IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14703 of 1994 Date of decision: 22nd July, 2010 Ram Saran Arora … Petitioner Versus Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner joined the respondent-University on 1st August, 1964. On 31st March, 1987, the petitioner joined Mansa Cooperative Spinning Mill Ltd. as Office Manager and served there in that capacity for a period of four and a half years. The respondent-University issued an advertisement No.4/91 (Annexure P-1) in the year 1991 inviting applications for the post of Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-50-2400-60-2700-75-3000-100-4000 plus Rs.200/- special pay. The educational qualification prescribed for the said post was Second Class Graduate or M.A. or equivalent. The petitioner applied and was called for the interview to be held on 20th May, 1991. The petitioner appeared in the interview but was not selected. Thereafter, subsequently another advertisement No.4/94 (Annexure P-3) was issued in the year 1994 and the petitioner again applied for the post. A perusal of subsequent advertisement (Annexure P-3) reveals that the post was Civil Writ Petition No.14703 of 1994 reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category only. It was further stated in the advertisement that in case no suitable candidate from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category is available, the post shall be thrown open to other candidates. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was not called for the interview and was denied right of consideration. Thus, in the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed that this Court should hold that he was entitled to be interviewed for the post of Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer. It is further prayed that all proceedings of the interview held on 5th October, 1994 be quashed. The respondent-University has filed reply and stated that since the petitioner was working as an Office Manager, he was not having an experience of three years in Supervisory capacity prescribed in the advertisement, as a Superintendent Grade-I or equivalent in Government office, as the petitioner was serving on the post of Office Manager in Mansa Cooperative Spinning Mill Ltd., a post inferior to that of a Superintendent Grade-I. The entire edifice built in the present writ petition and the arguments advanced is that once the petitioner was called for first interview in pursuance of advertisement No.4/91 (Annexure P-1), it was incumbent upon the University authorities to call him for the interview in pursuance of subsequent advertisement No.4/94 (Annexure P-3) (issued in the year 1994). This plea of the petitioner cannot be entertained, as there was a marked difference of qualification of experience prescribed in advertisement (Annexure P-1) and that in the subsequent advertisement (Annexure P-3). In the advertisement (Annexure P-1), three years Supervisory experience reads as under: “ii) Three years supervisory experience as Superintendent or equivalent in a Govt. Office or 2 Civil Writ Petition No.14703 of 1994 Educational Institution, preferably in a University with good record of service” Whereas in subsequent advertisement (Annexure P-3), the same reads as under: “ii) Three years supervisory experience as Superintendent Grade I or equivalent in a Govt. Office or educational institution, preferably in a university with good record of service.” In the subsequent advertisement (Annexure P-3), it has been stated that the experience should be of Superintendent Grade-I, whereas in earlier advertisement (Annexure P-1), it was stated as a Superintendent but not the Superintendent Grade-I. Superintendent Grade-I is a higher post than the Superintendent. Be that as it may, the petitioner was not performing the duties of a Superintendent, but was only working as an Office Manager in a Cooperative Mill. The scales of pay of Superintendent and that of Office Manager were different. Office Manager was drawing a lesser pay than the Superintendent Grade I. Therefore, the petitioner was posted on an inferior post. Furthermore, it is stated that the petitioner has retired around the year 2005. Those, who were selected have also retired or are on the verge of retirement. The petitioner is only aggrieved that he was not called for the interview. The right to be interviewed does not necessarily confer any right to be selected. Counsel for the petitioner has further advanced an argument that in the advertisement, only one post was advertised, however selection of two candidates was made, therefore, this Court should set aside the selection of respondents No.5 and 8. Respondents No.5 and 8 had been working on the post of Superintendent for the last 16 years and 3 Civil Writ Petition No.14703 of 1994 now respondent No.5 has retired and respondent No.8 is on the verge of retirement. Petitioner has also retired. This Court cannot put the clock back only for the whim of a person, who was not interviewed after sixteen years. At this belated stage, merely because petitioner was not called for interview, being ineligible, this Court will not be inclined to disturb the settled waters. No merit. Dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 22, 2010 rps 4