AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.:
Affidavit of service filed in Court be taken on record.
The writ petitioner is a graduate from Burdwan University and also passed National Education Test which is eligibility for lectureship in the subject of Physical Education. Subsequently, he also completed Master of Philosophy. In the year 1997, the writ petitioner got an opportunity to join the University Research School under the Department of Physical Education, Kalyani University and join as instructor in Birla High School in April, 1998. Subsequently, he resigned from such service in the year 1999.
It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the School Service Commission examination and successfully had gone through the SCC examination and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Rajhat High School in the post of Assistant Teacher in Physical Education. He also worked as lecturer in Physical Education on contractual basis in Jadavpur University between 2007 and 2009. It is contended by petitioner that on November 16, 2009 Jadavpur University issued an advertisement for filling up two posts of lecturer in Physical Education. The minimum qualification for such posts was stated in the advertisement as Master Degree in Physical Education with 55% marks from any Indian University. Pursuant to such advertisement, the writ petitioner applied for the post of lecturer in Physical Education. He fulfilled all the criteria and educational qualification as required in the advertisement. By a letter issued by the Jadavpur University in the year 2010, the writ petitioner was requested to attend the University for interview for the said post of lecturer in Physical Education. In pursuance of such letter, the writ petitioner appeared before interview for the post of lecturer in Physical Education in Jadavpur University.
Thereafter, the petitioner has been waiting for the results. However, subsequently, one Dr. Gopa Chakrborty filed a writ petition being W.P. 21788(W) of 2009 seeking certain directions against the respondents in respect of her application for the employment. The said writ petition was dismissed on December 14, 2009 with an observation that although the petitioner in such a writ petition had brilliant academic career but the Court unfortunately was not entitled to relax or modify the UGC regulations. The order passed in WP No. 21788 (W) of 2009 was challenged in an appeal being MAT 89 of 2010 which was ultimately registered as FMA 649 of 2010. The present petitioner was added as respondent in such appeal. However, such appeal being FMA 649 of 2010 was registered infructuous as the petitioner therein was appointed in some other employment in the University itself. After the dismissal of FMA 649 of 2010, the present petitioner has been waiting for being granted an employment on the basis of his application. It is further contended that the petitioner was empanelled by the respondent University on the basis of selection process taken up by it. However, such panel was never acted upon.
Hence, the present writ petition.
The respondent University filed affidavit in opposition stating inter alia that the writ petitioner appeared in selection initiated by the respondent. However, the selection process was never completed. Subsequently, due to change of regulations by the University Grants Commission, the University authorities decided not to proceed with the employment issued in the year 2009. They decided to resolve that the executive Council took decision that the University will go for re-advertisement.
The writ petitioner participated in selection process initiated by the respondent University. However, the process was delayed due to pendency of the writ petition and appeal filed by some other person where the present petitioner was a party. Subsequently, the respondent University has decided not to proceed with the previous selection process initiated by the University so far as the unreserved category of post of lecturer in Physical Education is concerned. The University authorities have decided that to change the qualifications and other parameters fixed by the University Grants Commission, the University authorities have decided to go for a selection process by issuing a fresh advertisement.
A Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot direct any authority to fill up the vacancies. It is, however, used to decide whether to fill up the vacancy or not.
In the facts and circumstances, nothing remains for the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition being WPA 11870 of 2020 is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
No doubt, the writ petitioner would be at liberty to apply against any advertisement as and when issued by the respondent University.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.