21 May 2024 Employee Related >> Corporate Law   |   Education >> Miscellaneous  

A Delhi High Court judge dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate on a waitlist for an Assistant Professor position. The petitioner challenged the appointment of another candidate selected from the main list, claiming they were not eligible for the OBC reservation.

The case involved a recruitment for an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Janki Devi Memorial College, Delhi. The petitioner argued that the selected candidate (respondent) should not have been given the OBC reservation benefit because their caste was not on the Central List of OBCs for Bihar.

The petitioner pointed out their own caste was included in the OBC list for their home state of Uttar Pradesh. They argued that if the respondent's appointment as OBC was cancelled, they would be next in line for the position.

Court Rejects Challenge Based on OBC Certificate:

The court disagreed with the petitioner's argument. The respondent had a valid OBC certificate issued by the authorized Bihar authority, even though their caste wasn't on the specific list annexed by the petitioner.

The judge highlighted that a certificate issued by a competent authority holds more weight than a list included in the petition. The petitioner was also informed they could challenge the certificate's authenticity if they wished, but simply contesting the appointment without further evidence was not sufficient.

Waitlisted Candidate Has No Guaranteed Right:

Another reason for dismissing the petition was the petitioner's position on the waitlist. The court pointed out that being on a waitlist does not guarantee consideration for the position.

The judge cited a Supreme Court case establishing that the decision to fill vacancies from a waitlist depends on specific rules and regulations. In the absence of a rule mandating appointments from the waitlist, the appointing authority has the discretion.

Court Finds Petition Frivolous and Dismisses with Costs:

The judge concluded that the petition lacked merit and seemed like a fishing expedition. They dismissed the case and imposed a cost penalty on the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition.