SUNIL KUMAR SAXENA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions No. 475 and 476 of 1989, filed respectively by Sunil Kumar Saxena and Mohan Lal by a common order as in both of them, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the University of Rajasthan to appoint them as Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration and in the Department of Business Administration respectively and have alleged that there has been violation of their fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE case set up by Sunil Kumar Saxena is that he is a Master of Arts in Public Administration having secured 55% marks with an added qualifica -. tion of M. Phill (Public Administration ) and also some research work. An advertisement was published by the University of Rajasthan on June 18, 1988 in a daily newspaper 'rajasthan Patrika' inviting applications for appointment in various disciplines in the faculties of the University. THE petitioner was an applicant for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration. THE Selection Committee of the University considered the candidature of the petitioner and others and prepared a select list in which the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 4. One Pradeep Saxena was at the top of the select list and he was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the month of November 1988 vide order dated November 21, 1988. THEreafter two more appointments of persons standing at Srl. No. 2 and 3 of the select list were made by an order dated January 18, 1989. One of them was Dr. (Mrs.) Manorma Joshi. She however, did not join her service and therefore, the University cancelled her appointment. According to the petitioner, therefore, one post of Assistant Professor in Public Administration became vacant and since his name stood at Sr. No. 4" of the select list, he should have been appointed by the University on this post which had fallen vacant on account of cancellation of the appointment of Dr. (Mrs.) Manorma Joshi. THE petitioner gave a notice of demand for justice, but he was not appointed. He complaints that the action of the University in depriving him of appointment as Assistant Professor in Public Administration was arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution. THE return has been filed by the University of Rajasthan and, its case is that the. appointments. of ad hoc Assistant Professor were made on the basis of requirement. THE Head. of Department in Public Administration on February 2, 1989, informed the Vice Chancellor of the University that Dr. (Mrs.) Manorma Joshi had not joined the duties till January 31, 1989 and hardly one month was left for the teaching session to close and, therefore, he did not think it advisable to appoint an Assistant Professor as he would be able to finish the courses with the existing staff and further that the matter of next appointment may, therefore, be taken up in the next session. Finally, a decision was taken by the. University not to make any further appointment on the post of Assist. Professor in the Depart-ment of Public Administration. According to the respondent, no legal right had accrued to the petitioner for appointment merely because his name was on the merit of select list.-

(3.) THE decision in S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka SRTC (2) was a case where the matter was governed by the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, which were statutory in nature and regulated the conditions of service of its employees. Regulations 10 (5) of the Regulations provided that during temporary/badli appointment, a candidate if terminated/removed from service as unsuitable for the post, he will forfeit his chance for the appointment in terms of his selection. Appellant's service in that case was terminated on the ground of being found unsuitable without affording him any opportunity of showing cause or giving an explanation. In the light of these facts, the question involved was of violation of natural justice. No question of applicability of the rules of natural justice arises in the present case.