Dr. Amit Tyagi vs State and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—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.

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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the advertisement dt. 18.6.2013, no procedure was publicized by respondents, therefore, the whole process of selection undertaken by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor in the University is illegal, therefore, appointment made in favour of respondent No. 4 and 5 may be quashed.

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.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, non-disclosure of the procedure in the advertisement is a pure and simple illegality, therefore, selection made in favour of respondent No. 4 and 5 may be quashed.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, a pointed query is made to counsel for the petitioner is whether the procedure which is now expressly provided in the advertisement dt. 13.2.2014 was followed at the time of selection or not. It is replied that same procedure was adopted but it was not disclosed in the earlier advertisement.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the recent advertisement in which following procedure is laid down:--

Interview procedure may include: Spot test of the subject knowledge, Group discussion and Presentation/Teaching followed by individual interview.

Candidates are expected to be proficient in Hindi and English.

Admittedly, the aforesaid procedure which is now disclosed was followed in earlier selection, therefore, it cannot be said that respondents have violated any procedure enumerated in the Rules for appointment. More so, same procedure which is earlier adopted for selection is now incorporated in the advertisement meaning thereby, the respondents have followed the procedure for selection in initial appointment in which there is no illegality, hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.