ABIDHA BEEGUM V.S. Vs. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the University; having denied her regularisation in service and also declined her selection conducted, pursuant to Ext.P10. The petitioner seeks one post of Assistant Professor (Law) in the Malappuram Centre of the respondent University, either by regularisation of her contractual appointment or on the entitlement to be selected pursuant to Ext.P10 notification.

(2.) The brief facts to be noticed are that by Ext.P1 dated 01.11.2010, the respondent University had invited applications for appointment on contractual basis inter alia to the post of Assistant Professor (Law). The petitioner applied and was offered such employment for a period of one year as per Ext.P2. The contractual period of the petitioner was extended, among others, by Exts.P3 to P5. The petitioner contends that there was a promise of regularisation made as per Ext.P6. The petitioner having been appointed by a General Selection Committee, as per the Aligarh Muslim University Act XL of 1920, the petitioner could be granted regularisation. The petitioner had, in fact, declined an offer for an appointment to a Government Law College, as offered by Ext.P7, in the hope of being regularised. There were other persons appointed on contract and regularised subsequently, as is evident from Exts.P16 and P18, which is on the basis of Ext.P19 decision of the University. The petitioner having been denied regularisation, when similarly placed persons were granted regularisation, results in the petitioner having been discriminated. The petitioner has been arbitrarily denied regularisation, despite she being entitled to it and such action being enabled by decisions of the University itself; are in a nutshell, the argument.

(3.) The further contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the selection made was bad. The procedure followed would definitely indicate the petitioner having been illegally excluded from appointment. The petitioner's specific contention is that as per Ext.P12, the Director, the 5th respondent herein, attempted to interfere with the selection. By Ext.P12, four persons were sought to be interviewed, despite they having not been short -listed, as was required under Ext.P10. The persons so directed to be included by the Director were not competent to be called for interview since they did not satisfy the two year experience as Guest Faculty or Assistant Professor in the respondent University. This was a pre -condition for the Vice Chancellor to exercise discretion. The 9th respondent herein, who was so recommended in Ext.P12, had been appointed by the University to one notified post, along with respondents 7 and 8, to the other two posts.