YASHPAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , who possesses Ph.D. degree, have approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 -Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission") to allow them to apply for the posts of Assistant Professors in pursuance of Advertisement No. 7 dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure P -1), vide which recruitment process for 1396 temporary posts of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) HES -II for various subjects was initiated. This prayer is primarily based upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2386 of 2014 (Rajeev and another Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 19.02.2014 (Annexure P -3).

(2.) THE petitioners have approached this Court by asserting that they have completed their Ph.D. and were awarded degrees. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure P -1), they wanted to apply for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre). As per the conditions specified in the advertisement, National Eligibility Test (NET)/State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) has been fixed as the minimum eligibility condition for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors in Colleges, which, as per the counsel for the petitioners, is not sustainable. In support of this contention, the counsel has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajeev's case (supra), which stands allowed with a general direction that those candidates who have not passed the eligibility test but who have Ph.D. Degree to their credit, be considered for the post of Assistant Professor and, thus, his contention is that the said direction would make the petitioners also eligible for consideration for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors. The petitioners therein [in Rajeev's case (supra)] were permitted to submit their applications within 10 days from the date of passing of the order. Counsel further contends that as the condition of passing NET/SLET is no more a condition in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajeev's case (supra) the same cannot be insisted upon by the respondents and an opportunity should have been granted to other eligible candidates to submit their applications. His contention is that a publication should have been issued by the Commission. However, no such exercise has been done.

(3.) THIS contention of counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted as the advertisement was issued on 24.01.2014. Had the petitioners been aggrieved of the said condition, they should have approached the Court prior to the last date of submission of the application, which was fixed as 21.02.2014. The petitioners slept over for a period of more than two months after the last date of submission of application has expired and has now approached the Court by way of present writ petition. It would not be out of way to mention here that the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was dated 19.02.2014, which was also prior to the last date of receipt of the applications and the petitioners in that writ petition were permitted 10 days time to file their respective applications as they had approached the Court well in time.