BAL KISHAN DABAS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in History in the second respondent college of the Delhi University. The petitioner had served as a Lecturer in History on ad-hoc basis as per following details:-

(2.) . According to the petitioner, the University issued an advertisement in February, 1995 mentioning that the University intended to fill up three permanent posts of Lecturers in History. The petitioner had also appeared for interview. Ultimately, two Lecturers were appointed. The third post was not filled up. There was an advertisement again in 1996-97 and the third post had been reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) . The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.K.Rao, vehemently contended that in February, 1995 when the advertisement was issued, three posts had been mentioned. At that time, there was no reservation mentioned the roster point had been introduced. Mr. V.K. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to paragraph 6 of the policy which reads as under:-