ATUL BHARDWAJ Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition, seeks the relief and directions from this Court for quashing of the recruitment process initiated by the respondent no.2/college for appointment to the post of Lecturer of ,,Shalakya Tantra in terms of the advertisement dated 14.12.2012. Petitioner states that since as per the earlier recruitment process with respect to which advertisement was issued on 9.9.2000 and 19.2.2010 for the very post of Lecturer in Shalakya Tantra there was completion of process when the candidates including the petitioner sat in the written examination, cleared the written examination, were called for the interview on 11.4.2011, selection committee selected the petitioner, but since illegally no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, petitioner deserves to be given appointment. Petitioner claims that there cannot be a fresh selection process once earlier selection process has been concluded and consequently there is vested right in the petitioner to seek appointment as per the selection process because respondent no.2 has no valid reasons to scrap the finalized recruitment process.

(2.) ON behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, what is contended is that in the professional course which is being run by the respondent no.2, namely B.A.M.S. course, the subject of Shalakya Tantra is only to be taught in third semester of the course which is in third year, and since the inspection by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) was delayed upto February, 2013 therefore the select panel created for the appointment to the post of Shalakya Tantra in terms of the selection process concluding with the interview conducted on 11.4.2011 was scrapped because appointment of Lecturer of Shalakya Tantra would have caused unnecessary expenditure upon the respondent no.1/Institute for a subject which was not to be taught for about two years or so after the finalization of the selection process on 11.4.2011.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid para shows that no doubt qualified candidates in the recruitment process do not acquire any right to the posts and do not have indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies, however, Supreme Court has simultaneously held that the State does not have the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner by not filling up the vacancies and the decision not to fill up vacancies has to be taken for bonafide and appropriate reasons. I have therefore to examine in the facts of the present case whether non -filling up of the posts is for bonafide and appropriate reasons.