KUMARI NAZMA BANO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, claiming herself to be a full-fledged Lecturer of Asian Culture in Shia Degree College, Lucknow (opposite party No. 3), has invoked the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking suitable order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parry No. 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh, to pay the balance scale of pay to her, and further commanding the opposite parties to decide her representations, contained in Annexures-5 and 6, and not to re-advertise the post of Lecturer for the subject of Asian Culture in the Shta Degree College, Lucknow.

(2.) The factual matrix of this petition lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner has averred that in April, 1988 the post of Lecturer in the subject of Asian Culture was advertised by opposite party No. 3, Shia Degree College. Lucknow and she applied in response to the said advertisement ; several candidates were interviewed by the selection committee constituted under the relevant provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner was found suitable for the said post and, consequently, the selection committee recommended her name for the appointment as a Lecturer in Asian Culture. As required under the Act, the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 sent the matter of the said selection for approval to the University. It has been averred by the petitioner that under the provisions of Section 31 (11) of the Act. her candidature was deemed to have been approved by the Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University because latter's disapproval was not conveyed within the required period of one month, Her case is that she made several representations to the opposite parties for payment of her regular pay in the scale of Lecturer but they have not cared to decide them ; and. instead, they were again going to re-advertise the post of Lecturer for the subject of Asian Culture. On the basis of the abovementtoned averments the petitioner has sought for the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) The opposite parties No. 3 and 4, i.e., Shia Degree College and its Committee of Management, as well as the Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University, opposite party No. 5 denied the averments made by the petitioner. They have categorically denied the factum that the Vice-Chancellor had not disapproved, within the required period of one month, the alleged selection of the petitioner as Lecturer of Asian Culture in the Shia Degree College, Lucknow.