Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Som Prakash Joshi vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 2012
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
FloatingFrame
1
DBCW No.12352/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.12352/2012 Dr. Som Prakash Joshi V/s. Union of India & Ors.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Jodhpur in OA No.220/2010 - Dr. Som Prakash Joshi V/s. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment :: 11.12.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. P.M. Vyas for the petitioner.
(Per Hon'ble Mr. R.S. Chauhan J.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, whereby the learned tribunal has dismissed his original application.
2. In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner had challenged his non-appointment on the post of T-II-3 in the Central Aird Zone Research Insitute, Jodhpur.
2DBCW No.12352/2012
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Research Associate. Thus, he was eligible for the post of T-II-3. According to him, the Institute had informed the Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi (ICAR) that the Institute can absorb all the five Research Associates against the vacant posts of T-II-3 based on their qualifications provided age relaxation was permitted by ICAR. By order dated 26.12.1997, the ICAR informed the Institute that it had approved age relaxation qua three research associates, namely, Shri H.S. Panwar, Shri S.C. Vyas and Smt. Manju Mathur. However, it did not approve the age relaxation qua the petitioner. However, instead of advertising five posts, the Institute advertised only three posts of T-II-3. According to the petitioner, the selection committee recommended the case of Shri S.C. Vyas for appointment to the unserved post and recommended the names of the petitioner and Smt. Manju Mathur to be kept in the waiting list. It is the case of the petitioner that if the institute were to advertise five posts, he certainly would have been appointed against one of the two remaining posts. Aggrieved by his non- appointment, the petitioner filed an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, by 3 DBCW No.12352/2012 order dated 13.07.2012, the learned tribunal dismissed the OA. Hence, this petition before this court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Vyas, has vehemently contended that the institute had clearly communicated to the ICAR that they can absorb all the five Research Associates. Thus, there is no reason to advertise three posts. Secondly, in case the Institute were to advertise two posts, since the petitioner was in the waiting list, obviously, he would have been appointed against one of the two posts. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has ignored these glaring facts.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Both these contentions are highly misplaced. For, merely because, the Institute had informed the ICAR that they are willing to absorb all the research associates, they are not bound to advertise five posts. For, merely because assurance has been given, the rule of estoppel cannot apply to the Institute. It is, indeed, trite to state that an employer is entitled to advertise as many vacancies as he/it deems necessary. Therefore, the first argument raised by the learned counsel is without any merit. 4 DBCW No.12352/2012
7. The second argument is hypothetical one. Moreover, merely because a person has been selected does not entitle him the right to be appointed. The selection committee had considered the candidacy of the petitioner and had recommended that he be kept in the waiting list. No fault can be found with the selection made by the committee. Moreover, the petitioner has not alleged any mala fide or arbitrariness against the selection committee. Thus, the learned tribunal was certainly justified in dismissing the case of the petitioner.
8. Hence, the petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN),J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. a.asopa, S.No.126