KUSUM LATA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is visually impaired, who had applied for the post of Hindi Lecturer in pursuance of an Advertisement in the year 1997 and as per the counter-affidavit filed by respondent-College, she was found to be meeting the minimum eligibility qualification and she was duly considered under 3% Reservation for visually impaired persons, but was found to be unfit by the Selection Committee for appointment on the permanent post of Hindi Lecturer. However, it is the case of respondentCollege that petitioner was found to be fit for being appointed on the post of Hindi Lecturer on part-time basis. Accordingly, petitioner was appointed as Hindi Lecturer on part-time basis in July, 1997. In the counter-affidavit, it is pointedly asserted by respondent-College that though petitioner was not found to be fit for appointment on the permanent post of Hindi Lecturer by the Selection Committee, she was found to be fit to be appointed as a part-time Hindi Lecturer. It is matter of record that petitioner had worked as a part-time Hindi Lecturer till 15th April, 2001 and thereafter, she was appointed against a Leave Vacancy of Hindi Lecturer on 16th April, 2001, after due selection.

(2.) In the first round of litigation, petitioner had assailed the Advertisement (Annexure P-X) whereby one permanent post of Hindi Lecturer reserved for Schedule Caste category and one Leave Vacancy of Hindi Lecturer were advertised. It is the case of petitioner that she had applied against a permanent post of Hindi lecturer in the year 2000, but was selected against Leave Vacancy.

(3.) While entertaining petitioner's earlier writ petition, appointment of third respondent as well as of petitioner was made subject matter of decision of writ petition. However, petitioner's earlier writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) 1784/2001 was disposed of vide order of 22nd November, 2007 (Annexure P-I) while noting that petitioner has been given a regular appointment of Hindi Lecturer in the year 2006 and so, liberty was granted to petitioner to seek her remedies claiming seniority and other consequential benefits from the year 1998. In the second round of litigation i.e. by way of instant petition, petitioner has sought quashing of appointment of third respondent on the post of Hindi Lecturer w.e.f. 1998 and also a mandamus to confirm her retrospectively from the year 1998 as permanent Lecturer in Hindi with all consequential benefits.