GADIGAYYASWAMY S.H. Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the notification dtd. 25/6/2019 published by the 3rd respondent in respect of the post of Hindi Lecturer as per Annexure-Z and has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent to fix the date of interview as per the notification dtd. 21/4/2016 at Annexure-K.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the recruitment process for the post of lecturer in Hindi subject was initiated on 26/12/2015 and for certain administrative reasons and as there were no sufficient applications of qualified candidates, the process of inviting fresh applications was recommenced as per the advertisement dtd. 21/4/2016. It is an admitted fact that the process of recruitment pursuant to the advertisement on 21/4/2016 was also dropped and it is submitted that as the president of the 3rd respondent died, the selection process could not be completed on the day fixed. It is further submitted that another notification came to be issued for filling up of the same post as per Annexure-Z dtd. 26/6/2019 as on which date, petitioner submits that he was ineligible to apply because he had crossed the age limit.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that insofar as the recruitment process of 26/12/2015 he had made his application and was eligible as is evident from Annexure-J which is a receipt for having accepted the application of petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the Notification at annexure-K dtd. 21/4/2016, those who had applied during the earlier advertisement were not required to apply afresh. It is submitted that once the petitioner was eligible under the earlier recruitment process, which was deferred subsequently, the petitioner acquires a vested right to participate in the selection process. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti and others vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others - (1990) 3 SCC 157. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondent may be at liberty to initiate a fresh notification for selection process and in light of the facts as made out, petitioner may be permitted to participate with exemption as regards age limit, if otherwise he is entitled to participate in the selection process.