SURESH CHANDRA PHULARA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) The petitioner herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos.3 and 4 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology) in the respondent-institute; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology) in the Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Pauri Garhwal.

(3.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner, who possesses a post-graduate degree in Biotechnology from the Govind Ballabh Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Pauri Garhwal in the year 2011 with first division, completed his Ph.D on 30/7/2018. The third respondent issued an advertisement for faculty positions in the Institute for different streams vide advertisement dtd. 8/6/2013 published in the daily "Amar Ujala" on 9/6/2013 which included, among others, four posts of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology), out of which one post was under the unreserved category. The petitioner submitted his application pursuant to the said advertisement, and was among the ten candidates who participated in the interview on 27/5/2018. The petitioner secured the highest marks in the interview. He was, however, not issued any letter of appointment. In the month of July, 2018, the petitioner claim to have learnt from one Jagdish Chandra Pandey that he had obtained some information from the Institute, under the Right to Information Act, as per which the Selection Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology). Contending that he ought to have been appointed, pursuant to the selection exercise undertaken in the year 2013, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.