Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claims to have secured a doctorate degree in Physical Education from the respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (hereinafter referred to as 'the university') on 22.9.2014 and thereby gained eligibility for being appointed as an Assistant Director, Physical Education in the University.
(2.) THE case as set up by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the University issued two advertisements dated 27.10.2010 and 19.9.2011 for filling up the vacancies of the posts of Superintendent Physical Education (which was later redesignated as Assistant Director of Physical Education). For reasons best known to it, the University could not complete the selections and thus, as required by the University's own regulations, the posts were readvertised through advertisement dated 19.2.2013. Applications were invited from aspirants seeking appointments on three posts of University Assistant Director of Physical Education and some post of other categories. It is averred in the writ petition that the footnote of the advertisement bears a note that the candidates, who had applied in response to the earlier advertisements of the year 2010 and 2011 needed to apply afresh subject to meeting the qualifications and the terms and conditions of the advertisement. However, they were exempted from paying the application fee. It is further averred that, such aspirants, who had acquired the qualification after the earlier two advertisements also became entitled to apply for selection in the questioned selection process. However, again the selection could not be completed within a period of one year from the date of issuance of the notification. The petitioner refers to the Regulations dated 31.5.1989 adopted by the University for selection of teachers and officers in the University. It is claimed that Clause 2 of the Regulations specifically provides that the recruitment advertisement will ordinarily be valid for one year from the date of its publication. The petitioner thus taking recourse to the above Regulation, has raised a grievance that the advertisement dated 19.2.2013 for selection on the post of Associate Professor became otiose and non -est by efflux of time on account of non -completion of the selection process within the period of one year from the date of the advertisement. Inspite of the advertisement having outlived its duration, the University, rather than cancelling the same and readvertising the posts, issued a list of eligible candidates on 18.11.2014 for the purpose of subjecting them to physical test. The petitioner further claims that having acquired the requisite qualification of doctorate in accordance with the UGC Regulations 2009 for selection as an Assistant Director, Physical Education, he is also entitled to vie for the post but is being deprived on account of the fact that the University is continuing with the selection process beyond the valid life of the advertisement which as per the petitioner should have been deemed expired in February 2014. It is the petitioner's case that by virtue of Regulation (2), it was imperative for the University to cancel the notification dated 19.2.2013 and issue a fresh advertisement so that persons alike the petitioner, who acquired qualifications in the intervening period could also participate in the selection process. Notices of the writ petition were issued to the respondents. This Court, by an interim order dated 8.12.2014 stayed further selections on the post of Assistant Director, Physical Education being conducted by the University in pursuance of the advertisement dated 19.2.2013. Some of the affected candidates, viz. Dr. Kuldeep Singh Jhala, Dr. Surendra Singh Chouhan, Ghanshyam Mehru, who were invited for physical test, filed an application for being impleaded as party respondents to the writ petition. The prayer for impleadment was accepted by this Court vide order dated 6.7.2015 and the three applicants were permitted to be impleaded as party respondents to the writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referring to the above Rules formulated by the University under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 vehemently contended that the advertisement had an expiry date of one year and no sooner, the said period of one year lapsed, the posts were required to be readvertised and fresh recruitment process had to be initiated. Learned counsel contended that in the very same notification dated 19.2.2013, numerous other posts were also advertised. For some of the posts, the University itself, on the expiry of the period of one year has cancelled the advertisement and has issued a fresh notification for recruitment. He submits that the University cannot be allowed to adopt inconsistent and arbitrary criterion while applying Regulation No. 2 to the same advertisement. He thus contended that the writ petition deserves acceptance and while quashing the advertisement dated 19.2.2013 so far as the posts of Assistant Director, Physical Education are concerned, the same may be directed to be readvertised so that the petitioner and other similar candidates, who acquired eligibility during the intervening period can vie for the posts.;