Shiv Raj Pundir vs The Haryana Agricultural University and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The petitioner, who sought selection to the post as Senior Technical Assistant with respondent No. 1, had the benefit of being selected subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. The focus now is only on when he shall be deemed to be selected and where he shall be placed in the order of seniority.

The petitioner produces the merit list where he was ranked in serial No. 12 for 6 vacant posts. There was still vacancy available and he has been accommodated within the 6 seats. The non-selection of the petitioner initially was found to be not correct and, therefore, he was selected. The issue relating to seniority will have to be only seen in the context of where he was placed in the merit list. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent was not even qualified, he having a bachelor''s degree in "Non-Medical", while the requirement as per the advertisement is that the candidate shall have the bachelor''s degree in agriculture/discipline concerned followed by the master''s degree in the discipline. The subject Agriculture is further explained in the advertisement as falling within the categories of (i) Plant Breeding-6 (ESM-2, SC.2, B.C.I); (ii) Vegetable Crops-2 (ESM-1); (iii) Agronomy-2, (ESM-1); (iv) Horticulture (ESM-1); (v) Entomology-3, (ESM-1), S.C.1), and (vi) Home Science Extension.

The response to the objections regarding the ineligibility of the 3rd respondent is that the 3rd respondent had done crop genetics as one of the subjects in B.Sc. which related to the subject of agriculture. He had done his master''s degree also in genetics which the Chairman of the Selection Committee found was a discipline of genetics and plant breeding and being inter-related with agriculture, he was entitled for consideration. In view of the fact that the petitioner has obtained his selection, the issue whether the 3rd respondent was eligible for being selected, does not arise for consideration, for, there is no prayer that the selection of the 3rd respondent must be annulled. If the petitioner would seek for a prayer that he be placed higher in the order of seniority to the 3rd respondent, it could only be done on the basis that he is above the 3rd respondent in the order of merit. He cannot show the alleged ineligibility of the candidate as entitling him to be placed above the 3rd respondent, so long as the non-selection of the 3rd respondent itself is not adjudicated in this writ petition.

The petitioner shall have the only relief that he shall be deemed to have been appointed on the date when the selection was made for other candidates namely on 01.12.1989 for the purpose of seniority, but his placement in the seniority shall be only in the manner of the merit and he being below the 3rd respondent, he shall only be placed below the 3rd respondent. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period from the date of his deemed selection to the date when he was actually selected.

The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.