GOVIND BATHAM Vs. REGISTRAR, JIWAJI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition with regard to quashment of advertisement Annexure P -2. The respondent No.1 Universtiy advertised the post with regard to the post of Lecturer Archeology, the post was reserved for SC. As per the petitioner who is a Scheduled Tribe candidate, the post has to be as per roster for ST. The petitioner also filed a copy of the roster along with the petition. As per roster first post is to be unreserved than ST then unreserved thereafter SC category.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 filed return and admitted the fact that there were four posts of lecturer in Archeology and out of 4 posts on 2 posts general category candidates were working, thereafter one post was advertised for SC category. Although from the return of the respondent No.1 it is clear that the respondent No.1 has wrongly reserved the seat for SC but subsequently the circumstance has been changed, another post of Archeology Lecturer has been advertised by the respondent No.1 for ST candidate. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner applied for the post. In the meanwhile the respondent No.2 has also been appointed as Lecturer in Archeology from SC quota.

(3.) FROM the facts stated above it is clear that there were 4 posts for Lecturer Archeology in the Jiwaji University and earlier there were two persons already appointed from general category. Vide Annexure P -2 the University advertised the post of Lecturer for Archacology. As per the roster after appointment of the general category candidate it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No.1 to appoint the candidate of ST and thereafter, general category, then SC and that roster has not been followed by the respondent No.1 but subsequently a post has already been advertised for ST candidate and the petitioner submitted his application. In such circumstances this Court cannot grant any relief in favour of the petitioner because even if the petition is allowed then also a direction can be issued to the respondents to give opportunity to the petitioner after advertisement and that has already done on merit the appointment of the respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be illegal.