IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6276 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 27.04.2009 Ekta Narang .... PETITIONER Versus Maharshi Dayanand University and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure P-16), passed by the Vice Chancellor, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent University'), whereby the claim of the petitioner for her appointment to the post of Lecturer in Bio- Technology Engineering in the University Institute of Engineering and Technology, has been rejected. In the petition, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appointments of respondents No.3 to 9 to the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology Engineering. In the present case, vide advertisement No. 3/2008 (Annexure P-2), the respondent University invited applications for various teaching and CWP No. 6276 of 2009 -2- non-teaching posts under budgeted posts and Self Financing Scheme, including four posts of Lecturer in Bio-Technology Engineering in the Department of Engineering and Technology under Self Financing Scheme as `likely to continue'. The petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 also applied for the said post. After the interview, the statutory Selection Committee selected respondents No.3 to 6 against the aforesaid four advertised posts of Lecturer in Bio-Technology Engineering. Name of the petitioner was kept at serial No.5. On the basis of the said selection, which was duly approved by the Executive Council, respondents No.3 to 6 were offered appointments and they joined on the posts of Lecturer in Bio-Technology Engineering. Subsequently, one regular post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology fell vacant on 30.10.2008, on submission of resignation by Dr. Reeti Chaudhary, who was already working in that institution. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure P-7) with the request that her name be considered against the said post and she should be given appointment as Lecturer in Bio-Technology Engineering. When no decision was taken on the said representation, the petitioner filed CWP No. 2261 of 2009, claiming appointment on the post of Lecturer in Bio- Technology Engineering on the ground that one regular post has fallen vacant and therefore, the person at Serial No.1 of the select list should be appointed against that post and against the resultant vacancy in `likely to be continued' post, the petitioner should be appointed. Since the representation regarding the said relief was under consideration of the respondent CWP No. 6276 of 2009 -3- University, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent University to take a final decision in the matter before the expiry of the validity of the panel. In terms of the said direction, vide order dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure P-16), claim of the petitioner was considered against the said vacant post, occurred due to the resignation by Dr. Reeti Chaudhary and it was found that against the said post, claim of the petitioner cannot be considered, because the post vacated by Dr. Reeti Chaudhary was quite different from the posts advertised vide Advertisement No.3/2008, and the petitioner, who is at serial No.5 in the panel, could not be appointed against a regular Government approved post held by Dr. Reeti Chaudhary. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. As far as challenge to the appointments of respondents No.3 to 9 to the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology Engineering, on the ground that the petitioner was more meritorious than these respondents, is concerned, the same cannot be gone into in the instant petition, because this ground was not taken by the petitioner in her earlier petition. Therefore, now she cannot be permitted to challenge the appointments of respondents No.3 to 9 on the post of Lecturer in Bio-Technology Engineering, which fell vacant on resignation submitted by Dr. Reeti Chaudhary. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going CWP No. 6276 of 2009 -4- through the impugned order, whereby claim of the petitioner for appointment against the said post has been rejected, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. It is not disputed before me that Dr. Reeti Chaudhary was appointed on a regular/`to be continued' post, advertised in the year 2006 vide advertisement No.3-5/2006. After her selection and appointment, Dr. Reeti Chaudhary joined on the said post on 1.6.2007. As far as the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 are concerned, their posts, which were four in number, were designated as `likely to continue' and were advertised vide advertisement No.3/2008. Against the said advertisement, the Selection Committee recommended the names of respondents No.3 to 6 for appointment and name of the petitioner was kept at serial No.5 in the panel. In fact the post held by Dr. Reeti Chaudhary is a regular/`to be continued' post and the posts against which the petitioner had applied are different posts, which are not regular. As per the Self Financing Scheme, some teaching posts have been sanctioned and designated as `to be continued' and the same were made in the running grade. Those posts were regular budgeted posts and some posts have been designated as `likely to continue', which were to be filled up on contract basis at monthly consolidated salary equal to the total amount at the initial stage in the pay scale. The four posts, for which the petitioner applied, were designated as `likely to continue' and the nature of those posts was contractual, but not regular, whereas the post, which was held by Dr. Reeti Chaudhary and who was appointed against the advertisement issued in the year 2006, was CWP No. 6276 of 2009 -5- designated as `to be continued' and the nature of the said post was regular. Therefore, in my opinion, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for her appointment, being waiting list candidate, against the post fallen vacant due to the resignation of Dr. Reeti Chaudhary. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3, who was appointed at Serial No.1, be shifted to the post, which has fallen vacant due to the resignation by Dr. Reeti Chaudhary and thereafter, the petitioner, being waiting list candidate, should be given appointment, cannot be accepted, because the petitioner has no legal right to get the appointment. Her name can be considered, in case out of the four posts, against which she had applied, any vacancy arises for any reason. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. April 27, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE