NITIN DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in Commerce at the Guru Harkrishan Sahib Khalsa College, Panjokhra Sahib vide Order dated January 6, 1997. The appointment was on purely ad hoc basis as the post had already been advertised by the institution. A selection was conducted. The petitioner was considered. He was placed at No. 2 in order of merit. The selection proceedings were approved by the Kurukshetra University. A copy of the letter issued by the University on January 1, 1997 by which the selection of Rajender Pal and Nitin Dev (present petitioner) was approved is at Annexure R.2 with the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, Mr. Rajender Pal did not join. In spite of that the petitioner has not been appointed. He prays that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent College to appoint him.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the institution. It has been inter alia admitted that the petitioner's selection along with that of Rajender Pal has been duly approved by the University. It has been further stated that the Principal of the college "has already approached the University for sanction to appoint the petitioner as lecturer since Shri Rajender Pal has not joined. But the University has not given any favourable reply."

(3.) A copy of the communication sent by the college to the University on February 4, 1997 has been produced as Annexure R.3. In this letter it has been stated that offer of appointment had been sent to Rejender Pal by Registered Post but he has not joined. Consequently, the college sought permission to appoint the second person on the panel. Mr. Guliani, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 states that the reply was received from the University vide letter dated 12.2.1997. A copy of this letter on which the date has not been mentioned has been produced as Annexure R.4 with the written statement. By this letter the University had asked for a copy of the appointment letter which had been sent to Mr. Rajender Pal along with "a copy of the letter vide which he has refused to accept the offer of appointment". In response to this letter the college had sent a communication dated February 17, 1997 informing the University that Mr. Rajender Pal had not sent "any refusal or comments". Thereafter, nothing has been heard from the University.