NIRMALA KUMARI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Mathematics in Bishop Moore College, Mavelikkara, of which the 2nd respondent is the Manager and the 3rd respondent is the Principal, as per an order dated 22nd September 1981 of the 2nd respondent. The said appointment was for a period from 23rd September 1981 to 22nd December 1982. The first respondent University as per its order dated 24th March 1983 approved the said appointment. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent, Manager, shifted the said appointment of the petitioner to another vacancy as per his order dated 29th December 1982 for the period from 3rd February 1982 to 30th November 1983, The first respondent University as per Us order dated 5th September 1983 approved the said appointment. The petitioner was paid her salary and allowances during the said period. Thereafter, as per Ext. P-1 order dated 14th October 1983 of the 2nd respondent Manager of the college, the probation of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer had been declared to have satisfactorily completed in the cadre of Junior Lecturer from the afternoon of 22nd September 1982. It is the case of the petitioner that under statute 23(2) of the Kerala University First Statute, she has a preferential claim for appointment in the future vacancies in the college. . It is her case that on 23rd December 1985, 3rd respondent Principal had asked her willingness to accept an appointment in a vacancy that may arise in January, 1986 and the petitioner had expressed her willingness to accept the said appointment as per her letter dated 28th December 1985. Since no appointment was made, the petitioner filed a representation before the Registrar of first respondent University on 10th July 1987 praying for issuance of necessary direction to the 2nd respondent to consider her claim for appointment in the vacancy. But the Manager has invited applications for the said post on 18th July 1987 by paper publication. Immediately, the petitioner as per Ext. P-2 representation dated. 20th July 1987 requested the Manager to appoint her as Junior Lecturer in Mathematics in the existing vacancy taking into consideration her preferential claim for appointment to the said vacancy in the light of statute 23 (2) of the Kerala University First Statute, 1979. . She also filed a representation to the Registrar of the first respondent University on 10th July 1987 praying for issuance of necessary direction to the 2nd respondent to appoint "net in the vacancy. Her request was considered by the Standing Committee of the Syndicate in its meeting held on 13th October 1987 on teaching and non teaching staff of private colleges and they have decided to direct the management to consider her application for appointment in the vacancy which arose in the department as per the Rules of the University in that regard. The said decision of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate dated 13th October 1987 was intimated to the management by the University as per its letter dated 22nd October 1987. Thereafter, the above facts were duly communicated to the petitioner by the University as per Ext. P-3 communication dated 27th January 1988;

(2.) The petitioner was awaiting appointment in the light of the directions issued by the University. But she was not favoured with any appointment. Therefore, she filed Ext. P-4 representation dated 10th February 1988 before the 2nd respondent and requested him to issue necessary orders appointing her as Lecturer in Mathematics in the existing vacancy in the Bishop Moore College, Mavelikkara.

(3.) Since no action was taken by the manager to appoint the petitioner, the petitioner had approached this Court in O. P. No. 2861/88 for appropriate reliefs. But on 5th April 1988, this Court dismissed the said original petition on the ground that the petitioner's claim would not come under statute 23 (2) of the Kerala University First Statute of. 1979. Thereafter, as per Ext. P-5 representation, the petitioner again requested the Vice-Chancellor of the University to issue necessary direction to the 2nd respondent Manager to appoint her in the existing vacancy in the light of University Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 wherein S.57(6) (b) was introduced giving preferential right for future appointment to relieved teachers. It appears that pa 30th October 1989, the University again issued directions to the 2nd respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer. But the petitioner was not favoured with an order of appointment. Thereafter, the Registrar of the first respondent University as per Ext. P-6 communication dated 5th January 1990 directed the Manager to inform him whether the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in the college. But the petitioner was not favoured with any appointment order by the 2nd respondent and therefore, she filed Ext. p-7 representation dated 2nd August 1990 before the Vice-Chancellor requesting the Vice-Chancellor to interfere in this matter and issue necessary directions to the Manager to appoint her in the vacancy. Instead of taking steps to appoint her -in the vacancy, the Manager has invited applications for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer in Physics and History as per Ext. P-8 notification dated 25th November 1990, Since the petitioner - was not favoured with any order of appointment, she approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing respondents 2 and 3 to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics and also a further direction directing the first respondent to take action for implementing Exts. P-3 and P-6 directions issued by the University directing appointment of the petitioner in the college.