USHA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this review petition Dr. Usha Sharma-the petitioner in the Writ Petition has sought review of our judgment and order dated 8.8.2008, by which we had dismissed the writ petition both on the grounds that after dismissal of her Writ Petitions and the Special Leave Petitions on 06.3.1998 nothing had survived to be considered and decided by the Chancellor in her representation. The Chancellor had observed that in the matter of termination of petitioner's services the High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court had considered the matter and had passed final orders and that nothing survives to be decided, however, if something survives after the order of the Supreme Court and some proceedings are pending or are still require to be taken at this stage, the same may be immediately followed and concluded as the matter is pending since a long period of time. We found that the petitioner had approached the Court in the second round of litigation after four years without giving good and sufficient explanation for the laches.

(2.) DR. Usha Sharma requested and was heard in person at length on 13.2.2009 and thereafter on 20.3.2009. She has also filed written arguments in support of her review petition.

(3.) IT is contended in paragraph-8 of the writ petition and has been reiterated in the grounds taken in the review petition that the Director of Higher Education had passed an order on 6.9.1990, which was not placed before the Apex Court. Since the order was by way of internal correspondence between the State and the College, the petitioner was not able to obtain a copy at any point of time during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court or the Apex Court. The petitioner, however, managed to get a copy of the order through some clerk in the office of the College in the month of September/October, 2003 and gave a legal notice on 6.9.1990 to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government through her counsel. IT is contended that in this order dated 6.9.1990 of the Director of Higher Education, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, sanction was given to the appointments of three lecturers including the petitioner. A note appended to the order stated that if the vacancy is being caused on the termination of services of any teacher, it may be made clear in the appointment order that if termination of the said appointee is set aside by the Chancellor or the High Court, the services of the new appointee shall be terminated automatically.