UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Vs. USHA KULSHRESHTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising from the judgment of the leamed Single Judge dated December l9, 1997 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4085/97. The facts lie in a narrow compass and are as follows:

(2.) The first respondent herein, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, is M.Sc. in Mathematics. She received Ph.D. degree in Physics in December, 1993 from the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany. On July 18,1994 the first respondent was appointed as Research Associate in Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for five years and posted in the Department of Physics, University of Delhi.

(3.) The petitioner applied for her empanelment in the list of suitable candidates to be considered as ad hoc Lecturer in the Colleges of the Delhi University. Pursuant to submission of the said application, she was called for interview. The Selection Committee after interview selected and empanelled her for being considered for appointment as an ad hoc Lecturer in Physics for the year 1995-96. It is to be noted that for every year fresh empanelment has to take place. After being empanelled for the year 1995-96 she was called for the interview on November 6,1995 for the post of ad hoc Lecturer in Kalindi College, New Delhi, but on July 27,1996 her name was dropped from the panel. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent sent a representation to the Head of Department of Physics, University of Delhi. On September 19, 1996, the Head of Department of Physics, University of Delhi, informed the first respondent that she does not fulfil the basic qualifications for being appointed as Lecturer in Physics. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a writ petition which came-up before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge found the impugned action to be unsustainable and gave a direction to the appellant University to consider the case of the first respondent for empanelling her for the post of ad fwc Lecturer in Physics. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant University but we did not have the benefit of hearing arguments on behalf of the first respondent and other respondents as there was no appearance on their behalf.