SHIVAJI COLLEGE Vs. RAJIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Shivaji College (hereafter referred to as 'the College') and the Delhi University (hereafter referred to as 'the University') preferred these two appeals against an order of the learned Single Judge which allowed the first respondent's writ petition. By the writ petition, the said respondent had challenged the cancellation/recall of his appointment.

(2.) THE facts are that the respondent was working in the College as an ad hoc Lecturer when an advertisement was issued on 13.05.2008 notifying the applications for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. The three vacancies were notified; one was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, and other for Other Backward Class category candidates and the third was unreserved. It is not disputed that the respondent applied against an unreserved category post. The advertisement contained a note which read as follows: -

(3.) THE University in its appeal argued that the provisions of Ordinance XII (3) (1) are mandatory at the relevant time when the post was advertised, there was no vacancy either anticipated or foreseeable, learned Senior Counsel for the University stressed upon the fact that the College had in the past flouted Ordinance XII (3) (1) and filled the post without advertising them by adopting the device of demanding creation of posts on account of increased workload. Counsel pointed out that all appointments had to be reported to the University under Ordinance XVIII (5). In the present case that provision was observed in breach as far as the respondent was concerned. Learned counsel relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court including Arup Das & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., (decided on 27.01.2012); Prem Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board, (1996) 4 SCC 319; Madan Lal v. State of J&K & ors, AIR 1995 SC 1088; Surender Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC 18 and Ashok Kumar v. Chairman, Banking Services Recruitment Board, AIR 1996 SC 976 and Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors., (2010) 2 SCR 239. It was submitted that all these judgments have clearly ruled that filling up future vacancies is impermissible in law. In the present case, argued learned Senior Counsel Ms. Maninder Acharya that the post in question to which the respondent was appointed was created on 25.09.2008 - after the appointment letter had been issued on 02.09.2008. The post, therefore, was clearly and undisputedly a future vacancy for which another recruitment process calling for applications based on public advertisement was essential.