Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 192 (UTT)

Jagdish Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-05-03

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Upper Division Clerk (in short “UDC”) which is a non-teaching post in Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University. Apparently, the petitioner after facing a duly selection process was recommended by the Selection Committee for the post of Upper Division Clerk vide office note dated 28.03.2012 which is annexed as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. The list contains the name of eight selected candidates who have been so selected on non-teaching posts. Petitioner’s name find mention at item no.4 as a selected candidate but then there is a note attached to the petitioner selection which says that objections have been raised by Non-Teaching Association of Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner would be that merely on the basis of an objection raised by the Non-Teaching Association, the candidature of the duly selected candidate could not have been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 Mr. Paresh Tripathi admit this legal position that the petitioner was duly selected but he could not have been given appointment as there is an objection from the side of Non-Teaching Association. However, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would argue that the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage as the selection is of March, 2012 and the writ petition itself has been filed in the year 2015 i.e., after a period of three and a half years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contends that this office note dated 28.03.2012 was never communicated to the petitioner and he was given the copy of the office note only on 07.05.2015 under the Right to Information Act. Since he was not having enough material to approach this Court and it is only after the said office note was made available to him he approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 further contends that though the petitioner was selected but his mere selection itself would not give any indefeasible right for appointment. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 further contends that though the petitioner was selected but his mere selection itself would not give any indefeasible right for appointment. 6. This Court is of the opinion that though for a valid reason an appointment can also be denied which is indeed a correct legal position and a candidate does not have any indefeasible right for appointment, merely because he has been selected, yet the University which is a Central University and an instrumentality of the State, was is required to give a proper explanation to the petitioner for not appointing him after he was duly selected, which is minimum required from the University. The reason that an objection has been made by the Non-Teaching Association and therefore he has not been given appointment is unreasonable. 7. Merely because there is an objection to the candidature of the petitioner by an Association cannot be a reasonable ground for denying the appointment to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is being denied appointment on better ground then reasons must exist, but nothing has come on record to show that as to why the appointment was denied to the petitioner except that there was an objection to his candidature by the Association i.e., Non-Teaching Association. 8. In view of the above, this Court directs the Vice Chancellor of the University to hear the petitioner on the representation which shall be placed before the Vice Chancellor within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. On receipt of the representation, the Vice Chancellor must pass a speaking order therein within a period of four weeks thereafter. It has already been held by this Court that the objections made by the Non-Teaching Association are not good reasons for denying the appointment to the petitioner. In case, Vice Chancellor rejects the candidature of the petitioner, he must assign reasons therein particularly in view of the fact that there is a clear cut assertion of the petitioner counsel before this Court that the post of Upper Division Clerk on which petitioner was selected and the post is still lying vacant and there is no specific denial to this aspect by the learned counsel for the University. 9. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed.