ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the relief of quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 4.12.2009 passed by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent University" represented by the respondent Nos.2 and 3).

(2.) BY the impugned order it has been held that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed to the post of technical assistant/workshop instructor because petitioner fell in the unreserved category for which six posts were advertised, and all the six posts were duly filled in. Effectively what the impugned order states is that the wait list persons cannot seek appointment after the posts which have been advertised are filled in.

(3.) SO far as the first argument of the petitioner is concerned, petitioner places reliance upon last para at page 2 of the impugned order dated 4.12.2009 which shows that 8th person in the select list i.e one Sh. Vikas Gupta got appointment because an employee of the respondent University, namely Sh. Gajendra Saini was relieved for joining JNU. It is argued that if Sh. Vikas Gupta who was 8th person, and therefore not within the first six persons who were selected, was appointed because of his name being found in the wait listed candidates, petitioner therefore being immediately after Sh. Vikas Gupta at No.9 in the list, ought to have been appointed because there exists a vacancy (and which is not disputed by the respondent University) petitioner should be appointed against that vacancy. In support of this argument, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 549.