QAZI GOUSIA JEELANI Vs. MEHRAJ UD DIN NAJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal is directed against judgment dtd. 21/10/2021 ["the impugned judgment"] passed by the learned Single Judge ["Writ Court"] in SWP No. 1405/2011 titled "Mehraj Ud Din Najar vs. SK University of Agriculture and others". The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant on numerous grounds. However, before we advert to these grounds of challenge, we deem it appropriate to notice few facts relevant to the disposal of this appeal.

(2.) In response to the Advertisement Notification(s) issued, the appellant, respondent No.1 and few others submitted their application forms. The appellant as well as respondent No.1 (the writ petitioner) participated in the selection process. Upon completion of the selection process, the respondent-University vide its order No. 322 (Est.) of 2010 dtd. 19/4/2010 appointed four candidates including the appellant (03 under open merit category and 01 under RBA) as Workshop Assistants. This order of appointment was purportedly issued by the respondent-University on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the approval accorded by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The writ petitioner, who did not figure in the select list, filed SWP No. 1405/2011 praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned selection and the appointment order dtd. 19/4/2010 (supra) insofar as it related to the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ petiton). A writ of mandamus was also sought to direct the officials respondents to select and appoint the writ petitioner against the post of Workshop Assistant on the basis of his overall merit in the selection process. There was obviously a delay of almost one year in approaching the Court. However, the writ petitioner explained the delay in approaching the Court by contending that in the month of April 2011, when the then incumbent Registrar of the University/Chairman of the Selection Committee was shifted from the post, a vital information leaked out that one of the appointed Workshop Assistants had not even applied pursuant to the Advertisement notification(s), but got selected for extraneous considerations. This made the writ petitioner to move an application under Right to Information Act ["RTI Act"] to seek copy of application forms submitted by the appointed candidates as also the interview call letters issued to them. The requisite information sought for by the writ petitioner was supplied which, as per him, revealed that the appellant (respondent No.3 in the writ petitioner) had submitted her application form much after the cut off date and even after the call letters for interview had been dispatched to other candidates including the writ petitioner. It was specifically pleaded by the writ petitioner that the call letters ,as is evident from the endorsement made thereon, were issued to all the candidates on 10/3/2010. However, in the case of the appellant, it was dispatched on 17/3/2010 i.e after she was permitted to submit her application form on 13/3/2010. It was pointed out that as per the advertisement notification of 2009, the cut off date to submit the application form was 19/9/2009.

(3.) In the aforesaid backdrop, the writ petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of the appellant primarily on two grounds;