NALINI PRABHAKAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is by a lecturer in the School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education (Respondent No. 2), seeking the quashing of a decision dated 30th September, 2003 whereby the Executive Council (,EC) of the University of Delhi, Respondent No. 1, did not accept the recommendations of the Managing Committee (,MC) of Respondent No. 2 recommending the regularisation of the services of the Petitioner. The further prayer in the writ petition is that a mandamus should be issued to Respondent No. 1 University to reconsider the case of the Petitioner for regularisation as lecturer in English in Respondent No. 2.

(2.) PURSUANT to an advertisement dated 8 August, 1995 the Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of lecturer in English in Respondent No. 2. A regularly constituted Selection Committee which met on 9th February 1996 selected the Petitioner and recommended her name for the panels for permanent as well as temporary posts. The EC of Respondent No. 1 University at its meeting held on 14 March, 1996 approved both panels. However, since no permanent posts were available at that point in time the Petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis by a letter dated 17 July, 1996 issued by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner states that she has been working continuously as a lecturer in the post since then.

(3.) THE Petitioner has set out several aspects of similarity between the case of Dr. Tapan Biswal and her own. He was also selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee which met on 30 September, 1988 and was recommended both for temporary as well as permanent posts. Due to non-availability of a permanent post, he too was appointed on temporary basis and was working against a temporary vacancy for over seven years. Subsequently, by a decision of the MC his services were regularised and this was also accepted by the EC.