University Imposes Legal Restriction on Applicants
Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Ayurveda University, Jodhpur, has announced a recruitment drive for 209 posts across various designations, including Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, and Resident Medical Officer. However, a significant controversy has arisen due to an unusual clause in the recruitment process. The university has mandated that all applicants must submit an affidavit along with their application form, stating that they will not approach the court for any dispute related to the selection process.
This move is being seen as a clear deviation from standard recruitment norms and has raised legal and ethical concerns among experts. The inclusion of this clause effectively means that candidates will be denied their fundamental right to challenge any irregularities, bias, or unfair treatment in the hiring process.
Legal Experts Question the Move
The decision to make an affidavit compulsory has been widely criticized by legal professionals. Senior advocate Surendra Swami has pointed out that such conditions are unconstitutional and cannot be legally enforced. He emphasized that no government institution or university can take away an individual’s right to seek justice through the courts. Swami further explained that fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution cannot be waived merely through an affidavit.
He also highlighted that in past cases, courts have ruled against such restrictive conditions. If a candidate feels they have been unfairly treated or if there are irregularities in the selection process, they can still challenge the appointments despite having signed an affidavit.
Concerns Over Potential Legal Battles
The imposition of this affidavit is seen as an attempt by the university to shield itself from legal scrutiny. However, experts believe that if a rejected candidate decides to approach the court, the affidavit will not hold much legal weight. Since fundamental rights cannot be overridden by institutional rules, the judiciary is likely to intervene if any candidate challenges the process.
Additionally, the recruitment process categorizes applicants into different groups. If a candidate does not find their name in the final selection, they are advised to contact the university. But given the restrictive nature of the affidavit, many fear that deserving candidates may be left without any legal recourse.
Detailed Breakdown of Vacancies
The university has released a detailed list of available positions across different departments. The recruitment includes posts in specialized fields such as:
- Professors
- Associate Professors
- Assistant Professors
- Resident Medical Officers
Departments with vacancies include Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Pediatrics, ENT (Ear, Nose, and Throat), Ophthalmology, and several others.
Could the Clause Be Legally Overturned?
Given the controversy, many believe that this clause will likely be challenged in court. Legal experts argue that such a condition is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional. The inclusion of this requirement not only raises questions about transparency in recruitment but also signals a lack of accountability on the part of the university.
Senior advocate Surendra Swami reaffirmed that any candidate who faces discrimination or procedural irregularities can still file a case, as an affidavit cannot take away the right to legal remedies. He urged candidates to remain aware of their rights and not be discouraged by such conditions.
A Precedent for Future Recruitments?
The move by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Ayurveda University has set a precedent that, if left unchallenged, could be replicated in future recruitments by other institutions. The imposition of a legally questionable clause in a government-affiliated university’s recruitment process has sparked debates in both legal and academic circles.
Whether this matter reaches the courts will depend on the response from the candidates. However, legal experts are confident that the judiciary will not support such a condition, as it contradicts the fundamental principles of justice and fairness in recruitment processes.
