1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1878 OF 2010 Mohammed Abul Sami Nadvi s/o Abdul Aziz ..PETITIONER VERSUS Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, through its Registrar & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr Amol Kakade, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 22nd April, 2010 PER COURT : This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner challenges the issuance of an advertisement to the extent that it relates to the post of a full time Lecturer in Arabic, published in daily Lokmat as well as daily Aurangabad Times in its issue dated 25.1.2010. The petitioner further prays for directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as full time Lecturer with effect from 22.9.2003 and to grant all other consequential benefits including 2 difference of pay, seniority, fixation of pay in the revised pay scale, etc. by issuance of a writ of mandamus. The petitioner also prays for grant of interim injunction restraining respondents from holding interviews and effecting selection for the post of Full Time Lecturer in Arabic pursuant to the advertisement issued in the daily newspaper dated 25.1.2010. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been working since 1997. the petitioner claims that an advertisement issued in the year 2009 preceded by another advertisement which was issued in the year 2003, inviting applications for the post of Senior Lecturer in Arabic. The petitioner claims that he holds all the requisite qualifications and despite that on two occasions the Committee had recommended for reissuance of an advertisement without selecting any candidates. Mr S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before us that the petitioner undisputedly holds the requisite qualification and is qualified in accordance with the norms laid down by the authorities from time to time. It is also urged before us that the petitioner holds the requisite experience and as such there is no impediment whatsoever in appointing the petitioner as a Senior Lecturer in Arabic. It is also urged before us that the respondents along with their affidavit in reply have not tendered the copy of the minutes of the meeting held in the year 2003 but have only 3 tendered copies of the minutes of the meeting of the year 2009, which only denote that the Committee recommended the reissuance of an advertisement. Mr Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before us that the Committee has not stated anywhere that no suitable candidate was found. Mr Kakade, learned Counsel for respondent no.2, by referring to the affidavit in reply has urged before us that the petitioner has no vested right much less any enforceable right to claim that since the petitioner holds the requisite qualification, the petitioner be appointed as a Senior Lecturer. Mr Kakade, learned Counsel further urges before us that the post of a Senior Lecturer is not merely a promotional post to which a junior would be axiomatically entitled but it calls for selection and appraisal on merit. Pursuant to the two earlier advertisements since no candidate was found suitable, the Committee had recommended issuance of fresh advertisement. Accordingly, an advertisement has now been issued and applications have been invited. The petitioner himself is one of the aspirants for the post of Senior Lecturer in Arabic. It is stated before us that on account of pendency of this petition, the holding of the interviews has been deferred. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner does not hold any vested right nor does he have any right to claim any appointment de hors the 4 advertisement which is issued. On earlier two occasions an advertisement had been issued and though the petitioner participated in the selection process the petitioner was not found suitable and the Committee, therefore, had recommended reissuance of an advertisement. Pursuant thereto a fresh advertisement has been issued, which is subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. As pointed out by us above, the petitioner does not have any vested right much less a legally enforceable right to claim that he be appointed de hors the issuance of the advertisement. An advertisement has been issued and the applications have been invited and the petitioner is one of the aspirants. A Committee under the Rules has been duly constituted for conducting the interviews. As pointed by us above, selection of a candidate is dependent on several factors and since this is not a promotional post, to which a junior would be axiomatically entitled to on completion of certain number of years, the petitioner has to undergo the rigorous of selection test. Merely because the petitioner has been working since 1997 and claims to hold the requisite qualification, according to us is no ground for short-circuiting any method of selection, which is the issuance of advertisement and inviting applications and selecting a duly qualified and meritorious candidate. 5 4. Since the petitioner is an aspirant and an advertisement has been issued and the claim of the petitioner would be considered on its own merit, we have refrained from making any observations on the merits of the matter. However, if any observations have been made by us touching the merits of the matter, the competent authorities shall ignore the aforesaid observations and decide the claim i.e. the eligibility or the merit of each of the candidates on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations which we may have made. It is tried to say that each candidate is required to be selected on his own merits. 5. In that light of the matter, since we see no merit in the challenge raised in the petition to the issuance of the advertisement as also the prayer for absorption of the petitioner, we dismiss the petition summarily with no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp1878.10