Dr. Tripti Arjariya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 630 of 2018 • Dr. Tripti Arjariya D/o Shri Ram Kishore Arjariya Aged About 35 Years R/o 373/3, Sarvadharam, B- Sector, Kolar Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh ---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Bastar Vishwavidyalaya Through Its Registrar, Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chancellor Bastar Vishwavidyala, Governor House, Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Vice-Chancellor Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Executive Council Bastar Vishwavidyalaya Through Its Secretary, Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh

6. Registrar Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ For Appellant :

Shri Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Additional Advocate General For Respondents-University :

Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 17.08.2018 1.

The 2013 advertisement for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Application and Social Work was issued by the Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Jagdalpur; hereinafter referred to as 'the University'. It was case of the present Appellant before the learned Single Judge that the University authorities took the decision, the process for selection was undergone, but finally before the issuance of the appointment letters, the University decided to issue a Notification dated 13.01.2017 where the entire recruitment process was annulled. It is that decision which became the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.

2.

Two things have been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. One that mere preparation and exercise for such recruitment does not create a right especially when many an infirmities were pointed out by the University as to the reason for annulment of the selection or the exercise done in terms of the advertisement issued in the year 2013. Afresh advertisement has also been issued. The above two reasons were the primary reasons for non interference.

3.

Since there were reasonable and cogent reasons, why the University was not willing to act upon the earlier deliberation for selection, therefore, keeping in mind the various principles of law which have been taken note of by the learned Single Judge mere empanelment or creation of a list does not create a right in favour of a candidate for appointment. The decision of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. No interference, therefore, is warranted with order dated 20.06.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 699 of 2017.

4.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Chief Justice Judge Chandra