JAYENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein on the ground that no relief could be granted to the appellant. The two vacant posts in respect of which the petitioner desired that his candidature should be considered, were not a part of the selection process in which the appellant had participated.

(2.) The respondent had advertised for filling up two vacancies in the grade of Pharmacist in Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. The appellant was also a candidate and had applied for appointment. The appellant had qualified in the screening test conducted. A letter calling the appellant to appear for interview was issued on 17th May, 2006. The interview was to be held on 30th May, 2006. It is however contended by the appellant that the aforesaid call letter for the interview was received by him only on 2nd June, 2006 and therefore he could not appear on the said date. As his grievance was not redressed by the respondent he approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition which was dismissed as aforesaid by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that during the aforesaid selection process, apart from the two vacancies which were advertised, two more vacancies that had occurred prior to the date of the interview were also filled up.

(3.) It is further stated that two more vacancies in the grade of Pharmacist are now available and in view of the fact that the appellant had qualified in the screening test but could not appear for the interview in the earlier selection process, the candidature of the appellant should be considered against the aforesaid two fresh vacancies by allowing him to appear for interview. The said contention cannot be accepted. The earlier selection process was initiated in the year 2003 and vacancies available were filled up in 2006. The aforesaid two vacancies which are stated to be in existence in the grade of Pharmacist have occurred after the first selection process, in which the appellant was a candidate, was over. The two new vacancies are to be a part of the fresh selection process for which an advertisement will have to be issued and screening test and interview are to be held. The learned Single Judge has also noted the statement of the counsel for the respondent that the aforesaid two vacancies will have to be circulated in the employment news and other papers. Counsel for the appellant disputes the said fact. The fact that the appellant had qualified in the earlier screening test does not qualify and entitle the appellant to directly appear in the interview. The appellant will have to meet the age eligibility criteria and compete with others. Even if it is assumed that the postal department was responsible for the delay, we cannot set the clock back and direct fresh interviews that were held in May, 2006 and strike down the selections made.