A writ court cannot compel an appointing authority to fill vacant posts.

The petitioner, qualified in Physical Education and possessing a Master of Philosophy degree, had previously worked as a lecturer in Physical Education on a contractual basis at Jadavpur University from 2007 to 2009.

Jadavpur University issued an advertisement on 16 November 2009 for two posts of Lecturer in Physical Education, prescribing a Master’s degree in Physical Education with 55% marks as the minimum qualification.

The petitioner applied, was called for interview, and participated in the selection process.

He claimed that he was subsequently empanelled but that the panel was never acted upon.

During the pendency of related litigation initiated by another candidate, the selection process was delayed.

The University later decided not to proceed with the 2009 recruitment in view of changes in University Grants Commission regulations and resolved to issue a fresh advertisement.

The petitioner consequently sought relief before the High Court for implementation of the earlier selection process and appointment.

Whether the petitioner could claim appointment or implementation of the selection process conducted pursuant to the University’s 2009 advertisement.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could direct Jadavpur University to fill the advertised vacancies or act upon the earlier selection panel.

Whether the University was entitled to discontinue the earlier recruitment process and undertake a fresh selection in light of changed UGC regulations.

The Court applied the principle that a writ court cannot compel an appointing authority to fill up vacancies, although it may examine the legality of the authority’s decision whether to fill them.

Participation in a selection process or inclusion in a panel does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment where the recruitment process has not been completed.

The Court also accepted the administrative authority of the University to discontinue an incomplete recruitment process and initiate a fresh advertisement when applicable qualifications and regulatory parameters have changed.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The petitioner had participated in the interview under the 2009 advertisement, but the University’s selection process had not been completed and no final appointment had been made.

The University explained that subsequent changes in UGC regulations required reconsideration of the qualifications and other selection parameters, leading its Executive Council to decide upon re-advertisement.

Applying the rule that the writ court cannot direct an authority to fill vacancies, the Court found no basis to compel Jadavpur University to act upon the earlier process or panel.

Since the earlier recruitment had not culminated in a completed appointment and the University had decided to adopt a fresh process, no enforceable right of the petitioner survived.

WPA 11870 of 2020 was accordingly disposed of.

The petitioner was granted liberty to apply pursuant to any fresh advertisement issued by the University.