service/experience to those candidates who were appointed through back door without advertising the posts.
We feel that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. In service jurisprudence appointment is an individual right of a candidate and the candidate whose right is effected is a proper party to challenge the conditions or qualification prescribed in the advertisement which adversely effects such candidate. None of the effected candidate is before us to raise his/her grievance against the qualification prescribed in the impugned advertisements. Further, at this stage it cannot be said that the earlier appointees would be again selected. This writ petition is totally based on apprehensions. As per the qualification prescribed for filling up the posts in question, a candidate should have minimum experience of working in any university or college or any other higher educational institution and in the note appended to the advertisement it is only stated that preference will be given to the candidates who have worked in the Universities. In this region, there are a large number of Universities and there may be a large number of Civil Writ Petition No.12319 of 2012 4 candidates who have earned experience from those Universities and have applied for the posts in pursuant to the impugned advertisements. During the selection process, candidates having earned experience from the other universities may also be selected. The grievance based on the apprehension, therefore, is premature at this stage because the selection process has not yet been completed. Otherwise also, it is a service matter. As per the verdict of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr. Daryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Others AIR 1999 (Supreme Court) 114, public interest litigation in respect of service matter does not lie.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge July 4, 2012 "DK"