Dr. Vinay S. Dua vs Panjab University and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to interview the petitioner for the post of Professor in Speciality of Orthodontics in Dr. H.S. Judge, Dental College, Panjab University, Chandigarh without insisting for ''No Objection Certificate'' from the present employer. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Professor in speciality of Orthodontics. The petitioner applied for the same. As per the terms mentioned in the advertisement, the persons already in service were required to furnish their applications through proper channel, however, they were permitted to send an advance copy. They were allowed to appear for interview only on production of ''No Objection Certificate'' from the existing employer. The petitioner submitted his application being eligible as per the criteria laid down in the advertisement. He was even issued the letter for interview on 8.6.2012 specifically mentioning therein that he has to bring ''No Objection Certificate'' at the time of interview, failing which he will not be interviewed. As the petitioner did not produce ''No Objection Certificate'', he was not interviewed. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to interview the petitioner and also challenging the condition laid down in the advertisement requiring the candidates, who are already in employment to produce ''No Objection Certificate'' from the existing employer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition of production of ''No Objection Certificate'' from the existing employer is arbitrary and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It can be made applicable only for the candidates who are in government service to find out as to whether there is any enquiry pending against them. The petitioner is serving in a private university. As per the terms and conditions of his appointment, he can resign from the post either with three months'' notice in writing or payment of salary for three months in lieu of notice. Under the circumstances, the requirement of certificate should have been dispensed with. The case should have been considered on its own facts. On an earlier occasion as well, the petitioner was permitted to appear for interview by the respondents without production of ''No Objection Certificate''. Even now some of the candidates for other posts have been permitted.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that challenge to the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement cannot be entertained at this stage when the process of selection has already started and the petitioner has even participated therein. From day one, the petitioner knew that there is a condition prescribed for production of ''No Objection Certificate'' from the existing employer at the time of interview. In case the petitioner is to be permitted at this stage without production of ''No Objection Certificate'' by declaring the clause to be arbitrary, there may be other candidates as well who may not have applied considering the fact that they may not be able to comply with the conditions laid down in the advertisement. He further submitted that on an earlier occasion also, though as a special case with the permission of the authorities, the petitioner was permitted to appear for interview for selection to the post of Professor (Orthodontics). He was even selected and offer of appointment was given to him vide communication dated 8.7.2009, but the petitioner did not join. Apparently, his employer did not relieve him. The entire exercise for selection had to be carried out again.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

As far as challenge to the clause in the advertisement is concerned, in my opinion, the same cannot be permitted at this stage considering the fact that the advertisement was issued in March, 2012. The condition regarding production of ''No Objection Certificate'' from the existing employer has specifically been laid down in the advertisement issued. The petitioner applied for the post knowing fully well that he has to comply with the condition. After the petitioner had not been interviewed on account of non-production of ''No Objection Certificate'', he cannot be permitted to turn around and impugn the clause mid-stream when the selection process is at the fag-end.

As far as second contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding directing the respondents to interview the petitioner without production of ''No Objection Certificate'' from the existing employer as they had permitted some candidates for some other posts is concerned, even that contention is totally misconceived considering the fact that once there is a clause in the advertisement specifically providing for production of ''No Objection Certificate'', this court would not like to issue a direction to violate that condition. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.