MARIA GORETTI Vs. M G UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Malayalam in the second respondent's college in leave vacancies for the periods 9-8-1984 to 29-11-1984, 23-9-1985 to 22-11-1985 and 1-1-1986 to 26-3-1986. She was relieved from service on the expiry of each of the leave vacancies. Subsequently a permanent vacancy arose in the department of Malayalam in the year 1986. Instead of conceding the petitioner's claim for preferential treatment, the 2nd respondent advertised the post under the community quota. The petitioner herself was a candidate but another candidate was selected to the post. The appointment made by the Manager ignoring the claims of the petitioner was not approved by the University. The refusal on the part of the University to approve the appointment was challenged by the 2nd respondent Manager before this court by filing O.P. No. 6356/87. This court disposed of the said original petition by Ext. P1 judgment. It is held by this court in Ext. P1 judgment that the University erred in not approving the appointment of the teacher appointed by the 2nd respondent in so far as the petitioner had no statutory claim for preferential appointment as on the date on which the other, teacher was appointed in the year 1986. This court came to the conclusion that the benefit of S.62(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act by virtue of which preference is conferred on thrown out hands for appointment could be claimed by the petitioner only after the said amendment came into force and not before that. There is an observation in Ext. P1 judgment to the effect that the petitioner's case for appointment by virtue of the rights conferred on by her by the newly introduced S.62(2) ought to be considered by the management when the question of filling up the next vacancy of the Lecturer in Malayalam arises for consideration. Ext. P1 judgment is dated 15-2-1991. The management had by that time effected another permanent appointment in the cadre of Lecturer in Malayalam with effect from 29-6-90. In this original petition the petitioner challenges the appointment so effected in favour of the third respondent on the ground that such appointment is violative of S.62(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Malayalam in the second respondent's college.

(2.) When the original petition was taken up for hearing the learned senior counsel Sr. M.I. Joseph appearing on behalf of the second respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that there is an effective alternative remedy provided under the statute and therefor the original petition is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel referred to S.59 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act which lays down as follows:

(3.) Sri. Mathai M. Paikeday appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that aforesaid preliminary objection is to be rejected on two grounds:-