MRS. SEEMA BANSAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the relief of her being regularized to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics with the respondent no.2/Maharaja Agrasen College. The petitioner pleads that the post in question was advertised as a permanent post in the year 1995 but petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis in terms of the letter of the respondent no.2 dated 31.8.1995. Petitioner further pleads that petitioner was selected by the due process against a clear substantive vacancy. Petitioners services were terminated on 30.4.1996. Petitioner has given a chart in para 3(f) of the writ petition giving various periods of ad hoc appointments of the petitioner. Petitioner accordingly pleads that petitioner should be regularized in her post and the petitioner also prays for quashing of the selection process for appointment of a lecturer in terms of the advertisement dated 27.4.2002.

(2.) Respondent no.2 has filed its counter affidavit and stated that since the college was recently opened in the year 1994, and therefore, for limited periods persons such as the petitioner were appointed on temporary/ad hoc basis. Since the college has started functioning only in August 1994, and therefore, pending regular appointments on regular basis, temporary/ad hoc appointments were made for holding of classes for students. It is further pleaded that for the post of Lecturer in the Department of English on regular basis, interviews were held on 15.11.2002. Petitioner appeared in the interview but petitioner was not selected by the selection committee and instead other persons were selected, and who have been made parties as respondent nos. 3 to 6 to this writ petition.

(3.) The issue in the present case is that whether and when the petitioner was appointed, then the post to which petitioner was appointed was advertised, was or was not a post for regular appointment/permanent appointment in a permanent post. If the post was a regular post and for permanent appointment, and that petitioner was selected as per due process, only then the petitioner would have had a valid claim for regularization. If however the advertisement was only for an ad hoc/temporary post, then petitioner cannot seek regularization.