KAMLA KAUSHIK Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2016 and direct the respondent no.2 to re-instate the petitioner as the teacher-in-charge of the Hindi department as per her turn for the tenure of 2017-18 and the rotation system be followed consequently.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as an Associate Professor in Hindi Department at Satyawati College, University of Delhi for the past 30 years. She was to be appointed as Teacher-in-charge of the Hindi Department as per the rotation system, being the senior-most permanent teacher in Hindi Department for the year 2016-2017. According as per the resolution passed by the College staff council in 2012, only permanent teachers were to be appointed as the Teacher-in-charge of each department. Accordingly, as per the convention followed in the colleges affiliated to the Delhi University, the Teacher in Charge is appointed only amongst the permanent teachers of the concerned department. However, vide a letter dated 29.04.2016, respondent No. 2 sought clarification from the respondent No. 1 on the issue, whether teachers on probation could be appointed as the Teacher-in-charge, and simultaneously, the petitioner was given a letter by respondent No.2 dated 07.05.2016 stating that she was temporarily being appointed as the Teacher in charge for a month till the college gets a clarification from the university. The said clarification was responded to by respondent No.l vide a letter dated 13.05.2016 in a very vague and ambiguous manner with no clarity over the issue. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 07.05.2016, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 5669/2016 and the same was listed before this court in which hearing was fixed for 10.06.2016. Respondent No. 2 appointed the petitioner as the permanent teacher-in-charge of Hindi department till March 2017 vide a letter dated 10.06.2016, thereby rendering the writ petition infructuous.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was removed by respondent No. 1 vide a letter dated 09.08.2016 stating that Mr. Vinod Chaubey, respondent no. 3 was being appointed as the new teacher-in-charge who was a probationer at that time.