AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government appearing on behalf of the first respondent, and Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. Despite service of notice, respondent nos. 3 to 5 have neither entered appearance through counsel, nor are they present in Court, and as such the writ petition is disposed of taking into consideration the submissions put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

(2.) The petitioner herein has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned select-list qua the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering; and for a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the second respondent to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.

(3.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the second-respondent issued an advertisement on 12.09.2018 inviting applications for various posts, of Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors, in different departments. In so far as the Department of Mechanical Engineering is concerned, by the said advertisement, applications were invited for six posts of Assistant Professors of which one was reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, one in favour of the other backward classes, and the other four posts were left unreserved. The petitioner, who is a graduate in Technology and a post-graduate in Mechanical Engineering, belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. He applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering, and was issued an admit-card to appear in the written examination. On his being declared to have qualified in the written examination, he was called for the interview. The petitioner was, however, not selected as an Assistant Professor on the ground that he had secured 61.13 marks, whereas respondents 3 to 5 had all secured more marks than him. It is not in dispute that, while the third respondent had secured 68.21 marks, the 4 th respondent had secured 67.52 marks, and the 5 th respondent had secured 70.86 marks. While the four posts, in the unreserved category, were filled-up by two candidates, who had secured more marks than respondents 3 to 5, the other two unreserved posts were filled up appointing respondent nos. 3 and 4, though the fifth respondent had secured more marks than them. The fifth respondent was, instead, appointed as an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineer under the Scheduled Caste category.