R P KHATAK Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. P. Khatak through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus prohibiting the respondents from approving the recommendations made by the Selection Committee with regard to Bhagat Singh-respondent No. 4 as Lecturer in the Department of Ancient History and further to approve the recommendations made by the Selection Committee qua the petitioner and to place him at Sr. No. 1 in the panel.

(2.) The facts, as projected in the petition, reveal that respondent No. 4 did his matriculation in 1985, Senior Secondary (10 + 2) in November, 1987 and B. A. in June, 1989 whereas petitioner, did M. Phil in 1992 and started teaching. The Government of Haryana reviewed its reservation policy on November 9, 1994. The Scheduled Castes in Haryana were put in two categories, i. e. Block 'a' and 'b'. In case suitable candidates from Block 'a' were not available, candidates from Block 'b' were to be recruited. Petitioner belongs to Block 'a' category whereas respondent No. 4 belongs to Block 'b' category. It is further the case of the petitioner that the new reservation policy was adopted by the respondent University w. e. f. September 9, 1995. The respondent University advertised number of posts in different departments on January 25, 1997 vide advertisement, Annexure P-1. One post of Lecturer in Ancient Indian History was also advertised and it was reserved for SC candidates. The petitioner fulfilled eligibility requirements as prescribed vide Annexure P-1 and P-2. February 20, 1997 was the last date for submission of applications on prescribed form and petitioner applied prior to the last date. The Selection Committee interviewed the candidates on September 25, 1997 and the petitioner as also respondent No. 4 were also interviewed. Respondent No. 4 were recommended at Sr. No. 1 whereas petitioner was recommended at Sr. No. 2.

(3.) As mentioned above, the case of the petitioner is that inasmuch as the petitioner belongs to category 'a' whereas respondent No. 4 belongs to category 'b', petitioner had right of precedence for appointment over respondent No. 4. For his aforestated contention, sole reliance has been placed upon policy, Annexure P-16, relevant part whereof, reads as follows :-