Navish Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another
CWP No.6085 of 2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:036658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.6085 of 2024 Date of Decision : 14.3.2024 Navish Kumar ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Mohit Vashishat, Advocate, for the petitioner (through video conferencing) --- TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL): The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible for the post of Professor, advertised by the second respondent/University vide advertisements no.3 to 5 of 2023, dated 30.6.2023, Annexure P-1. 2.
Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is eligible for the post advertised on the basis of his educational qualifications, experience, research work, etc. details whereof are mentioned in the application form, Annexure P-2. Therefore, there was no basis to consider him ineligible, as conveyed vide communication dated 23.8.2023, Annexure P-3. He sent a legal notice dated 11.9.2023, Annexure P-4, requesting the University to re-consider the decision and provide him an opportunity to present his case, but no response was received. 3.
It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that selection for the post in question is already over as interviews were Ashwani Kumar 2024.03.19 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.6085 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:036658 conducted on 28.8.2023. He, however, contends that the selected candidates have not joined as the result could not be declared due to administrative reasons. Therefore, the petitioner's candidature should be considered.
4.
The petitioner has claimed eligibility for the post only on the basis of application form and particulars/qualifications mentioned therein. There is nothing on record to substantiate his claim prima facie. No document, degree, certificate, research publication, etc. which he claims to be possessing and makes him eligible, has been appended to the petition. Besides, he has approached the Court after a delay of about six months from being declared ineligible, without any plausible explanation. Interviews for the post stand concluded about six months back, and the same cannot be re-opened at this stage. This Court finds no ground to entertain the petition in these circumstances. 5.
Dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 14.3.2024 Ashwani
Ashwani Kumar 2024.03.19 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document