AMIT TYAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the procedure adopted by respondent University for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor which is advertised vide advertisement Annx. 1 dated 18.6.2013.

(2.) THE main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that what procedure will be adopted for selection was not disclosed by the RPSC but at the time of calling for interview abruptly, the respondents directed the candidates to give test at random and on that basis the selections are made, which is not permissible in law.

(3.) DURING course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards the recent advertisement No. 7/14, dt. 13.2.2014 and submits that in the recent advertisement, the procedure is incorporated for selection which is in Note No. 7 of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that appointment in the university are required to be made in accordance with provisions of Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection and appointment) Act, 1974, therefore, at the time of notifying the vacancies, it was the duty of respondent -University to publicize the procedure for recruitment. But in this case, the procedure for recruitment is not provided and after calling the candidates for interview, the candidates were asked to give test abruptly and thereafter, they were interviewed.