CWP-16579-2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 227 CWP-16579-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Amit Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Devilal University and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Raje Ram Kaushik, Advocate (through V.C.) for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Moudgil, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the instant writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor, Music (Contract), in the Music Department of the respondent/University, on the ground that the petitioner has already been interviewed and the post is still lying vacant till date and the petitioner has not been informed about the outcome of his candidature. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-16), whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the respondent/University had issued advertisement No.ET-01/2017 MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-16579-2021 2 for engagement of Assistant Professors (Contract) in 13 disciplines, including Music, on consolidated remuneration, and 03 posts were advertised in the Department of Music, out of which 01 post was reserved for the PWD category and two posts were unreserved. It has been submitted that the petitioner, being a 100% physically handicapped person and possessing the essential qualifications including NET, applied against the post reserved for PWD category in Music (Vocal) and he was the sole candidate in the said category. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent/University never declared the result pertaining to the PWD category nor communicated the outcome of the petitioner's candidature. Despite the petitioner having secured 09 marks in Academic Record and 20 marks in Research Performance, out of a maximum of 25 marks each, he was arbitrarily awarded only 03 marks out of 20 in the interview and only after seeking information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner came to know that he had been declared "Not Found Suitable" while a competing candidate selected in the General category, namely Dr. Saraswati Chaturvedi, who had secured lesser marks in Academic Record (06) and Research Performance (10), was awarded 18 marks in the interview and thus 56 marks in total. It has been contended that there is no rationale or justification for such a low score granted to the petitioner, who possesses vast experience in the field of Music. The said disparity while awarding the interview marks, despite the petitioner's academic and MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-16579-2021 3 research credentials, indicates that the interview process was pre-fixed and pre-determined to deny selection to the petitioner and the selection committee vitiated the sanctity of the interview process. It has further been submitted that the interview process stood vitiated as the Interview Committee was made aware of the marks already obtained by the candidates under other heads of assessment, which, according to him, is contrary to the settled principle that the interview panel should assess candidates independently. Lastly, it has been argued that the post reserved for the PWD category has remained vacant since 2017 and the respondents have not disclosed any reason for treating the petitioner as not suitable and the action of the respondents in keeping the post vacant, without appointing the petitioner or disclosing reasons for his non- selection is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the entire selection process, including the walk-in- interview held on 15.07.2017, was conducted in a transparent, free and fair manner strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Selection Committee in the light of the guidelines proposed by the UGC. It has been submitted that the Selection Committee interviewed all the candidates, including the petitioner and having regard to the petitioner's performance in the interview, including his domain knowledge, communication skills, confidence level and overall personality, the Selection Committee found him 'Not Found Suitable' for MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-16579-2021 4 appointment against the post reserved for the PWD category. He has further argued that mere participation in the selection process and not filling up the vacant post, does not create any indefeasible and vested right in favour of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. 6. The admitted position emerging from the pleadings is that the petitioner participated in the walk-in interview held on 15.07.2017 for engagement as Assistant Professor (Music Vocal) on contractual basis. The Selection Committee evaluated all eligible candidates in accordance with the prescribed selection criteria and ultimately found no candidate suitable against the post reserved for the General PWD category. Consequently, the said post was not filled and has remained vacant. 7. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that being the sole candidate under the PWD category and possessing the prescribed educational qualifications, he ought to have been appointed, particularly when the reserved post remained vacant. Such contention cannot be accepted. Mere possession of the prescribed eligibility qualifications or the circumstance that a candidate is the only applicant against a particular category does not confer an enforceable right to appointment. Eligibility only entitles a candidate to be considered for selection; it does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-16579-2021 5 8. Moreover, the said post is contractual in nature, as discernible from advertisement (Annexure P-1), and only sought to engage Assistant Professor for academic session 2017-18. Furthermore, it is well settled that mere inclusion of the name of a candidate in a select list, much less participation in a selection process, does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A recruitment notification is merely an invitation to eligible candidates to participate in the selection process. Unless the applicable statutory rules provide otherwise, the employer is under no legal obligation to fill every advertised vacancy. However, such decision must be bona fide and free from arbitrariness and, where appointments are made, the comparative merit of the candidates must be respected. 9. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Vijeesh, 1996(3) SCC 139, the following was held: “6. Whether a candidate whose name appears in the select list on the basis of a competitive examination acquires a right of appointment in Government service in an existing or a future vacancy. The above question has been answered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, 1991(2) SCT 194 (SC) : AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1612 : (1991) 3 SCC 47, with the following words: "It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-16579-2021 6 candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted."” (Emphasis added) 10. Further reliance can be placed on the Two-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, 2009(2) SCC 73, wherein the Court, has observed as under: “16. The state as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill them up. Unless a discrimination is made in regard to the filling up of the vacancies or an arbitrariness is committed, the concerned candidate will have no legal right for obtaining a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. [See Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar & ors., 2003(4) SCT 321 : (2004)9 SCC 100] In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220], this Court held : MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-16579-2021 7 "The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the rules in this respect… It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Dr Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived.” 11. It is equally well settled that the assessment of the suitability of candidates is primarily within the domain of the Expert Selection Committee. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit in appeal over the opinion of such an expert body. Unless the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, procedural irregularity or patent perversity, no interference is called for. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-16579-2021 8 12. In the present case, except making bald allegations that he deserved higher marks in the interview and another candidate possessed lesser academic credentials, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material to establish that the Selection Committee acted arbitrarily or adopted a procedure which is contrary to the prescribed selection criteria. Mere disparity in interview marks, by itself, cannot lead to an inference of mala fides or bias. It is a settled law that assessment of suitability falls within the exclusive domain of the Expert Selection Committee and this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not sit in appeal over such assessment unless the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, patent illegality or perversity. Significantly, no member of the Selection Committee has been impleaded in the present proceedings nor any specific allegations of mala fides have been substantiated by cogent pleadings or evidence. 13. The respondents have categorically explained that the post reserved for the General PWD category was left vacant solely because no candidate was found suitable and only the candidates falling in the General category were recommended for appointment strictly in order of merit. Significantly, the petitioner has not challenged the appointments made against the General category posts. Therefore, any comparison with candidates appointed against a different category is wholly misconceived and cannot advance the petitioner's case. 14. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no arbitrariness, mala fides or illegality in the selection process warranting MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-16579-2021 9 interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Mere possession of the prescribed qualifications or the fact that the post reserved for the PWD category remained vacant does not confer any vested right upon the petitioner to claim appointment. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.29 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.