RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the Acting Registrar of the state-run Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University (PRSU), Raipur, does not fulfill the requisite experience qualification required under the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, as amended on December 27, 2011. Consequently, he cannot be appointed to the post of Registrar.
A Single Bench, presided over by Justice Amitendra Nath Prasad, dismissed the writ petitions filed by Acting Registrar Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel . The court observed, “It is trite law that any aspirant who has applied for a post, even if selected, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. There are various grounds on which an appointment can be denied despite selection.”
Dr. Patel was initially appointed as Deputy Registrar on February 26, 2016. Although a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) found him fit for promotion to Registrar, he could not be promoted due to the absence of a vacancy. Subsequently, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission advertised three Registrar posts for direct recruitment. Dr. Patel applied, was selected, and was issued an appointment order on April 10, 2023.
However, a formal posting order was not issued. Instead, by order dated August 31, 2023, he was temporarily posted as Commissioner, Higher Education Department, and attached to the Commissioner's office.
Dr. Patel contended that the actions of the authorities violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Chhattisgarh State Universities Services Rules, 1983. He argued that once selected and appointed, he should have been posted as Registrar, particularly when vacancies existed. He alleged malafide intent, stating that a journalist demanded money for issuing the posting order, and upon his refusal, false complaints were lodged against him. He also asserted that the State is only the cadre-controlling authority, while the Registrar is an employee of the University.
The State strongly contested its claims, arguing that he did not meet the eligibility criteria for the Registrar’s post. Citing a Gazette Notification dated December 27, 2011, they pointed out that the essential qualification includes 15 years of administrative experience, with at least 8 years as Deputy Registrar or equivalent, or 15 years in a Gazetted post in the State Civil Services. Since Dr. Patel was appointed as Deputy Registrar in 2016, he had not completed the required 8 years by 2022, when the recruitment was advertised.
A committee was constituted to verify his eligibility and found that he did not satisfy the prescribed conditions.
The Court agreed with the State's contention, holding that the petitioner lacked the mandatory experience as per the amended rules. It further noted that although a provisional appointment order had been issued in a prior review petition, subject to document verification, it did not override the fundamental eligibility criteria.
Considering the facts and applicable Supreme Court judgments, the High Court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the required qualifications and hence could not be appointed as Registrar.
Accordingly, both writ petitions filed by Dr. Patel were dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that mere selection does not guarantee appointment if the candidate does not meet the eligibility criteria.
A Single Bench, presided over by Justice Amitendra Nath Prasad, dismissed the writ petitions filed by Acting Registrar Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel . The court observed, “It is trite law that any aspirant who has applied for a post, even if selected, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. There are various grounds on which an appointment can be denied despite selection.”
Dr. Patel was initially appointed as Deputy Registrar on February 26, 2016. Although a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) found him fit for promotion to Registrar, he could not be promoted due to the absence of a vacancy. Subsequently, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission advertised three Registrar posts for direct recruitment. Dr. Patel applied, was selected, and was issued an appointment order on April 10, 2023.
However, a formal posting order was not issued. Instead, by order dated August 31, 2023, he was temporarily posted as Commissioner, Higher Education Department, and attached to the Commissioner's office.
Dr. Patel contended that the actions of the authorities violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Chhattisgarh State Universities Services Rules, 1983. He argued that once selected and appointed, he should have been posted as Registrar, particularly when vacancies existed. He alleged malafide intent, stating that a journalist demanded money for issuing the posting order, and upon his refusal, false complaints were lodged against him. He also asserted that the State is only the cadre-controlling authority, while the Registrar is an employee of the University.
The State strongly contested its claims, arguing that he did not meet the eligibility criteria for the Registrar’s post. Citing a Gazette Notification dated December 27, 2011, they pointed out that the essential qualification includes 15 years of administrative experience, with at least 8 years as Deputy Registrar or equivalent, or 15 years in a Gazetted post in the State Civil Services. Since Dr. Patel was appointed as Deputy Registrar in 2016, he had not completed the required 8 years by 2022, when the recruitment was advertised.
A committee was constituted to verify his eligibility and found that he did not satisfy the prescribed conditions.
The Court agreed with the State's contention, holding that the petitioner lacked the mandatory experience as per the amended rules. It further noted that although a provisional appointment order had been issued in a prior review petition, subject to document verification, it did not override the fundamental eligibility criteria.
Considering the facts and applicable Supreme Court judgments, the High Court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the required qualifications and hence could not be appointed as Registrar.
Accordingly, both writ petitions filed by Dr. Patel were dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that mere selection does not guarantee appointment if the candidate does not meet the eligibility criteria.
You may also like
JoJo Siwa's sweet airport reunion with Chris Hughes as star makes declaration
Kevin De Bruyne transfer: Napoli release statement on move for Belgian after Man City exit
Who's qualified for the Champions League as three teams join Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs
EastEnders star Molly Rainford has a very famous dad - and fans are only just realising who
Aston Villa boss Unai Emery confronts officials in tunnel after huge Man Utd controversy
