Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 852 (HP)

Anita Pathania v. H. P. University

2014-07-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 9th August, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2075 of 2012, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner came to be dismissed (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”). 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment is legal one and needs no interference for the following reasons: 3. The appellant-writ petitioner, by the medium of CWP No. 2075 of 2012, has sought the following relief amongst others : “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to declare the result of selection of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) in Education in (ICDEOL), H.P. University, Shimla on the basis of the interview held on 23.9.2010, by applying the qualifications at Annexure P-4 as per advertisement at Annexure P-7 instead of applying the revised qualifications at Annexure P-8 as held by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2010 passed in CWP No.5825 of 2010 titled Anita Pathania Vs. H.P. University & Another; and she may be given appointment as such w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits.” 4. Precisely, the case of the appellant-writ petitioner in the said writ petition was that the respondents be directed to declare the result of the appellant-writ petitioner and appoint her against the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in Education in ICDEOL, H.P. University, Shimla in terms of the interview held on 23rd September, 2010, by applying the qualifications contained in Annexures P-4 and P-7 instead of applying revised qualifications mentioned at Annexure P-8. 5. The writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 2075 of 2012, on the face of it, was caught by the principle of res judicata for the reason that the appellant-writ petitioner had already filed a writ petition, being CWP No. 5825 of 2010, before this Court for the same relief. It is apt to reproduce the reliefs sought by the appellant-writ petitioner in CWP No. 5825 of 2010 herein : “(i). It is apt to reproduce the reliefs sought by the appellant-writ petitioner in CWP No. 5825 of 2010 herein : “(i). That the respondents may very kindly be restrained from applying the qualifications notified by the UGC vide notification dated 28.6.2010 at Annexure P-8 for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Process (lecturer) in Education in H.P. University, Shimla and the recruitment be made on the basis of advertisement No.1/2010, dated 9.4.2010 at Annexure P-7 and the respondents may further be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the post in question scheduled to be held on 23.9.2010. (ii) That the Addendum dated 9.7.2010, whereby the respondents have notified that all the appointments including for the post of Assistant Professor in Education as advertised at Annexure P-7 will be made as per revised/new guidelines/qualifications as notified by the UGC on 28.6.2010, may also be quashed and set aside. (iii). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” 6. The main reliefs sought in CWP No. 5825 of 2010 were to quash Annexure P-8, dated 28th June, 2010 and the addendum, dated 9th July, 2010, whereby the selections / appointments to the post of Assistant Professor in Education were to be made in terms of the revised/new guidelines/qualifications. The writ Court has not granted the said reliefs, rather, has granted the relief, vide judgment, dated 28th October, 2010, as under : “8. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent directing the University to treat the petitioners as eligible in terms of advertisement Annexure P-7.” (Emphasis added) 7. Thus, the reliefs (supra) have not been granted to the appellant-writ petitioner and she has not questioned the same, has attained finality, thus, precluded from seeking the same relief by the medium of subsequent writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 2075 of 2012. 8. The writ Court, while examining the pleadings of the parties, has rightly held that the case of the appellant-writ petitioner was considered, was not found eligible and cannot seek directions to the respondents to select her. The writ Court has also held that the appellant-writ petitioner has not questioned the selection of other candidates, whose selection has been made as per the revised guidelines/qualifications and were also not party to the writ petition. The writ Court has also held that the appellant-writ petitioner has not questioned the selection of other candidates, whose selection has been made as per the revised guidelines/qualifications and were also not party to the writ petition. The writ Court has made a detailed discussion of the facts, circumstances and the law applicable, which is well reason and legal one. 9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.