The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a candidate who challenges the legality of an appointment on the ground that it was made to a non-existent post cannot subsequently claim entitlement to that very post. The Court made this observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by one Deepak Pathania, who had questioned the appointment of another candidate as Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the Central University of Himachal Pradesh.
The petitioner sought quashing of the appointment of the private respondent on the ground that it was made against a supernumerary post which, according to him, was not advertised and did not exist. Simultaneously, he sought a direction from the Court to appoint him to that very post, asserting his position as the first candidate on the waiting list.
The University clarified that two posts of Associate Professors in the department were originally advertised, and two general category candidates were selected and appointed. The private respondent, placed at Serial No. 2 in the waiting list and belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, submitted representations citing improper implementation of the reservation policy. The Executive Council of the University considered the representations and, with reference to the UGC guidelines dated 25.08.2006 and directions from the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, created a supernumerary post by transferring a sanctioned post from another department to accommodate the private respondent.
Justice Satyen Vaidya rejected the petitioner’s contradictory stance, stating:
“Once, according to the petitioner, the appointment of private respondent was illegally made on non-existent post, the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim any right on such post. He cannot claim a negative parity.”
The Court also recorded that the private respondent had since left the University, and the supernumerary post stood abolished. It was further noted that the only post currently available in the department belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.
Having found no merit in the claims made, the Court dismissed the petition, noting the considerable passage of time since its filing in 2013 and the absence of any fresh supporting material.
Final Observation:
“In result, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.”
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Deepak Pathania v. Central University of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: CWP No. 5254 of 2013
Bench: Justice Satyen Vaidya
