AMAN KAUSHIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the selection of respondent No.4 as Assistant Professor in the Department of Food Engineering, being illegal and arbitrary and a result of favouritism, at the cost of the petitioner. Similarly, selection of respondent No.5, in the Department of Food Business Management and Entrepreneurship Development in the category of Physically Handicapped Category instead of General Category, has also been challenged, on account of the fact that petitioner is being deprived of appointment as Assistant Professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology (FST) in the Physically Handicapped (Persons With Physical Disability) [PH PWD)] Category. Resultantly, a writ of mandamus is sought for issuance of directions to respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor along with all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears of pay, from the date of the appointment of others, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 24.07.2016 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he belongs to the category of persons with disability and certificate dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure P-1), showing his disability as 42% on account of limitation of movement of both hips, knees, ankle, left elbow, shoulder with deformity, has been appended. It is the case of the petitioner that vide the above-said advertisement, applications were invited by respondent No.2 for various faculty posts including Assistant Professors which were 8 in number and there were 2 posts for FST and it was also mentioned that 2 posts were reserved for the Persons With Disability PH (PWD). Thereafter, corrigendum dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) was issued, raising the number of posts under FST Category to 3 while reducing the posts from FBM from 3 to 2. Petitioner being eligible had applied in response to the said advertisement for the posts of Assistant Professors in FST for which the minimum qualifications were as under:

(3.) Initially the petitioner was not being considered eligible as he had passed his M.Tech in Food Safety and Quality Management (FSQM) from the same institute in the year 2014. Resultantly, he had given a representation dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P-7) that his M.Tech Degree in FSQM should be considered to make him eligible. It is not disputed that the said representation was considered favourably by the Chairman of the Screening Committee vide communication dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure R-2/1) and his candidature was recommended on account of the fact that it was one of the preferential area of specialization. On account of the said recommendation, petitioner was called for interview on 16.02.2017, vide communication dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-8), but not appointed. However, on account of the private-respondents being appointed, he has filed the present writ petition on the ground that he had a right against the 2 posts advertised for the PH (PWD) and that respondent No.5 had been selected in the said category, inspite of his merit and he should have been appointed in the General Category. It was also pleaded that he had wrongly been given 7 marks in the interview despite his best performance and because respondent No.3, the Director/Vice Chancellor of the Institute was biased against him. However, the said person has not been impleaded as party in person to give him an opportunity to rebut the allegations of mala fides.