KAPIL CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is 785 days' delay in filing the review petition. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. The delay is not opposed. Hence the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

(2.) Petitioner has filed review petition seeking review of the judgment of this Court. By the judgment under review this Court took note of the fact that advertisement was issued on 25.11.2009 for appointment of the posts of Assistant Professor; one in the Electronics & Communication Engineering stream was reserved for OBC. It is found that the selection committee made recommendations for appointment of eight persons. The 8th person was the petitioner. The selection committee did not make recommendation for any of the advertised streams. It is further found that when only five posts were available, question of making recommendation in favour of eight did not arise. There is reference to another advertisement published on 07.03.2013. The applications were again invited and since there was recommendation in favour of the petitioner, a direction for issuance of an appointment letter in his favour and to quash the advertisement dated 07.03.2013 is sought. The Court found that having regard to the nature of the recommendation, it may not be in a position to hold that, in fact, there was any recommendation in favour of the petitioner giving any enforceable right to the petitioner and the Court refused to interfere. The Court deemed as its duty to direct the respondent State to make abundantly clear to the members of the selection committee to ensure that recommendations be made of the people selected and appointed in respect of the posts advertised.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner would point out that in the selection process held a person was recommended who was not qualified and she is only M.C.A.. Petitioner is M.Tech. and, therefore, the writ petition should have been allowed and the petitioner should have been directed to be appointed. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the selection committee was expected to make comparative assessment, award marks and to maintain the records.