- (1.) Under appeal is the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The order was passed on writ petition filed by the same two writ petitioners, one in respect of the post of Dean of the respondent-University and the other in respect of the post of Director (Research) in the same University. Both the writ petitioners were unsuccessful candidates for the posts. The High Court found that the writ petitioners has established their case but denied them relief on the ground that a period of nine years had elapsed after the appointment of the third respondents in each of the writ petitions to the posts.
(2.) The appeal is only by one of the two writ petitioners, namely Dr. C. M. Singh, and the appeal is restricted to the post of Dean. This is because the third respondent in one of writ petitions, who was appointed Director (Research), has now retired.
(3.) The challenge in the writ petitions was that on the last date for receipt of the application the two-third respondents had not completed the minimum period of service in the concerned post as required by the rules, and that, therefore, they were not eligible for being considered for appointment to the posts of Dean and Director (Research). It was also contended that the selection committee had not been properly constituted. The High Court found in favour of the writ petitioners on the first contention but not on the second. Having found in favour of the writ petitioners on the first contention, the High Court considered whether the appointment of the third respondents in each of the writ petitions was to be quashed "at this stage when a period of nine years had already elapsed". It noted that no interim order had been passed in the writ petitions. It applied the judgment of this Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, (1993) Suppl. SCC 168 and held that the two-third respondents, having worked for nine years by then, should not be disturbed. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petitions.;