M UMADEVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Lecturer in Tamil in the fifth respondent college and according to the petitioner, she was appointed on consolidated basis against two posts for Tamil Lecturers on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.220 (Higher Education E2 Department) dated 12.6.2003 as modified by the Government letter dated 5.9.2006. THE petitioner is working on consolidated salary and there are two sanctioned posts for Tamil Lecturers and the petitioner and another person by name Latha Maheswari were appointed on consolidated basis for those two posts and later, the second respondent reduced the number of Tamil Lecturer post to one and therefore, the petitioner was not given approval by the third respondent. While the petitioner is working as Tamil Lecturer in the fifth respondent college, the Government sanctioned one more post for Tamil Lecturer vide Government letter dated 3.4.2007. Though the petitioner was working in the fifth respondent college and was eligible to be considered for the newly sanctioned post for Tamil Lecturer, the fifth respondent college invited candidates for the post of Tamil Lecturer by advertisement dated 3.10.2007 and the last date for submitting the applications was 12.10.2007. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent should not have issued the advertisement and ought to have appointed the petitioner in that post. Nevertheless, by way of abundant caution, she submitted her application as she apprehended that the fifth respondent may appoint an outsider under the guise of conducting interview. THE petitioner also filed W.P.(MD) No.8776 of 2007 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer in Tamil in the fifth respondent college with effect from 3.7.2002 and that petition was disposed of by directing the fifth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and the fifth respondent, by proceedings dated 5.9.2008, informed the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner for regularisation cannot be considered as there was only one approved post vacant and that was filled by Latha Maheswari and her name was approved by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education. This order of the fifth respondent dated 5.9.2008 is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed counter contending that they are unnecessary parties to the proceedings as no relief is claimed as against them. It is further stated that there is one regular post of Lecturer in Tamil in the fifth respondent college from 30.6.2000 and the appointment has to be made only by the fifth respondent and thereafter, the third respondent has to grant approval on the basis of the merits and in the absence of any relief against respondents 1 to 3, they are unnecessary parties.

(3.) THE points for consideration that arise in this writ petition is whether the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post; and whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Tamil Lecturer.