AMARJIT SINGH NAURA Vs. P.U. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not issuing him appointment letter.

(2.) The brief facts are that post of the Assistant Professor in Bio- Chemistry (and other posts in other specialisations) were advertised, the last date for which was 27.07.2009. The petitioner applied and, in an interview held on 23.06.2010 was selected at No.1. The selection was duly approved by the Syndicate on 29.06.2010 and was subsequently approved by the senate also. However, subsequently the appointment letter has been withheld on the grounds that the petitoner did not meet some stipulation laid down by the UGC on 28.6.2010. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the precise grievance of the petitioner is that the qualification which may have been prescribed after the date of the advertisement would have no application on the case of the petitioner. It is now beyond the pale of any controversy that the qualifications cannot be changed after the advertisement has been issued. In Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another, 1997 4 SCC 18 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

(3.) Similarly in Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig(Dead) by Lrs and others, 1999 1 SCC 544 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 6 and 7 held as follows: