DR. SHARMILA Vs. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in these writ petitions are with regard to the entitlement of an employee appointed from a ranked list for substantive appointment. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6010 of 2015 was appointed pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the University. After the selection conducted, the petitioner was included as serial No. 2 in Ext.P2 ranked list. It is stated that the first rank holder in Ext.P2 ranked list was appointed on 18.7.2011. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner who was also an open category candidate was appointed as Assistant Professor in Philosophy in the leave vacancy of one Dr.Faisal N.M in the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100 with academic grade pay of Rs. 6000/-. It is stated in the appointment order that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue for the leave period, that is, up to 26.1.2017 or till Dr.Faisal N.M rejoins duty, whichever is earlier. The order also says that in case the petitioner fails to report for duty, the vacancy will be filled up by the next eligible candidate.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner joined duty pursuant to Ext.P4 and has been continuing as Assistant Professor in Philosophy till date. It is contended that the petitioner had raised a claim for regularization of services or the consideration of the appointment as a substantive appointment. The captioned writ petition is therefore filed seeking a declaration that the statement in Exts.P4, P5 and P6 that the appointment of the petitioner as temporarily is illegal and is liable to be deleted. A further declaration is also sought that the petitioner is entitled to appointment in the regular promotion vacancy which arose on 6.9.2012.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions of Chapter III of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, First Statutes 1997 prescribes the method of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed after facing a due selection process and on the basis of her inclusion in Ext.P2 ranked list. It is stated that the duration of the vacancy to which the petitioner was appointed being more than three months, the petitioner's appointment is liable to be treated as a permanent appointment. It is stated that Statute 2 of Chapter IV provides for making temporary appointments only for a period of three months. On the strength of Ext.P12 communication issued by the Registrar of the University to the Standing Counsel of the University, the petitioner contends that it is the case of the University that the petitioner had been appointed from the ranked list, observing the principles of reservation as well. The petitioner contends that one OBC candidate and one Muslim candidate had been appointed after the appointment of the first rank holder in Ext.P2 ranked list and therefore the petitioner's appointment in the 4th turn would be well in order. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P and Another v. M.J Siddiqui and Others (1980 (3) SCC 174) to contend that the circumstances leading up to the appointment have to be taken note of in considering whether the appointment is temporary or substantive in nature.