IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4724 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 25.03.2009 Dr. Kuldip Singh Panwar .... PETITIONER Versus D.A.V. College, Managing Committee, New Delhi and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner is working as Lecturer in Dayanand Ayurvedic College, Jalandhar. Initially, he was selected as Lecturer against the post of Reader on 17.8.1994, but subsequently on the availability of regular post of Lecturer, he was selected and appointed as such on 25.4.1995. In the year 2001, the Management of the respondent college advertised a post of Reader in Kayachikitsa. The petitioner along with others appeared for interview for the said post. He was selected as Reader and appointed as such subject to the approval from Baba Farid University. Undisputedly, selection of the petitioner was not approved by the respondent University and consequently, he was reverted to the post of Lecturer. Against that order, the petitioner filed representation to the University, which was also rejected in the year 2004. Now, the respondent Management has issued advertisement CWP No. 4724 of 2009 -2- dated 22.2.2009 for the post of Reader in Kayachikitsa. The petitioner has filed this petition for issuing writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from filling up the post of Reader in Kayachikitsa in pursuance of the said advertisement. It is the case of the petitioner that after the rejection of his representation, he again made representation to all the authorities in the year 2007 and the same is pending. Therefore, till the decision of his said representation, the aforesaid post of Reader in Kayachikitsa should not be filled up. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to entertain this petition and to issue the aforesaid prohibitory order against the respondents. Undisputedly, the earlier selection of the petitioner as Reader in Kayachikitsa was not approved by the University in the year 2001-02. His representation was also rejected in the year 2004. The said order has attained finality. Now if the respondents want to fill up the said post by again issuing the advertisement, for which the petitioner can also apply, there is no reason to restrain the respondent Management from filling up the said post in accordance with law. In my opinion, at this stage, the petitioner has no right to the said post. However, it will be open for him to apply again for the said post. Thus, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. March 25, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE