Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1070 (DEL)

Shashi Aggarwal v. University of Delhi

2008-11-20

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2008
S.N. AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is a visually handicapped person. She has done her M.A. in Political Science and is stated to have also qualified NET in December, 2005. She had applied for her consideration for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) in Maitreyi College under University of Delhi pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondents 2 and 3 on 4.4.2007. However, the advertisement dated 4.4.2007 stood superseded by another advertisement issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 5.6.2007 and this subsequent advertisement was issued pursuant to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 4.4.2007 in WP(C) No.16258/2006 directing all the colleges affiliated with University of Delhi to fill up 3% vacancies reserved for physically handicapped persons. In the first advertisement issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science), applications were invited from only female candidates. However, vide subsequent advertisement dated 5.6.2007, applications were invited from both male and female candidates belonging to physically handicapped category for filling up the vacant post of Lecturer (Political Science) and other posts mentioned in the said advertisement. The petitioner again made an application for her consideration for appointment in Maitreyi College pursuant to subsequent advertisement dated 5.6.2007, which was issued pursuant to orders of the Division Bench dated 4.4.2007 in WP(C) No.16258/2006. .2. The petitioner along with other eligible candidates appeared for her interview before the Selection Committee but was found not suitable by the Selection Committee for her appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) in Maitreyi College. The Selection Committee selected respondent No.4 Sh. Yogesh Chaurasia for his appointment .to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) in Maitreyi College and his selection was against a vacant post earmarked for visually handicapped persons. The petitioner aggrieved by the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of selection and appointment of respondent No.4 and for directions to the respondents to appoint her against post of Lecturer (Political Science) with all consequential benefits. 3. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that as per policy of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Maitreyi College), only female candidates could have been appointed to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) for which the petitioner had also applied. 3. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that as per policy of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Maitreyi College), only female candidates could have been appointed to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) for which the petitioner had also applied. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 happens to be a male candidate and should not have been selected or appointed in Maitreyi College which is a college meant only for girls. 4. From the pleadings of the petitioner in the present writ petition it may be seen that she had participated in the selection process and was unsuccessful for her appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) in Maitreyi College. The detailed arguments have been heard in the matter to ascertain whether there is any policy in the University of Delhi or its affiliated colleges which prohibit appointment of male candidates in colleges meant only for girls either in teaching or non-teaching staff. 5. Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per policy in University of Delhi and its affiliated colleges, male candidates cannot be appointed either in teaching or non-teaching posts in colleges meant exclusively for girl students. Mr.Bhardwaj has referred to the contents of para 2 of his rejoinder and also the documents at pages 29 to 42 of the paper book. Relying upon these documents he has argued that in almost all colleges meant exclusively for girl students, the appointments are made only of female teachers. Mr.Bhardwaj has further contended that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Maitreyi College) themselves had issued three advertisements for filling up the vacant posts of teaching and non- teaching staff and those advertisements were issued by them firstly on 4.4.2007, second on 2.6.2007 and third on 18.12.2007. According to him the respondent Nos.2 and 3 themselves had invited applications only from female candidates in 2 out of 3 above referred advertisements issued by them. His contention is that the practice adopted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in filling up the vacant posts in Maitreyi College acquires the force of statutory rules and therefore according to him the appointment of respondent No.4 who happens to be a male candidate was contrary to rules and policy of respondents 1 to 3. .6. His contention is that the practice adopted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in filling up the vacant posts in Maitreyi College acquires the force of statutory rules and therefore according to him the appointment of respondent No.4 who happens to be a male candidate was contrary to rules and policy of respondents 1 to 3. .6. Vide order passed by this Court on 11.11.2008, the petitioner was directed to place on record the policy of Maitreyi College (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) which according to her prohibited appointment of male candidates in the said college. Vide said order the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were also directed to state on affidavit as to whether any male candidate has ever been appointed in the said college either to teaching or nonteaching post prior to the impugned appointment of respondent No.4. The respondents No.2 and 3 have filed their affidavit in compliance with the order of this Court dated 11.11.2008 but the petitioner has not placed any policy on record to show that there exists .a policy in Maitreyi College which prohibits appointment of male candidates in colleges meant exclusively for girl students. Even at the time of hearing of the case today, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not show any such policy which prohibit appointment of male candidates in colleges meant exclusively for girl students. The second advertisement issued by respondents No. 2 and 3 on 5.6.2007 was in compliance with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court given on 4.4.2007 in WP(C) No.16258/2006. Vide said advertisement the applications from physically handicapped persons including visually handicapped persons were invited from both male and female candidates. The petitioner did not make any challenge to the said advertisement at the time advertisement was issued but she chose to participate in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 5.6.2007. She has filed the present writ petition only when she was unsuccessful and could not make in for her appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science). 7. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Tyagi, Vice Principal in Maitreyi College has filed her affidavit on 17.11.2008 pursuant to directions of this Court dated 11.11.2008 wherein she has deposed that there is neither any restriction nor any prohibition under the University Calender for appointing any male member in the teaching and non-teaching staff in Maitreyi College. 7. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Tyagi, Vice Principal in Maitreyi College has filed her affidavit on 17.11.2008 pursuant to directions of this Court dated 11.11.2008 wherein she has deposed that there is neither any restriction nor any prohibition under the University Calender for appointing any male member in the teaching and non-teaching staff in Maitreyi College. She has further stated that there is no policy of Maitreyi College, framed, which prohibited appointment of male candidates in the college. Rather Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Tyagi who has filed her affidavit on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 has stated that 75 out 92 non-teaching staff members in Maitreyi College are male persons and the particulars of those male persons appointed to non-teaching staff in Maitreyi College have been annexed with the said affidavit. Mr.Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 has handed over a list of two male teachers, namely, Mr.Manoj Aggarwal and B.L.Vohra who were appointed against teaching post in Maitreyi College. From all this it can be seen that male persons have been appointed against teaching as well as non-teaching posts in Maitreyi College even prior to impugned appointment of respondent No.4. 8. I have gone through all the documents at pages 29 to 42 of the paper book relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in support of the contention that only female teachers are appointed in almost all the colleges meant exclusively for girl students. A perusal of these documents does not substantiate the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. What is mentioned in these documents, stated to have been received by the petitioner under the RTI Act, is that preference shall be given in appointment to female candidates in women colleges. Giving of preference to female candidates for appointment in women colleges does not necessarily imply that there is a policy in women colleges to make appointment only of female candidates. In the present case, the petitioner along with respondent No.4 was considered by the Selection Committee constituted for selection of suitable persons for their appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science). The Selection Committee may in its discretion might have given preference to the petitioner being a female candidate for appointment to the post in question. In the present case, the petitioner along with respondent No.4 was considered by the Selection Committee constituted for selection of suitable persons for their appointment to the post of Lecturer (Political Science). The Selection Committee may in its discretion might have given preference to the petitioner being a female candidate for appointment to the post in question. If even after preference to the female candidates is given by the Selection Committee, the Selection Committee could still be well within its right to select a male candidate if found more meritorious and competent in comparison to female candidates. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner who remained unsuccessful at the selection process cannot be allowed to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 though he happens to be a male candidate. It may be significant to mention that even respondent No.4 is a visually handicapped person and was selected against vacancy earmarked for physically handicapped person. His appointment made by a duly constituted Selection Committee cannot be questioned as the said appointment was strictly in accordance with the Rules and policy of respondents 1 to 3. I do not find any merit in the argument of Mr.Bhardwaj that that the practice in respondents No.2 and 3 college for inviting applications only from female candidates has taken the shape of statutory rules. This argument appears to be totally misconceived and is not tenable either on facts or in law. The appointment of respondent No.4 could have been questioned by the petitioner only in case it is shown that his appointment was contrary to the rules or policy of the University of Delhi and its affiliated colleges, which is not the case here. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.