LAKSHMI NARAYAN ARYA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working on the post of Sports Officer at Dr. B.S. Government College, Hazeera, Gwalior and the petitioner is having qualification of Ph.D. and other research experience, U.G. level teaching experience for three years and fulfilled all the norms of UGC for the post of Director, Physical Education. Respondent was constituted under Jiwaji University Act, 1963 (in short "Act, 1963"). After commencement of M.P. Vishwavidyalala Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short "Adhiniyam, 1973"), the Act, 1963 was repealed and presently all conduct of business, appointments and further regulations were controlled by the Adhiniyam, 1973. Earlier, post of Director, Physical Education was notified as post of Officer of University as per the Statute 20 framed by the Jiwaji University, but respondent has wrongly been notified the aforesaid post as a non-teaching post because the courses of physical education are being taught. Coordination Committee has decided to remove the post of Director, Physical Education thereby amending Statute 20 and included it as a teaching post. Under such situation, the impugned advertisement is in contravention of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Respondents has conducted the recruitment and selection process against the Rules. Therefore, the respondents' act for advertising the aforesaid post as a non-teaching post is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the decision taken by the Coordination Committee. In view of the provisions of Ss. 34, 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, the resolution passed by the Coordination Committee is binding upon the respondents. Due to the wrong process of selection, legal rights of the petitioner is being violated. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition has been filed.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer by submitting in their return that the petitioner has already participated in the recruitment process and between the process of finalization of the recruitment process, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement, in which he himself has applied for. He accepted the condition of the said advertisement, therefore, he is estopped from challenging the same. Hence, this petition is not maintainable.