Appearing for job interview prevents challenge to advertisement, Delhi HC

While ad hoc teachers have been appointed and are continuing in their positions, no advertisement for the same posts may be given, the Supreme Court had ruled. But if the same teachers appear for the interview for the same positions and are unsuccessful, they would have nothing to complain about, Justice V Kameswar Rao of the Delhi High Court ruled on Wednesday..The High Court was hearing a writ petition, argued by Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, filed by three petitioners stating that they were appointed as ad hoc Assistant Professors in a college affiliated to Delhi University. On July 19 this year, an advertisement was issued by the college for appointing Assistant Professors on an ad hoc basis in various subjects including Political Science and Physics..The petitioners contended that the very advertisement issued by the respondents is illegal in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors, which held that an ad hoc appointment cannot be replaced by another ad hoc appointment. Luthra also argued that the appointment of the petitioners should have been automatically continued till such time regular appointments were made..Advocate RK Saini, appearing for the respondent college, stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated July 19, the petitioners had appeared in the interview but were not successful. On this ground alone, the writ petition ought to be dismissed, he contended..The Court referred to two judgements relied upon by the petitioners – State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Ors. and Md. Abdul Kadir & Anr vs Director General Of Police, Assam, which held that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee. However, Justice Rao held that the reliance would have been effective if the petitioners had not appeared for the interview..“In other words, the petitioners having appeared in the interview and taken a chance and not being successful is a relevant factor for this Court to dismiss the petition.”.To arrive at this finding, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Madan Lal and Ors v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors in which it was held, .“It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair.”.The Court, therefore, dismissed the petitioners’ case, holding that because they had appeared in the interview, they could not claim to be estopped by the fact that the advertisement for the positions was bad in law..Read the Order: