RAJESHWARI C B Vs. CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus to the Mysore University to appoint her to any one of the posts available in the cadre of lecturer in Sociology.

(2.) The petitioner is a first rank holder in Master of Arts in Sociology. She was appointed as temporary lecturer under Section 518 of the Karnataka State Universities Act (for short the Act) from 1976 till the end of the academic year of her appointment, but was continued from time to time, till 1984. The petitioner was teaching for post-graduate classes and thereafter for under-graduate classes. In the year 1982, the petitioner applied for the post of a lecturer in Sociology pursuant to an advertisement made by the University. However, she was not selected. Thereafter, on several occasions, the petitioner applied for the said post but she was not selected in any of those interviews Ultimately, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18130 of 1985 challenging the selection of one Ashok Kumar in perference to the petitioner. That appointment was initiaJly quashed and in appeal that judgment was reversed and the appointment of the said Aihok Kumar was upheld by this Court. Thus, the petitioner has remained unemployed. The petitioner states that on 24th October 1987 applications had been invited for number of posts including the post of lecturers in Sociology, namely, one post in under-graduate colleges and another post in Institute of Correspondence Course and Continuing Education, Manama Gangotri at Mysore. But both these posts were reserved for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and therefore she could not apply for the same. She claims that she having been continued periodically for a continuous period of 250 days in each year and for about five years and having throughout her service, an unblemished record she should be appointed for one of the posts notified in the said advertisement. The petitioner also submits that the University should adopt the principle of 'last come first go' in regard to selection of candidates appointed as temporary lecturers. In this context, the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1284 of 1973 in Smt Mary Oomen v The Manager, M.G.M.High School & ors.(1987 ISVLR (L)102). The petitioner also complains of mala fides against the Head of Postgraduate department of Sociology one Smt. Parvathamma.

(3.) Section 49 of the Act provides for appointment of teachers including lecturers in the Uuiversity by the syndicate after selection is made by the Board of Appointments. Section 51B of the Act empowers the Vice-Chancellor to maks temporary appointments for a period not more than six months, to posts of lecturers and such non-teaching staff as may be specified in the statutes provided such posts are either temporary or appointments to such posts cannot be made in accordance with Section 49 of the Act without delay. A reading of Sections 49 and 51 B of the Act together would disclose that the latter section is enacted to meet a special and an urgent contingency in which a person cannot be appointed in the University against a teaching or a non-teaching post without delay after following the regular procedure, as provided in the statutes, by advertisement in a local newspaper or by notifying the vacancy to the local Employment Exchange. This' limited requirement of publicity regarding the vacancy is prescribed as the temporary appointment is required to be made for a period not more than six months and until regular recruitment is made as provided under Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act provides for regular appointment of teaching staff to the University. Hence. Section 51B has limited application to meet an emergency situation or a particular necessity. Power under Section 51B of the Act cannot be exercised as an alternative to the regular recruitment or to supplant the same.