PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA Vs. SARLA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri R.L. Mittal, husband of Smt. Sarla Mittal, was working as Chief Librarian in the Punjabi University, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the 'University'). While in service, he unfortunately expired on 26th June, 1988. Smt. Sarla Mittal, applied to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for the appointment of her son as Lecturer on compassionate grounds, who holds the qualifications of Master of Business Administration. At the time she applied to the University, her son was working as a Deputy Manager with Road Master Industries Private Ltd. Rajpura and was drawing about Rs. 7100/- per month as his total emoluments. This request of the widow of Shri R.L. Mittal was declined by the University, vide order dated 27th February, 1989 (Annexure PI) on the ground that her son Shri Krishan Mittal could not be appointed as a lecturer as he did not possess the requisite qualifications for the appointment, and the Syndicate was of the opinion that appointment by relaxation of qualifications of teachers is not justified keeping the academic point of view into consideration. It is the case of the petitioner that her son fulfilled the requisite qualifications for being appointed as lecturer, as had been laid down by the University Grants Commission prior to the decision (Annexure P.2). The petitioner made another representation to the University for giving appointment to her son, but since it was not being considered, she filed a writ petition in this Court.

(2.) The learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to examine Shri Tirath Singh, Registrar of the University as a Court witness. It was not denied that the University had been giving appointment on compassionate grounds to the sons, daughters, wives of the deceased employees. As far as the question of qualifications was concerned the learned Judge has observed that the son of the petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualifications as laid down by the University Grants Commission and was thus eligible for appointment as Lecturer. On the basis of this, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and gave the following directions:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant-University has submitted that even though it may be held that the son of the writ petitioner was qualified for the post of Lecturer, no direction could be given that he should be appointed to the suitable post on compassionate grounds. The directions, which the learned Judge could have given, should have confined only to consider the case of the son of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. He further submitted that the question of protecting the pay which the petitioner's son might have been getting in a private organisation did not arise as that has nothing to do with his appointment as Lecturer in the University. Further, the question of the petitioner retaining the same house which had given to her husband by the University as Chief Librarian could not be retained by the petitioner even on the appointment of her son as a Lecturer. Her son could only be provided accommodation according to his status.