AMIT NAYYER Vs. STATE OF H.P.
LAWS(HPH)-2021-2-16
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on February 22,2021

Amit Nayyer Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sureshwar Thakur,J. - (1.) Through an advertisement embodied in Annexure A-1, the respondents concerned, advertised various posts, for being filled up, on a contractual basis. However, vis-A-vis the apposite, to the extant writ petition, five posts, of Assistant Professor (Computer Engineering), hence on a contractual basis, also became through Annexure A-1, hence, advertised for being filled up. The petitioner and co-respondent No.3, both, applied for the afore advertised post. However, the writ petitioner was not selected, rather co-respondent No.3 became selected, and, also became appointed. Consequently, through the extant writ petition, a challenge is made by the writ petitioner, to, the selection and appointment of co-respondent No.3 against the afore-advertised post. The essential qualification(s), as prescribed in Annexure A-1, for theirs becoming imperatively possessed by the aspirants concerned, hence, for theirs becoming awarded prorata marks, in consonance therewith, is/are, qua theirs possessing BE/B. Tech. and ME/M. Tech. in the relevant branch of Engineering with first class or equivalent either in BE/B. Tech. or ME/M. Tech.
(2.) A reading of Annexure A-1, discloses that the last date, for submission of applications, as, appertaining to the afore advertised posts becoming recited therein, to be 20.8.2014. Consequently, the possession(s), if any, of the afore essential qualification(s), by the aspirants concerned, for theirs being awarded prorata marks in consonance therewith, were enjoined to be possessed or were enjoined to be submitted, before the recruiting agency concerned, hence on or before 20.8.2014, (i) or in other words, after expiry of the afore set forth deadline, in Annexure A-1, upon, the aspirants concerned acquiring the afore apposite essential qualification(s), thereupon, they became debarred to canvass, for any entitlement, for prorata marks in consonance therewith, becoming awarded to them.
(3.) The learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, contends with much vigor, before this Court that since co-respondent No.3, as, become(s) unfolded by Annexure R3-C, rather, became awarded a provisional degree certificate, personifying qua his successfully qualifying the degree, of, Master of Technology in Computer Science & Engineering, from Bahara University (i) and also, when it became issued on 26.8.2014, (ii) thereupon when obviously its issuance emanated after expiry of the afore set-forth deadline in Annexure A1, inasmuch as 20.8.2014, (iii) thereupon the awarding of prorata marks in consonance therewith to co-respondent No.3, was grossly illegal and unmeritworthy, and obviously, hence his selection and appointment, to the apposite advertised post, becomes amenable for being quashed and set-aside. The afore made submissions made, before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, does, hold immense weight, and legal vigor, as it becomes completely succored, by a verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors, (a/w connected matter) , 2013 11 SCC 58, apposite para 11 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- " 11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification. " ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.