SHASHI PRABHA DWEVEDI Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to give suitable alternate appointment to the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 23718 of 1991 [Dr. Brinda Prasad Mishra v. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University and others) decided on 22.7.1999.

(2.) So far as aforesaid judgment is concerned, it is evident that it was confined to the petitioners before this Court in the aforesaid matter as is evident from the following:

(3.) The petitioner was not party to the judgment in the aforesaid writ petition therefore the aforesaid judgment as such is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that they were appointed on the post in question after following the procedure prescribed in the statute and it was consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution. In fact after the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi,2006 2 ESC 192, the scenario has changed and now an incumbent cannot claim for regularization or absorption if he/she has been initially appointed in an illegal manner i.e. not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute and consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution. A similar matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in Writ petition No. 25138 of 1991 (Smt. Urmila Misra and another v. The Vice-Chancellor, Benaras Hindu University and another) decided on 17.4.2007 and having considered the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in Dr. Brinda Prasad Misra , this Court held as under: