MOHAMMAD ISHAQ Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals arise in somewhat similar circumstances and raise common questions. So they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petitions.

(2.) The factual aspect of the Writ Appeals. W.A. No. 873/85 : The writ petitioner is the appellant in this writ appeal. He holds a degree of M.Sc., in Genetics from the Osmania University. On his thesis in Immu-nogenetic and Biochemical studies on E. Histolytica and E. Coli, he was awarded Ph. D., by the Osmania University in 1979. In the same year, the University advertised a post of lecturer in Genetics with specialisation in Immunogenetic for the appointment. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said p ost. As the petitioner was the only candidate having doctorate and requisite qualifications and specialisation, he was selected by the selection committee and was appointed as lecturer in Osmania University with effect from 6-7-1979. "He has been continuing as lecturer since July, 1979. The Registrar, Osmania University issued proceedings on May 4, 1983 stating that the services of adhoc appointments of the Lecturers were dispensed with from May, 1983. The petitioner's name was also included in the list. It is stated that the description in the order of termination that his appointment was adhoc appointment is apparently erroneous as he was fully qualified for the substantive post and was appointed after due selection. It is also added tbat the order of appointment itself does not describe the appointment as adhoc. Contending that now the appointment cannot be termed as adhoc, the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records in Proceedings No. 2437/255/79 Adm. 1-2 dated 4-5-1983 and declare the same as illegal and void and for any other appropriate and consequential relief.

(3.) 1 he Registrar of Osmania University filed a common counter affidavit in this writ petition and in some other writ petition with which we are not concerned here, stating inter alia that pursuant to the advertisement issued in 1979 calling for applications to the post of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in various departments, the petitioner applied for the post of lecturer in the department of genetics. The petitioner was the only candidate as no other application was received for the said post, After interviewing the petitioner, the Selection Committee opined that since only one application was received, the post might be readvertised and the petitioner might be appointed on adhoc basis. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 700/- per month for a period of one year. Subsequently, the appointment was extended from time to time, each time by one year. The post was readvertised in the year 1983. Number of applications were received this time for the said post. The petitioner had also applied for the same. The Selection Committee assessed the merits of the candidates and found the petitioner not upto the mark for selection and selected some other candidates for the post. Therefore, the services of the petitioner who was holding the post on adhoc basis were dispensed with. It is further stated that the petitioners were never kept on probation. The appointment was for a limited period of one year and the subsequent extension was also for a limited period. Whenever a candidate is regularly selected, he will be placed on the scale of pay of the post and on probation. The petitioner knew fully well the nature of the appointment and the tenure for which he was appointed but did not choose to challenge the same. Having thus accepted the appointment, he is estopped from contending that the selection was on regular basis. When the post which the petitioner was holding, was readvertised he applied for the same without protest. This clearly suggests that the petitioner knew that he was appointed on adhoc basis only and it is not open to him to challenge the appointment orders at this stage. If highly meritorious candidates are available, the petitioner cannot claim that he alone should be selected having regard to the past experience. Due to the interim orders granted in favour of the petitioner the candidates who we're actually selected could not be appointed in the post held by the petitioner. The petitioner has not im plead them as parties. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.