Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

01. The petitioners have challenged Advertisement Notice dated 18.08.2005 issued by respondent No. 1, whereby applications were invited for appointment to the post of System Analyst in the department of Computer Sciences, University of Jammu. A further direction has been sought upon the respondents to fill up the post of System Analyst in the department of Computer Sciences by allocating 50% quota for in-service candidates of non- teaching side belonging to Technical Staff. Challenge has also been thrown to the appointment of respondent No. 5 as System Analyst made in terms of letter dated 31.08.2005 issued by respondent No. 1.

05. The petitioners, however, are stated to have applied for the advertised post of System Analyst alongwith other candidates including respondent No. 5 and they have also participated in the selection process by attending the interview that was held on 22.08.2005. It seems that the petitioners did not find themselves selected and instead respondent No. 5 was appointed as System Analyst in terms of impugned letter dated 31.08.2005 issued by respondent No. 1.

06. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents on the grounds that it was incumbent upon the respondents to fill up 50% of the posts of System Analysts from amongst the in-service candidates by way of promotion, having regard to the mandate of guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, which have been duly approved by the respondent-University. It has been further contended that while the respondent-University has extended the benefit of earmarking 50% posts for in-service candidates in case of non-teaching staff belonging to Central Libraries, Ministerial Staff and Secretarial Staff but the said benefit has not been extended to the technical staff, thereby violating their right to equality guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It has also been contended that the benefit of reservation of 50% quota for technical staff has been extended by the Jawaharlal University, New Delhi as also by the University of Delhi but the same is being denied to the technical staff of the respondent-University, thereby subjecting them to invidious discrimination. The petitioners have challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as System Analyst on the ground that the same has been made in violation of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission and that the said respondent is less qualified than the petitioners.

07. It seems that initially on 29.08.2005, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition on 29.08.2005 challenging therein only the Advertisement Notice dated 18.08.2005 and sought a direction upon the respondents to fill up the post of System Analyst by allocating 50% quota for the in-service candidates. A further direction was sought in the writ petition that the respondents be prohibited from making appointment to the post of System Analyst pursuant to the Advertisement Notice. However, the said writ petition came to be amended by the petitioners once respondent No. 5 was appointed as System Analyst in terms of impugned letter dated 31.08.2005.

12. After filing of the reply by the respondents, the petitioner filed rejoinder, sur-rejoinder and supplementary affidavit. In their rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have again reiterated that they are more qualified and experienced than respondent No. 5. It has been further submitted that the post of System Analyst, though carrying the same pay scale as that of selection scale of Senior Technical Assistant, yet the post of System Analyst is higher in status. It has also been submitted that even if it is assumed that there is only one post of System Analyst available, still then it was incumbent upon the official respondents to divert the said post to the in-service candidates so as to take care of requirement of earmarking 50% quota to the in-service candidates.