SNEH LATA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Upendra Misra and Sri Rakesh Bajpai, learned State Counsel.

(2.) The short question which has brought this controversy to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the petitioner who was appointed as ad-hoc lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit in M.D.P.G. College, Pratapgarh was entitled for getting her services regularized under the provisions of Section 31-C of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1991 in view of the fact that though her selection was duly approved by the Committee of Management prior to the cut off date but the actual appointment order was issued after the said date which was delayed as approval of the Vice Chancellor could not be obtained within the stipulated time.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the vacancies were notified by the Institution to the Higher Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) on 8.1.1991. The advertisement was published on 12.3.1991 inviting applications from the eligible and willing candidates for the post in question. The interview was held by the Selection Committee on 6th October 1991 and the recommendation of the Selection Committee was duly accepted and approved by the Committee of Management on 14th October 1991. The approved recommendations were forwarded to the Vice Chancellor, Avadh University, Faizabad on 21st October 1991 and a formal appointment order was thus, issued on 2nd December 1991.