RAMESH CHAND VERMA Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner takes strong exception to re-advertising the post against which he had been selected. Through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he thus seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as quash the decision of the respondent-Panjab University not to appoint him to the post of Professor in Physics and instead to readvertise the post.

(2.) The facts as projected in the writ reveal that the Panjab University, Chandigarh, vide advertisement dated September 22, 1997 invited applications for certain posts of Professors, Readers, Lecturers and Research Associates in various subjects. Petitioner, being interested in the post of Professor in Physics, obtained "Detailed Instructions" containing qualifications, specializations etc. from the respondent University and applied for the post. In response to the application sent by him, he received an interview letter dated January 23, 1998 vide which he was asked to appear before the Selection Committee on February 13, 1998. He appeared before the Selection Committee on February 13, 1998 and was subject to a rigorous interview by the members of the Selection Committee and he was selected as Professor of Physics. Despite proper selection having been made, respondent University, in a wholly illegal manner, had readvertised the post, thus, constraining him to file the present petition.

(3.) On the facts, as have been stated above, the Court issued notice to the respondent University, which, after service, entered defence and contested the claim of the petitioner. It has, inter-alia, been pleaded in the written statement filed on its behalf that five Readers of the Department of Physics, Panjab University, vide their joint representation dated March 16, 1998 represented that the Screening Committee, as per their understanding, had made a mandatory requirement of experience of at least five years as Reader or equivalent, in addition to other requirements for the candidates to be called for interview and no exception to this requirement was made by the Committee. It was represented that the petitioner did not complete five years experience either as Reader or on equivalent post. Giving the details of his service experience as Reader or equivalent, they represented that the total experience of the petitioner as Reader or equivalent comes to 4 years, 8 months and 22 days and there was no reasons for him to be shortlisted by the Screening Committee because the Committee screened out candidates even with a continuous Readership experience of as high as 4 years and 10 months. They requested that this should be looked into carefully before taking any final decision about appointing him in case he is selected. Petitioner had also sent a letter dated March 28, 1998 as also another letter dated April 27, 1998 requesting the Vice Chancellor to protect his legitimate interest in regard to his appointment as Professor of Physics. Giving details of his teaching experience in the said letters, he maintained that his total experience as Reader/Professor exceeded five years. The matter regarding verification of petitioner's experience as Reader, as per the Syndicate's decision dated March 21, 1998, was referred by the Vice Chancellor to the Screening Committee for consideration and opinion since it was on the recommendation of the Screening Committee that the petitioner had been called for interview. The Screening Committee met for the purpose of April 28, 1998 and it examined the case and found that the total experience of the petitioner as Reader or equivalent comes to 4 years, 8 months and 21 days as on October 27, 1997, the last date for receipt of applications for the post of Professor in Physics as detailed below :