AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is with regard to selection and engagement as against the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Health Dentistry in terms of the advertisement issued on 08.01.2025 by the Principal SCB Dental College and Hospital, Cuttack, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
While W.P.(C) No.5440 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner therein with a prayer to quash notice dated 22.01.2025, so issued by the Principal SCB Dental College and Hospital, Cuttack and with a further prayer to direct Opp. Party No.3 therein to appoint the petitioner as against the post in question, W.P.(C) No.8819 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Provisional Merit List issued on 17.01.2025 under Annexure-8, as against the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Health Dentistry and with a further prayer to appoint the petitioner as against the said post.
However, since the Provisional Merit List so issued on 17.01.2025 is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.8819 of 2025 and petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5440 of 2025, raises her claim in terms of the said Provisional Merit List, W.P.(C) No.8819 of 2025 was taken as the lead case for effectual adjudication of the lis.
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner (in W.P. (C) No.8819 of 2025) contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 08.01.2025 by Opp. Party No.2, inviting application to fill up different contractual posts in SCB Dental College and Hospital, Cuttack. Petitioner made her application as against the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Health Dentistry, where the vacancy was indicated at 01.
It is contended that since Opp. Party No.5 who has been found eligible to get the benefit of selection and engagement as against the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Health Dentistry, is not having the required qualification and eligibility, her selection so reflected in the Provisional Merit List published on 17.01.2025 under Annexure-8, requires interference of this Court.
It is contended that in addition to the eligibility and qualification prescribed in Para-5 of the advertisement dated 08.01.2025 under Annexure-4, as provided in the Resolution issued by the Govt. in the Health and Family Welfare Department on 25.04.2022 under Annexure-5, in addition to the eligibility and qualification for the post of Assistant Professor so prescribed in the advertisement, a candidate must have Additional Teaching Experience.
It is contended that since as provided in the Resolution dated 25.04.2022 under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No.5 does not have the required Additional Teaching Experience, her selection could not have been made with publication of the impugned Provisional Merit List under Annexure-8. Stipulation contained in the Resolution reads as follows:-
“5.2.Qualification:-
The candidates must possess MD/MS/MDS/DNB degree in the concerned discipline from any NMC/MCI/DCI permitted /approved/recognized Medical/Dental College and/or any other academic qualification with such additional teaching experience in the subject as per Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022 of NMC as amended from time to time. Candidates having M.Sc. (medical subjects) in pre and para clinical subjects (approved by NMC/MCI) may be considered if sufficient candidates with PG degree/DNB are not available and subject to the limitations as may be prescribed by NMC/MCI from time to time. The candidates having DM/M.ch./DNB or equivalent degree are not required any additional teaching experience.”
It is also contended that as provided in the guideline issued by the National Medical Commission on 14.02.2022 under Annexure-6 for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Health Dentistry, a candidate must possess the following qualification:-
Assistant Professor MD/MS/DNB in the One year as Senior Resident in the concerned subject concerned subject in a recognized/permitted medical college after acquiring MD/MS Degree.
It is contended that since Opp. Party No.5 does not have the required Additional Teaching Experience so provided in the Resolution dated 25.04.2022 under Annexure-5 and the required (1) one year Senior Residency in the concerned subject after appearing MD/MS degree in terms of NMC guideline under Annexure-6, Opp. Party No.5 being ineligible to make the application, she should not have been selected with publication of the Provisional Merit List under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that selection of Opp. Party No.5 as against the post in question being illegal, it requires interference of this Court.
It is however contended that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 27.03.2025, the post in question has not yet been filled up.
Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.5/Petitioner in W.P. (C) No.5440 of 2025 on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed and the stand taken in W.P. (C) No.5440 of 2025, contended that after publication of the advertisement dated 08.01.2025 under Annexure-4, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8819 of 2025, approached this Court by challenging the advertisement in W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025.
Taking into account the nature of interim order passed in W.P. (C) No.1733 of 2025 on 21.01.2025, when notice dated 22.01.2025 was issued by Opp. Party No.3, making the filling up the posts of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Health Dentistry in abeyance, till disposal of W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025, W.P.(C) No.5440 of 2025 was filed challenging notice dated 22.01.2025.
It is however contended that W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025 was subsequently withdrawn by the present petitioner and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 11.04.2025. But prior to such withdrawal of W.P. (C) No.1733 of 2025, W.P. (C) No.8819 of 2025 was filed challenging the Provisional Select List issued on 17.01.2025 under Annexure-8, on 25.03.2025 and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 27.03.2025, the post in question has not yet been filled up, even though Opp. Party No.5 was found eligible to get the benefit of selection and engagement.
Learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.5 (Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5440 of 2025) contended that since petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8819 of 2025, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025 challenging the advertisement so issued under Annexure-4 on the ground that the same is not in the line of the guideline issued by the Medical Council of India as well as Dental Council of India, in view of the withdrawal of the said writ petition, the present Writ Petition so filed challenging the Provisional Select List issued on 17.01.2025 on the ground that the advertisement is a defective one being not in terms of the Resolution issued by the Govt. on 25.04.2022 under Annexure-5 and the National Medical Council on 14.02.2022 under Annexure-6 is not entertainable.
It is contended that once the challenge made to the advertisement dtd.08.01.2025 in W.P. (C) No.1733 of 2025 was withdrawn by the petitioner, similar challenge made to the advertisement is not permissible and barred by the principle of res-judicata. Not only that challenge to the advertisement can not be made with a different plea so taken in the present Writ Petition. Petitioner instead of withdrawing W.P. (C) No.1733 of 2025, could have taken the other pleas available to her by amending the Writ Petition. Since challenge made to the advertisement in W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025 was not pressed and the writ petition was withdrawn vide order dtd.11.04.2025, challenge to the selection of Opp. Party No.5 on the ground that the advertisement is contrary to the Resolution issued under Annexure-5 and 6 is not entertainable.
It is further contended that, since pursuant to the advertisement issued on 08.01.2025 under Annexure-4, petitioner participated in the selection process and challenge made to the advertisement in W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025 was not pressed, after becoming unsuccessful in the selection process, challenge made to the selection of Opp. Party No.5 under Annexure-8, is not maintainable. In support of such submission reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-5, 17, 18, 20 & 21 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
“5.The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed [K. Sivasubramaniyan v. Madras Institute of Development Studies, 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1046 : (2007) 1 CTC 207] the writ petition by a reasoned judgment on two grounds. Firstly, it was held that the writ petition was not maintainable inasmuch as the Institute is not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge secondly held that there is no discrepancy with regard to the qualification mentioned in the advertisement and the service rules. Finally, the learned Single Judge held that Respondent 1-writ petitioner having taken part in the selection process without raising any objection cannot challenge the selection process after being declared unsuccessful by not including his name in the selection list.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
17.In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [(2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256] , this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed : (SCC p. 584, para 16)
“16.We also agree with the High Court [Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 321 : (2009) 1 AIR Jhar R 1015] that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.”
18.In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [(2013) 11 SCC 309 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 129] , recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under : (SCC p. 320, para 24)
“24.In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge [Anil Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 SCC OnLine Utt 521] and the Division Bench [Ravi Shankar Joshi v. Anil Joshi, 2012 SCC OnLine Utt 766] of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
20.Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, we are of the definite opinion that the Division Bench has committed grave error in law by passing the impugned judgment reversing the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
21.We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment [ Writ Appeal No. 167 of 2008, order dated 9-1-2012 (Mad)] and order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 167 of 2008 and hold that the respondent-writ petitioner has no merit in the case inasmuch as there is no illegality in the decision dated 14-8-2006 taken by the appellant Institute for appointment of aforesaid Respondents 2 to 6 to the post of Associate Professor.”
Reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Kunilata Dutta Vs. State of Orissa and Others, reported in 2010 (Suppl.II) OLR 437. This Court in Para-12 of the judgment has held as follows:-
“12.Additionally, it is seen that the petitioner has applied to be selected in the second advertisement also. Now after being unsuccessful in her attempt to get selected, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the advertisement dated 09.07.2007. In Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Utteranchal and others, (2008) 4 SCC 171-2009 AIR SCW 3265; the Apex Court held that when the petitioner took a chance by appearing in the selection process and only after they did not find themselves as successful candidates, they cannot challenge the selection process. In other words, when the petitioner has applied for being selected and took part in the selection process without any demur, she cannot later on challenge the issuance of the second advertisement. She is estopped and precluded the questioning the said selection process.”
In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.5 relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and Others Vrs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-9 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
“9.Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.”
It is further contended that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-4, the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Professor and procedure for selection so indicate in Para-5 and 5(D) reads as follows:-
“5.“Must have possessed MDS or equivalent degree in the concerned specialty as per Teachers Eligibility criteria of DCI/NDC in force and guidelines laid down by Govt. of Odisha for recruitment of Asst. Professors on contractual basis vide Resolution No.8967/H, Dt.25.04.2022.
The above qualifications must have been obtained on or before the last date of submission of application for counselling/interview.
Must have valid up to date dental registration along with registration of additional qualification under any state council of Dental Registration after obtaining the degree.”
“5.D. Procedure of selection b. Selection of Assistant Professor will be strictly on the basis of merit list prepared on basis of career marks. Weightage for different examinations shall be as under: i. HSC/Matriculation-20% of total percentage of marks secured. ii. Intermediate Science-20% of total percentage of marks secured. iii. BDS examination-60% of total percentage of marks secured. iv. In case of candidates who have passed MDS in 2016-17 and after wards, BDS Exam-30%, MDS Exam - 30%. One mark will be deducted from the total Career Mark for each extra attempt taken to pass the examinations. c. In case of tie, it will be resolved as follows: "The candidate securing more mark in BDS shall be placed in higher rank. In case of further tie the elderly candidates shall be placed higher in rank to the younger." d. The selection authority at their discretion may short-list the merit list to a reasonable number as per available vacancy. e. In case the candidate appointed, fails to join in time, then the next candidate in the panel for the subject may be given a chance. f. Any clarification / corrigendum / addendum to this advertisement if required shall be issued by the Principal, SCBDCH, Cuttack and shall be final and binding and will be a part of the advertisement. g. All communication shall be made through the website of SCBDCH, Cuttack i.e. www.scbdental.odisha.gov.in. No Postal/ personal communication will be made.”
Since in the advertisement so issued, there was no stipulation with regard to any further qualification or experience so reflected in Annexure-5 and 6 and petitioner knowing fully well about the prescribed qualification as well as selection procedure for the post of Assistant Professor participated in the selection process in terms of advertisement dtd.08.01.2025, after becoming unsuccessful, no challenge can be made to the process of selection.
It is also contended that in the Provisional Merit List so issued under Annexure-8, Opp. Party No.5 since has secured more mark than the petitioner, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the selection of Opp. Party No.5(Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5440 of 2025).
Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.5 submitted that petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and in the alternate Opp. Party No.2 be directed to provide appointment to Opp. Party No.5, basing on the provisional select list issued under Annexure-8.
To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.5, learned counsel for the petitioner made further submission basing on the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit so filed. It is contended that even though petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to Annexure-4, but in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17, such challenge can be made on the face of her participation. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-17 and 19 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
“17.However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
19.The appellant has thus rightly not challenged the selection procedure but has narrowed her claim to only against the respondents' interpretation of “work experience” as part of merit determination. Since interpretation of a statute or rule is the exclusive domain of courts, and given the scope of judicial review in delineating such criteria, the appellant's challenge cannot be turned down at the threshold. However, we are not commenting specifically on the merit of the appellant's case, and our determination is alien to the outcome of the selection process. It is possible post what is held hereinafter that she be selected, or not.”
It is also contended that since in terms of the qualification prescribed in Resolution dated 25.04.2022 under Annexure-5 and 14.02.2022 under Annexure-6, Opp. Party No.5 does not have the required Additional Teaching Experience and one year Senior Residency, not only the qualification prescribed in the advertisement under Annexure-4 is illegal, but also the process of selection made in terms of the said advertisement.
It is also contended that even though petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging the advertisement in W.P. (C) No.1733 of 2025, but the same since was disposed of as withdrawn, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Daryao Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1961 SCC OnLine SC 21, there was no bar to file the present Writ Petition challenging the selection of Opp. Party No.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-26 of the said decision has held as follows:-
“26.We must now proceed to state our conclusion on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. We hold that if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and is dismissed the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High Court may themselves be relevant even under Article 32. If a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature of the order. If the order is on the merits it would be a bar; if the order shows that the dismissal was for the reason that the petitioner was guilty of laches or that he had an alternative remedy it would not be a bar, except in cases which we have already indicated. If the petition is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata. It is true that, prima facie, dismissal in limine even without passing a speaking order in that behalf may strongly suggest that the Court took the view that there was no substance in the petition at all; but in the absence of a speaking order it would not be easy to decide what factors weighed in the mind of the Court and that makes it difficult and unsafe to hold that such a summary dismissal is a dismissal on merits and as such constitutes a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed under Article 32. If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other. It is in the light of this decision that we will now proceed to examine the position in the six petitions before us.”
Reliance was also placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Iyyaswamy Vs. B. Padmini, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 13418. High Court at Madras in Para-5 of the decision has held as follows:-
“....5. Needless to point out that the order of the learned District Munsif is far from satisfactory. This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly point out that while dealing with an Application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to either allow it in toto or dismiss it. There cannot be a partial allowing of the application, thereby dismissing the suit as withdrawn and not granting liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit. The order of the learned District Munsif is therefore liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. Things do not terminate there. Admittedly, the District Munsif Court, Kotagiri has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The suit should have been actually filed at the District Munsif's Court, Coonoor. The next question that would arise is what is the duty of the Court which realises that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for such an eventuality..”
I have heard Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8819 of 2025, Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5440 of 2025 and Opp. Party No.5 in W.P.(C) No.8819 of 2025 and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate in both the cases. On the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and with due exchange of the pleadings, the matter was heard at the stage of admission and disposed of by the present common order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.5 participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued by Opp. Party No.2 on 08.01.2025 under Annexure-4 as against the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Health Dentistry.
It is found that present petitioner challenging the advertisement so issued under Annexure-4, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025, on the ground that the advertisement has been issued contrary to the guideline prescribed by the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India and with a further prayer to publish a fresh advertisement.
Basing on the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025 on 21.01.2025, when Opp. Party No.3 issued notice dated 22.01.2025, by keeping in abeyance the selection as against the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Health Dentistry, W.P.(C) No.5440 of 2025 was filed by Opp. Party No.5, challenging the same and with a prayer to direct the Opp. Party No.3 to engage her basing on the Provisional Select List issued on 17.01.2025.
It is also found that during pendency of W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025 and the challenge made to the advertisement, petitioner participated in the selection process by making the application. However, when Opp. Party No.5 was found selected in the Provisional Select List issued on 17.01.2025 under Annexure-8, the present Writ Petition was filed on 25.03.2025, challenging the Provisional Select List, on the ground that the recruitment process pursuant to Annexure-4 since has been conducted contrary to the Resolution issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department under Annexure-5 and the guideline issued by the National Medical Commission under Annexure-6, the same is illegal.
It is found that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-4, the qualification for the post of Assistant Professor was duly prescribed in Para-5 and the selection procedure in Para-5(D). In the advertisement so issued there was no requirement for having any Additional Teaching Experience so reflected under Anenxure-5 nor (1)one year Senior Residency in the concerned subject so reflected in the NMC Notification dated 14.02.2022 under Annexure-6.
It is also found that the selection process was made basing on a walk-in-interview and the engagement is on contractual basis. It is the view of this Court that since challenge made to the advertisement dtd.08.01.2025 on the ground that the same has not been issued in terms of the guideline issued by the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India in W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025 was withdrawn by the petitioner, the present Writ Petition filed challenging the Provisional Select List dtd.17.01.2025 under Annexure-8 inter alia with the plea that the advertisement is contrary to Resolution issued by the Department under Annexure-5 and the Notification issued by the National Medical Commission under Annexure-6, as per the considered view of this Court, is not maintainable.
It is also the view of this Court that since petitioner while challenging the advertisement in W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025, participated in the selection process, after becoming unsuccessful, she cannot assail the selection of Opp. Party No.5 on the ground that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement being contrary to Annexure-5 & 6, selection of Opp. Party No.5 under Annexure-8 is illegal.
In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Sivasubramaniyan, Kunilata Dutta and Madan Lal so cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that, since petitioner on the face of the challenge made to the advertisement in W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025, participated in the selection process knowing fully well the qualification and the selection procedure prescribed for the post of Asst. Professor, the present Writ Petition filed in challenging Annexure-8 is not entertainable. As per the considered view of this Court decision in the case of Mita Sahai so relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot made applicable to the facts of the present case as petitioner while challenging the advertisement in W.P.(C) No.1733 of 2025 participated in the selection process.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that challenge made to the Provisional Select List dtd.17.01.2025 under Annexure-8 showing selection of Opp. Party No.5 as against the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Public Health Dentistry, is neither entertainable nor maintainable and accordingly this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Provisional Select List dtd.17.01.2025 so issued under Annexure-8 and dismiss W.P. (C) No.8819 of 2025.
In the alternate, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to take appropriate step to provide engagement to the petitioner basing on the Provisional Select List published on 17.01.2025 under Annexure-5 and by withdrawing notice dated 22.01.2025 so impugned in W.P.(C) No.5440 of 2025 within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Both the Writ Petitions accordingly stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed in other connected matter.