Madras: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIRESERVED ON: 16.09.2013% PRONOUNCED ON: 23.09.2013LPA 358/2013 & CM No.8408/2013SHIVAJI COLLEGE & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate.VersusRAJIV KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocatewith Ms. Tinu Bajwa and Mr. S.S. Nehra,Advocates for R-1.Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Advocate withMr. M. Singh and Mr. Sunil Singh,Advocates.LPA 450/2013, CM APPL.9830, 9831/2013UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate withMr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate.versusDR RAJIV KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocatewith Ms. Tinu Bajwa and Mr. S.s. Nehra,Advocates for R-1.Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Advocate withMr. M. Singh and Mr. Sunil Singh,Advocates.LPA 358 & 450/2013 Page 1 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIMR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT1. The Shivaji College (hereafter referred to as 'the College') and the Delhi University (hereafter referred to as 'the University') preferred these two appeals against an order of the learned Single Judge which allowed the first respondent's writ petition. By the writ petition, the said respondent had challenged the cancellation/recall of his appointment.2. The facts are that the respondent was working in the College as an ad hoc Lecturer when an advertisement was issued on 13.05.2008 notifying the applications for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. The three vacancies were notified; one was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, and other for Other Backward Class category candidates and the third was unreserved. It is not disputed that the respondent applied against an unreserved category post. The advertisement contained a note which read as follows: -"4. The College reserves its right to change the number and/or nature of the posts and/or not to fill any or all posts advertised without assigning any reason."3. On 01.09.2008, the Selection Committee's deliberations were completed; the respondent participated in the process and was placed at Serial No. 2 of the Selection List. It is again not in dispute that another candidate, i.e., Ms. Vandana Katoch was placed at Serial No.1 and was appointed. As the college required the services ofLPA 358 & 450/2013 Page 2 another Lecturer, it appointed the respondent, further under the advertisement extracted above. Apparently, certain complaints were made to the University with regard to the appointment issued to the respondent - which he had by then accepted. Consequently, the University wrote to the College on 21.10.2008 stating that it had examined the matter in the light of the document provided by the College. The latter further stated that the College had already appointed the Lecturer in Chemistry without advertising those posts; the University stated that in terms of Ordinance XII (3) (1) all vacancies of teachers had to be filled up after the advertisement. In its opinion, the appointment of the respondent was in violation of the said provision. In these circumstances, that on 22.11.2008, the respondent was issued a show cause notice calling upon him to state why his appointment should not be cancelled or his services terminated. The respondent was also given a personal hearing and the Governing Body of the College thereafter recommended that his appointment be cancelled. It was in these circumstances that the respondent approached the Court by filing W.P. (C) 743/2009. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of these proceedings on account of interim orders, his services in the college were continued. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Suvidya Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors, (2002) 10 SCC 269 and another judgment of this Court and was of the opinion that since the advertisement itself had...
Delhi High Court Shivaji College & Ors vs Rajiv Kumar & Ors
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL
COPYRIGHT Plus Media Solutions