ARTI SINGH Vs. GURU GHASIDAS VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the quashment of the entire advertisement dated 03.06.2019 floated by the respondent No. 1 University.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in HRDC from the previous advertisement that was published by the respondents on 29.07.2016. The recruitment process initiated from the said advertisement dated 29.07.2016 had not been finalized when the respondents had now issued another rolling advertisement on 03.06.2019 (Annexure P-3). According to the petitioner as per the subsequent advertisement he has to apply again for the post for which he had already applied in the previous advertisement dated 29.07.2016. This, according to the petitioner is bad in law and is contravention to the norms, regulations and guidelines framed by the UGC.

(3.) Further contention of the petitioner is that the impugned advertisement is also bad in law for the reason the respondents have vide the fresh rolling advertisement that has been published have applied the benefits of reservation arising out of the 103rd amendment to the Constitution of India thereby, reserving the percentage of seats to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). This again according to the petitioner is in contravention to the various judgment of the Supreme Court passed time and again and also the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court under similar circumstances in couple of writ petitions.