PRITI S. BHANDARKAR Vs. CHHATTISGARH KAMDHENU VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The present petition is preferred for the reason that the petitioner initially pursuant to the advertisement made on 30.03.2013, applied for appointment to the post whereby three posts of Assistant Librarian were published by the respondent University. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she was declared the only person fulfilling all the criteria and subsequently she was shortlisted as an eligible candidate to appear for the interview. Subsequently, nothing was heard about, however, when the RTI was sought for, by letter dated 05.06.2018 it was informed that the earlier advertisement has been annulled by order dated 23.11.2016 and fresh advertisement was again made on 12.02.2016 vide Annexure P-2, wherein one post of Assistant Librarian was advertised. It is further contended that the petitioner again filed an application for appointment to the post of Assistant Librarian, however, though the petitioner was found eligible by the list which was published by the University on 05.04.2016, however, thereafter nothing was heard and she was not given any opportunity to appear for the interview or call for it. It is further contended that though the reply of the University would show that since only the single applicant was found eligible who is the petitioner herein for such reason that only single candidate was found eligible, the process of interview has not been carried forward, however, no order exists in this regard. It is stated that in the like manner for the post of Associate Professor, Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, Associate Professor Veterinary Anatomy and Professor Veterinary Anatomy though single candidates were found eligible but they were called and after interview they were appointed. It is further contended that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of East Coast Railway and another Versus Mahadev Appa Rao and others {(2010) 7 SCC 678} the right of the petitioner cannot be kept in abeyance in the arbitrary manner.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in order to advance the healthy competition, the earlier advertisement dated 30.03.2013 was canceled and in the second round too since the similar course followed i.e. only one candidate was found eligible, the process for appointment for the post of Assistant Librarian was not carried forward further. He would further submit that according to the regulations of the University for any advertisement made, the University has right to increase or decrease post/advertisement and they cannot be compelled to appoint a person. He would further submit that any criteria for calling the applicants for interview, it would be the sole discretion of the University and no appeal would lie.