Rajiya Sultan and Sunil Kumar V. H.P. University and Union of India

CWP/1284/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions, CWP No. 5775 of 2021 and CWP No. 1284 of 2022, which were decided together due to common questions of fact and law. The petitions challenged the eligibility and appointment of respondent No.4 under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for a faculty position at the University Institute of Legal Studies, Shimla. The petitioner in CWP No. 5775 argued that respondent No.4 was not entitled to the EWS benefits as his family was employed in government services, which disqualifies them under the state government's instructions dated 11.06.2019. The court found that respondent No.4 did not meet the EWS criteria and thus his appointment was illegal. The court also addressed the eligibility of the petitioner in CWP No. 1284, suggesting that her appointment could be considered if she meets the EWS criteria upon verification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800318 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA DUTT; BALRAM SHARMA; PUSHPENDER JASWAL; RAHUL THAKUR; PRIYANKA CHAUHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV BHUSHAN; UDIT KAUSHIK; ANKUSH SOOD; VIVEK NEGI
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Mandamus; Public employment; Quash and set aside; Reservation; EWS certificate; Appointment letter; Waiting panel; Economic weaker sections
• Section: 15; 16

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 5775 of 2021 a/w CWP No. 1284 of 2022. Reserved on: 3 rd August, 2023. Date of decision: 16 th August, 2023. 1. CWP No. 5775 of 2021. Rajiya Sultan ...Petitioner. Versus H.P . University and Others ....Respondents. 2. CWP No. 1284 of 2022. Sunil Kumar …...Petitioner. vs. Union of India & Others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate for petitioner in CWP No. 5775 of 2021. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for petitioner in CWP No. 1284 of 2022. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? For the Respondents: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in CWP No. 5775 of 2021 and for respondent No.8 in CWP No. 1284 of 2022. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent No.1 & 2 in CWP No. 1284 of 2022. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. A.G., Mr. Rahul Thakur and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. A.Gs., for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP No. 5775 of 2021 and for respondents No. 3 to 7 in CWP No. 1284 of 2022. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for respondent NO.4 in CWP No. 5775 of 2021. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.9 in CWP No. 1284 of 2022. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Both these petitions are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. CWP No.5775 of 2021 has been filed for following substantive reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to bring the relevant …2… record regarding issuing of EWS certificate to respondent No.4; and/or II. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside Annexure P-4 i.e., appointment letter issued to private respondent No.4 and/or III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to place on record the waiting panel before this Hon'ble Court; and/or IV. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to issue appointment to next candidate in the waiting panel as per the selecting committee;” 3. In CWP No. 1284 of 2022, the reliefs have been claimed in the following terms:- “a. Call for the records pertaining to the case: b. Quash impugned instructions/notifications dated 11.6.2019; 19.6.2019 and 2.7.2019 Annexure(s) P-7 (Collectively and P-13 particularly impugned condition whereby otherwise eligible candidates of the family of Regular/Contract employees of the Central Government, State Government, Board, Corporations and autonomous bodies and Public Sector Undertakings etc. are being excluded from being considered as EWS as being ultra vires and violative of the Constitution of India; c. Uphold the EWS certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority or in the alternative direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner the post of Inspector, …3… Co-operative Societies, Directorate of Cooperation, Himachal Pradesh; d. Quash the EWS certificate of private respondent No.9; e. Award the costs of this writ petition in favour of the petitioners; 4. Vide advertisement dated 30.12.2019, issued by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), applications were invited from eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies against various posts. One of such post was of Assistant Professor in the pay scale of 15600-39100 plus 6000 AGP in the subject of Public Administration (for short the, ‘post’) in University Institute of Legal Studies, Shimla-4 (‘UILS’). The post was reserved for EWS category. 5. For the sake of avoiding confusion the parties hereafter shall be referred to by the status they hold in CWP . 5775 of 2021. 6. Petitioner and respondent No.4 also applied for the post besides others. Both were called for interviews to be held on 8th April, 2021. Respondent No.4 was selected and was offered appointment on 09.04.2021. He, accepted the offer and joined as Assistant Professor (Public Administration) in UILS on the same day i.e. 09.04.2021. …4… 7. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 on the ground that the said respondent was not entitled for the benefit of EWS category. It has been submitted that respondent No.4 had been appointed as an Inspector in the Department of Co-operation, Government of Himachal Pradesh on contract basis in the year 2017 and he had joined the said services on 04.10.2017. Since then, respondent No.4 had been working on the same post and had resigned only on 09.04.2021 after his selection to the post. As per the petitioner, Government of Himachal Pradesh has issued instructions dated 11.06.2019 for implementation of Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 in the State. Instruction No.3 of these instructions bars a person from claiming the benefit of EWS category if his family owns or possess any assets detailed therein and one of such asset and relevant for the purpose of the issue involved in the instant case is that the family of Regular/Contract employees of the Central Government, State Government, Board, Corporations and autonomous bodies and Public Sector undertakings etc., shall be excluded from being identified as EWS irrespective of the family income. …5… 8. The petitioner, on the strength of the aforesaid instructions, has alleged that the certificate of EWS produced by respondent No.4 is false and fake. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner approached the University by providing the relevant information pertaining to respondent No.4. Having remained unsuccessful in getting her grievance redressed from the University, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant petition for the reliefs noticed above. 9. The University in its reply has categorically admitted the applicability of the instructions dated 11.06.2019 to its establishment. As per the stand of the university, scrutiny of the testimonials and documents of the candidates was done by the duly constituted selection committee as per the norms of the UGC. EWS certificate submitted by respondent No.4 was verified and appointment was accordingly offered to him. 10. Respondents No.2 and 3 have submitted their separate reply and have stated therein that respondent No.3 had issued certificate on the basis of the report submitted by …6… the Patwari concerned, which was stated to be the procedure applicable for the issuance of EWS certificate. 11. Respondent No.4 has contested the claim of the petitioner being false and frivolous. The locus standi of the petitioner has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner herself did not belong to EWS category and the certificate produced by her was not valid inasmuch as the income of her father was not taken into consideration. The petitioner is also stated to have submitted her EWS certificate after the offer of appointment had already been extended to respondent No.4. As per respondent No.4, he had already apprised the competent authority vide communication dated 11.11.2021 with respect to the aforesaid facts. In addition, it has been submitted that the income of husband of the petitioner was not also correctly considered as he was having other sources of income in addition to income from agriculture. Petitioner is also alleged to have suppressed material facts and to have suggested facts which were false to her own knowledge. It has been submitted that the petitioner had failed to make the relevant disclosure of material facts to the authorities while seeking EWS certificate. …7… The petitioner is also stated to be estopped from filing the petition on account of her own acts, deeds, conduct and acquiescence. Objection as to the delay and laches in filing the petition has also been raised. It is submitted that respondent No.4 was appointed on 09.04.2021 and he had joined on the same date. An office order was issued by the University on 19.06.2021, whereby the joining date of respondent No.4 on the post was formally notified. Respondent No.4 has also sought to assail instruction No.3 of the Instructions dated 11th June, 2019 inasmuch as it disqualified the persons from EWS category in case the family held any regular or contract employees in the Central Government, State Government, Board, Corporations and autonomous bodies and Public Sector Undertakings etc., being ultra vires of the Constitution on the ground that the instructions issued by the State Government did not bear any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the constitutional provisions. On merits, respondent No.4 submitted that the advertisement issued by the University on 30.12.2019 referred to the instructions dated 11.03.2019 issued by the State Government, therefore, instructions dated …8… 11.06.2019 were irrelevant. Reference has also been made to a subsequent clarification dated 16.10.2019 issued by the State Government, whereby it was clarified that the candidates whose parents were government employees and who otherwise fulfill conditions/eligibility criteria of reservation of EWS laid down in notification dated 26.03.2019 and 02.07.2019 would be considered eligible as per the criteria fixed for various posts in Central and State Governments. Respondent No.4 has further submitted that he had applied for EWS certificate by submitting all relevant documents including his salary certificate and thus had not suppressed any information whatsoever. The total income of the family of respondent No.4 was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. Four lakhs and thus he fell in the category of EWS. Respondent No.4 has not denied the factum of his serving as Inspector in Directorate of Cooperation Himachal Pradesh since 4.10.2017. As per the said respondent he had resigned from the post of Inspector from the department of Cooperation on 09.04.2021 before issuance of the EWS certificate in his favour. He further alleged that he had tendered his resignation at 10 A.M. on 09.04.2021, whereas …9… certificate of EWS was issued by the authorities in his favour thereafter. 12. In CWP No. 1284 of 2022, respondent No.4 has sought the declaration of instruction No.3 of instructions dated 11.06.2019 as ultra vires the Constitution. The case set up by respondent No.4 in his separate petition has the same basis as his defence in CWP No.5775 of 2021. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 14. Since, respondent No.4 has laid a challenge to the vires of notification dated 11.06.2019, it is necessary to delve on such issue in the first instance as it will have fundamental bearing on the other issues raised by the parties. 15. It is contended for respondent No.4 that the object which is sought to be achieved by the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, is to provide upliftment of economically weaker sections by way of 10% reservation. The reservation provided by the aforesaid amendment in the Constitution is to apply horizontally. The reserved categories of ‘Scheduled Castes’, ‘Scheduled T ribes’ and ‘Other Backward Classes’ have been excluded from claiming the …10… benefit as EWS. The object of such amendment clearly has been to provide solace of equal opportunity to marginalized class of society termed as EWS. The disqualification of a person whose family is holding Regular/Contract employment of the Central Government, State Government, Board, Corporations and autonomous bodies and Public Sector Undertakings etc., even though he may be fulfilling all other qualifications to be EWS, is arbitrary and irrational and does not qualify the settled criteria of intelligible differentia. The exclusion of a class to above effect in the offending instructions dated 11.06.2019 has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the constitutional amendment. 16. The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, has provided for inclusion of sub clause (6) after existing clause (5) in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution in following terms:- “(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,— (a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and …11… (b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent. of the total seats in each category. Explanation.—For the purposes of this article and article 16, \"economically weaker sections\" shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.’ 3. In article 16 of the Constitution, after clause (5), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:— \"(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a …12… maximum of ten per cent. of the posts in each category.\" 17. The State thus has been empowered to make provisions for the advancement of EWS category of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 15 and Clause (4) of Article 16. Explanation appended to Section 2 of the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, empowers the State to notify from time to time the ‘Economically Weaker Section’ on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage. It being so, the power of State to notify the criteria for ‘Economically Weaker Section’ has specifically been saved by the said constitutional amendment. The broader criteria of ‘family income’ and other indicators of ‘economic disadvantage’ are the guiding principles. Thus, the State Government has power to notify the criteria for economically weaker section. The discretion has also been vested with the State Governments to fix such criteria on the basis of family income and other indicator of economic disadvantage. The term “other indicator of economic disadvantage” has to be applied by the State Government keeping in view the objective criteria. …13… 18. The disqualification of a person from the benefit of reservation under EWS class, on the ground that he belonged to a family of contract or regular employee under the Central Government, State Government, Board, Corporations and autonomous bodies and Public Sector Undertakings etc., has been taken by the State Government to be one of the indicators as contrary to economic disadvantage of such person. The said disqualification, herein is being considered in the context of the fact situation where respondent No.4 had already held the contractual employment under the State Government and intended to have another employment that too on the post reserved for EWS category. Consideration of the employment with Government sector in the family cannot be held to be an irrelevant factor for disqualifying a person from EWS category. One of fundamental purposes of inclusion of EWS as a class for reservation in educational opportunities and public employment is to widen the scope of grant of benefits to the persons who are more needy. Merely because an optimum limit of family income at Rs. 4,00,000/- has been taken as one of the criteria, it cannot be an estoppel against the State from carving out more categories within the …14… broader class in order to achieve the object of the constitutional provision and more particularly on identification of indicators of economic disadvantages. 19. It can be seen that not only the person who has a family of regular/contract employees the following categories, who have one of the following assets, have also been excluded: (i) More than 1 Hectare of Agricultural Land in rural area and 500 square meters land in urban area; (ii) Residential flat/ house of more than 2500 square feet in rural/ urban areas; (iii) Family of income tax payer. Thus, the excluded categories have one thing in common that they have one or the other asset which is capable of generating a reasonable regular income for the family. In contrast the selection criteria of the gross family annual income of below Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum necessarily has reference to a particular financial year which is prior to the year in which application for EWS certificate is submitted by an applicant. …15… 20. Evidently, the laudable feature of provision of reservation to EWS is that no permanency is attached to a particular class for the purposes of grant of benefit of reservation in education or public employment. The family income criteria for a particular family can be wavering and may change during every coming financial year. On such criteria the benefit of EWS will be available only on proof of the factum of annual income being below Rs.4,00,000/- in the year prior to the year in which the benefit is sought. On the other hand, the persons with above noted asset(s) already possess regular means of subsistence. This also negates the possibility of conferment of repeated benefit of reservation under EWS category. Once a family gets the benefit of EWS for securing public employment, by application of impugned exclusion clause, it will not be able to get the same benefit again. We cannot forget that by creation of reservation in public employment, the rights of a larger unreserved class are squeezed and it will always be in public interest to not to extend the rights of reservation even slightly more that what is required. …16… 21. In the above background, in comparison to the family in which one of the members already has an employment, the other family which has no such benefit will definitely be termed to be more needy. The optimum limit of income from all sources in either case remains at Rs.4 lacs. 22. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of respondent No.4 and have otherwise also not found sufficient grounds to hold the impugned instructions dated 11.06.2019 to be ultra vires the Constitution of India. 23. On facts, there is no dispute that respondent no.4 was employed as Inspector in the department of Cooperation, Government of Himachal Pradesh since 2017. He was holding the same position till 08.04.2021, when the interviews for the post of Assistant Professor (Public Administration) were held. As per own case of respondent No.4, he had resigned from the post of Inspector Cooperative on 09.04.2021 at 10.00 a.m. It has also been admitted on behalf of respondent No.4 that the EWS certificate was issued in his favour thereafter. The copy of EWS certificate issued in favour of respondent No.4 is on record as Annexure R-4/13 at page 143 …17… of the paper book in CWP No. 5775 of 2021 and the date of approval of the certificate is 09.04.2021. It has been certified that the family of respondent No.4 did not own or possess any of the following assets:-- 1. More than 1 hectare of Agriculture Land in rural areas. 2. 500 Square Meter land in Urban areas. 3. Residential flat/house of more than 2500 square feet in rural/urban areas. 4. Family of income tax payee. 5. Family of Regular/Contract employees of the Central Government, State Government, Board, Corporation and autonomous bodies and Public Sector undertaking etc.” 24. Obviously, the certification and declaration of non- possession of 5th asset in favour of respondent No.4 was not in accordance with the true factual position. Whether respondent No.4 had misrepresented the facts to the competent authority while applying for EWS certificate or not loses significance as the result would remain the same. The petitioner and respondent no.4 had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Public Administration) under EWS category in response to the advertisement dated 30.12.2019, which carried important instructions for the candidates. Such …18… of instructions as are deemed relevant for adjudication of the issue under consideration, are being reproduced hereunder:- “2. Date for determining eligibility of all candidates in respect of essential qualification(s) and experience, if any, etc. shall be prescribed closing date for submission of Online Application i.e. 30.01.2020. 4. The candidate(s) is also required to submit hardcopy after downloading the online application form along with requisite relevant documents in support of the information uploaded in the online application. The separate hardcopy alongwith all the requisite documents for each post(s) should reach in the University on 15.02.2020 upto 5.00 p.m. However, the candidate residing in Andman and Nicobar Islands Lakshdweep, Ladakh, Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Pangi and Bharmour Subdivision of Chamba District, Dodra Kwar Sub Division of Shimla District, Kinnaur Districts and Lahul & Spiti Districts of Himachal Pradesh, the last date for receiving the hardcopy of online application form shall be 02.03.2020 upto 5.00 p.m. The University will not be responsible for any postal delay. The hardcopy of the online application form along with all relevant documents should reach in the office of the The Deputy Registrar, Recruitment Branch, …19… H.P. University, Gyan Path, Summer Hill, Shimla-171005 (H.P.) on or before the above prescribed the last dates of submission of hardcopy. 8. The candidates must fulfill the required essential educational Qualification(s)/ Experience and other conditions before the closing date of online portal as mentioned in the advertisement to avoid disqualification. 9. The benefit of reservation for various post(s) will be admissible only to the candidates, who are Bonafide residents of Himachal Pradesh in respect of categories viz. S.C., S.T ., OB.C., E.W.S., B.P .L., Ex-Servicemen, WFF and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities. The candidates are required to submit certificate in support of the claim of her/his category as prescribed by the State Govt. from time to time. 10. Candidates claiming reservation under EWS (Economically Weaker Section) shall have to submit “Income and Asset Certificate” in respect of their family, duly issued by the competent authority on the prescribed format as specified in Department of Personnel's (State Government of HP)instruction No. PER(AP)-C-B(12)-1/2019 dated 11.03.2019 along with their application form on or before the closing date of receipt of applications prescribed in …20… this advertisement, failing which their application will not be considered. 11. The appointment of the EWS category applicant shall be provisional and subject to the Income and Asset certificate being verified through the proper channels and if the verification reveals that the claim to belong to EWS is fake/false the services will be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons and without prejudice to such further action as may be taken under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for production of fake/false certificate. 15. The candidates called for interview shall have to essentially come with the original documents in support of their claims in Online Application and as prescribed in the interview call letter , failing which he/she shall not be considered for the interview. No TA/DA will be admissible for attending interview.” 25. In addition, it can be noticed that there were specific notes in the interview letter issued to the candidates which reads as under: “Note:-1 Valid latest upto date certificate in support of Category claim if any must be submitted on the date of interview, failing which the …21… candidate shall not be allowed to appear before the Selection Committee. 2. Self attested duplicate set of Certificates/documents as claimed in the application form must be submitted at the time of document verification.” 26. It is not in dispute that the eligibility of candidate was to be seen on the last date of submission of application i.e. on 30.01.2020. Instruction No.10 as reproduced above mandated a candidate claiming reservation under EWS category to submit his/her income and asset certificate along with application form on or before the closing date of receipt of application, failing which the application was liable to be not considered. As noticed above, EWS certificate relied upon by respondent No.4 was issued on 09.04.2021. Nothing has been placed on record to show that he had submitted any certificate of income and asset of his family along with his application. That being so, respondent No.4 was otherwise also disentitled from participating in the selection process. The said respondent in the above factual background cannot be heard to raise plea of bonafide. Even otherwise also, respondent No.4 was clearly disqualified to claim the benefit …22… of EWS in terms of instruction No.3 of instructions issued by the State Government on dated 11.06.2019. 27. Another contention raised on behalf of respondent No.4 that notification dated 11.06.2019 had no applicability in the case in view of the specific mention of notification dated 11.03.2019 in instruction No.10 of the advertisement is also clearly misplaced. Reference to notification dated 11.03.2019 in instruction No.10 of the advertisement is in respect of the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh prescribing the format for the income and asset certificate. The impugned instructions dated 11.06.2019 cannot be said to be affected by the notification referred in condition No.10. 28. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 has further made a reference to a clarification issued by the State Government on 16.10.2019, whereby the amendment made to Chapter-28 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual, 1992 was clarified as not to include those persons in the impugned exclusion clause, whose parents were government employees and who otherwise fulfilled the condition/eligibility criteria of reservation for EWS. Having given my considered …23… thought to the argument so raised, I am of the view that clarification so pointed out on behalf of respondent No.4 will not serve the cause of petitioner. In his case, respondent No.4 himself was in employment and not his parents. 29. In the light of above discussion, there is no escape from holding that respondent No.4 was not eligible to apply or being selected to the post of Assistant Professor (Public Administration) under EWS category as the family of petitioner was holding the asset in terms of Clause (3) of the instructions dated 11th July, 2019. The University was legally obliged to have verified the eligibility of respondent No.4 under EWS category, which the University miserably failed either intentionally or unintentionally. This court, however, cannot shut its eyes to the palpable and evident illegalities committed in the matter of public employment that too where the question of reserved category for marginalized class such as EWS is concerned. The appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Assistant Professor (Public Administration) in UILS is thus liable to be quashed. 30. As regards, the entitlement of petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Public Administration), no prayer …24… has been made by the petitioner for granting the appointment to her. The only prayer, is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the university to issue appointment to next candidate in the waiting panel. This Court is presently seized of with a dispute inter se the petitioner and respondent No.4, where both have challenged each other’s eligibility as EWS candidate. This Court, thus, cannot deter the university from making appointment out of the waiting list of persons other than respondent No.4 and petitioner, if he/she is otherwise eligible in accordance with the Rules. 31. The eligibility of petitioner has been challenged on two grounds, firstly, that the income of her father has not been included and secondly, she belongs to sub caste “Banjara” which was other backward class. The allegations made by respondent No.4 against the petitioner have been denied. This Court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not enter in an arena where it has to decide the intricate and disputed questions of facts. The case of petitioner can be seen at different platform than that of respondent No.4 as in the case of respondent No.4 the factum of his contractual employment …25… as Inspector in the Cooperation department of State Government since 2017 was not a disputed fact. 32. This, does not mean that this Court has put the stamp on the validity or eligibility of the petitioner. Instruction No.11 of the advertisement clearly envisage that the appointment under EWS category will be provisional and subject to verification of income and asset certificate of the selected candidate through proper channels. This applies to the petitioner also with equal force. In case, the petitioner is found next in waiting panel and further in case such waiting panel is still subsisting, respondent university is directed to offer appointment to petitioner after due verification of her eligibility as EWS candidate strictly in accordance with the Rules and specifically in light of the observations made hereinabove. 33. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of in above terms. The appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Professor (Public Administration) in UILS is quashed and set aside and the right, if any, of petitioner to claim the appointment on the said post will be subject to strict compliance of observations made hereinabove. No …26… order as to costs. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 16th August, 2023. (jai) …27… "