IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1242 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 12.10.2009 Smt. Neelam Kumari .... PETITIONER Versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. J.S. Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner is working as UDC in the office of Superintending Engineering, Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot. She has passed her Graduation in 2nd Division and Post Graduation in Economics from Panjab University, Chandigarh. She also possesses one year B.Ed. Degree from M.D.U., Rohtak. In the year 2005, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (respondent herein) advertised various posts, including the post of Deputy Registrar on regular/contract basis, vide advertisement No. 2 of 2005, as published in the daily `The Tribune' newspaper dated 30.12.2005. According to the said advertisement, CWP No. 1242 of 2008 -2- a person having Master's Degree from a recognized University and also having 20 years experience of working in a University/ Educational Institute or in Govt. Office, was eligible for the appointment. The petitioner and other candidates applied for the post. Undisputedly, against the said advertisement, no recruitment was made. Subsequently, in the year 2007-08, the advertisement No. 2 was issued/published in the daily `Ajit' newspaper dated 29.12.2007 for making recruitment of various posts, including the post of Deputy Registrar, on regular/contract basis. As per this advertisement, a candidate possessing Master's Degree with at least 55% marks from a recognized University and having at least 10 years experience of working in a responsible position in a University, was eligible for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar. It is the case of the petitioner that she is not qualified to be appointed on the post of Deputy Registrar, in view of the qualifications mentioned in the said advertisement. Therefore, she has filed the instant petition for quashing the advertisement No.2 of 2007-08, published in the daily `Ajit' newspaper dated 29.12.2007 and further to issue direction to the respondent University to consider the petitioner as eligible in terms of the qualifications mentioned in the earlier advertisement No. 2 of 2005. The respondent University has filed written statement, in which it has been stated that in pursuance of the first advertisement No. 2 of 2005, no selection/appointment was made, because the respondent University had reserved its right to fill up or not to fill up the posts. It is further stated that CWP No. 1242 of 2008 -3- in order to get more qualified and more suitable person for the post of Deputy Registrar, in the second advertisement No. 2 of 2007-08, the respondent University had taken a conscious decision to provide higher qualification and more experience, to meet the exigencies and necessities of the service. It is contended that the petitioner has no right to challenge the authority of the respondent University to amend/alter or to bring into force new qualifications for the post, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. In absence of the Rule, it is for the respondent University to lay down the eligibility condition and qualification for appointment on regular/contract basis on a particular post. Undisputedly, there is no Rule, which provides specific qualification for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar. At one point of time, the respondent University decided to make contractual appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar from the candidates, who possess Master's Degree from a recognized University and 20 years experience of working in a University/ Educational Institute or in Govt. Office, but no appointment was made in pursuance of the said advertisement. Subsequently, fresh advertisement was issued in the year 2007-08, in which different qualification was prescribed. According to the said qualification, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on the post of Deputy Registrar. In my opinion, the petitioner has no legal right to compel the respondent University to lay down CWP No. 1242 of 2008 -4- particular qualification for appointment on a particular post. The respondent University being the employer is fully competent to lay down particular qualification for a particular post, in view of the exigencies of services, requirement and functioning of the post. It is admitted position that the qualification and experience, as provided in the second advertisement, has been duly approved by the Board of Management of the respondent University. I do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in fixing the fresh qualification and experience for the post of Deputy Registrar, by issuing second advertisement. The petitioner has no legal right to ask the respondent University to treat her eligible for the post of Deputy Registrar in view of the qualification and experience, prescribed in the previous advertisement (Annexure P-4). In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. Dismissed. October 12, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE