05 April 2024 Employee Related >> Corporate Law   |   Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a recent judicial proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Delhi High Court deliberated on a writ petition seeking the appointment of the Petitioner to the vacant position of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography at Kalindi College, University of Delhi. The case brought forth significant legal arguments surrounding the interpretation of university regulations, administrative communications, and established judicial precedents.

The Petitioner had participated in the rigorous recruitment process for the Assistant Professor position and was subsequently placed as the first candidate on the waitlist. This followed the resignation of Ms. Usha Rani, who initially secured the position but later vacated it to join another institution. The petitioner contended that being the top candidate on the waitlist, they had a rightful claim to be appointed to the now-vacant post. The Petitioner, represented by Mr. Chimni, argued that as per an Office Memorandum dated 13.06.2000, the university was obligated to fill vacancies from the waitlist in instances where a selected candidate resigned within a stipulated timeframe. This argument was countered by Mr. Mathur, counsel for the respondent college, who pointed to a communication issued by the University of Delhi on 03.04.2024. This communication, citing a Supreme Court judgment in Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs. State of Haryana, emphasized the necessity for fresh advertisements and a subsequent selection process in cases of vacancy due to resignation.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented, the Delhi High Court rendered its decision. The court emphasized that while candidates in the final selection list do not possess an absolute right to appointment, the discretion to fill vacancies rests squarely with the university. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the court highlighted that appointments must adhere to established procedures to ensure fairness and transparency in public sector recruitments. The court further noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a legal right under university ordinances or regulations that would entitle them to immediate appointment from the waitlist. The dismissal of the writ petition was grounded in the absence of any mandatory rule compelling the university to appoint from the waitlist upon the resignation of a selected candidate.

The case reaffirms the principle that selection to a post does not automatically confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Rather, the university retains the discretion to determine the appropriate course of action in filling vacancies, guided by its own regulations and administrative communications. The court underscored that any deviation from these established norms would require a clear mandate from applicable rules or ordinances. In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's decision underscores the importance of procedural adherence and judicial restraint in matters concerning appointments to public sector positions. The case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between administrative discretion and judicial oversight, ensuring that appointments are made in accordance with the law to uphold principles of fairness and equity.

  Constitution of India, 1950