SHEELA SINGH Vs. PURVANCHAL UNIVERSITY JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the petitions arise out of common cause of action and raise common questions of law, they were taken up together with the consent of the parties counsel for a convenient disposal by common judgment.

(2.) The advertisement dated 2.11.1998 is sought to be quashed in so far as it relates to the post of Lecturer (General Category) in the Department of Business Administration, Purvanchal University. Jaunpur. The petitioner, it is alleged, is working on the post in question on the basis of appointment orders issued from time to time in her favour for specified durations. Concededly, the posts in question were created on temporary basis for the first time vide Government Order dated 11.12.1997 for a period up to 28.12.1998 and were allowed to continue up to 28.2.1999 vide Government Order dated 30.3.1998. In fact, vide Government Order aforestated one post of Professor, two posts of Reader and four posts of Lecturers in the Department of Business Administration were created on temporary basis and extended up to 28.2.1999. There is no document to show further extension.

(3.) We have heard Sri V. K. Shukla and Sri Ashok Bhushan for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mittal counsel for respondents. According to the impugned advertisement, the post in question has been shown to be a temporary post and it pertains to the recruitment year 1998-99. In the advertisement, it is also mentioned that "the post is likely to be permanent." It has been submitted by Sri V. K. Shukla and Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in their respective cases that the impugned advertisement is liable to be quashed inasmuch as it tends to defeat the petitioner's right to be absorbed under Section 31 (3) (b) of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973 (in short the Act). It has been submitted that the posts would be deemed to have been created by the University itself in view of Section 7 (9) of the Act and as and when the post is formally created and becomes permanent, the petitioner would be entitled to be given appointment in the substantive capacity without reference to a selection committee as visualised by Section 31 (3) (b) of the Act. Shri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the University, on the other hand, submitted that no post could be created except with the prior approval of the State Government or except in accordance with any special or general order of the State Government and Section 31 (3) (b) of the Act, it has been submitted by Sri Pankaj Mittal, would not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the said provision is attracted only when a teacher is appointed to a temporary post likely to last for more than Six months and such post is subsequently converted into a permanent post or to a permanent post in a vacancy caused by grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months and such post subsequently becomes permanently vacant. The posts in the instant case were created on temporary basis for a specified duration w.e.f. 11.12.1997 or from the date of appointment, whichever is later.