The case of the petitioner was already under consideration for promotion., hence the court found it fit to not issue any direction. A divisional Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma, in the matter of Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava Vs. Uttarakhand Ayurved University and others (WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 272 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner has challenged the legality of the advertisement, issued, by the Vice-Chancellor of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University, wherein 2 two posts for Professor, in the Department of Panchkarma, were advertised.
In the present case, the petitioner had completed his Graduation (BAMS), in Indian Medicine in 2002, from the Government Ayurvedic College, Varanasi. In 2008, he joined as a Lecturer in the Ayurved and Unani Tibbia College, New Delhi. Subsequently, on 12.01.2011 he again joined the Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College, Haridwar. While the petitioner was teaching at the said College, in 2013 he completed his Ph.D. in Panchkarma. Thereafter, on 20.02.2015 he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor. He was duly nominated as a Professor on 26.12.2016. While he was discharging his academic duties, he also acted as the Deputy Registrar and Proctor of the University.
According to the petitioner, the university asked the faculty members to submit their applications for promotion to the post of Professor, as provided under the Career Advancement Scheme under the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Rules and Regulations, 2015. The petitioner had also submitted his application. After a while, the Petitioner also submitted a representation to the University. He was also called for an interview but was later informed that such an interview was been canceled. Further, the petitioner submitted that the University had issued an advertisement for two posts of Professor in the Department of Panchkarma. Thereby upon feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed this writ petition.
The counsel for the university submitted that there was an advertisement for 4 posts, 2 posts for promotion, and the other two for direct recruitment. The counsel also pointed that one promotion post was occupied and the other was vacant, for which they were to consider the petitioner. Therefore, according to the counsel, the University is justified in advertising the two posts for direct recruitment. According to him, the case of the petitioner was already under consideration for promotion. Therefore, according to the counsel, the present Writ Petition was highly misplaced.
The court observed that- “Since the petitioner’s case is already under consideration against the one vacant promotional post, no further direction needs to be issued by this Court”. Thereby the Writ petition was disposed of.
