SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the selection of respondent No. 4 as Lecturer in Education in the University College of Education, Kurukshetra, on the ground that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No. 4 and that respondent No. 4 does not possess the requisite qualification and, therefore, could not be selected.

(2.) On 7.1.1991, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, advertised one post of Lecturer in Education. Petitioner applied for the said post along with other candidates. However, the University did not hold the interview for the said post. Instead of making regular selection, petitioner was appointed on part time basis during the currency of academic session against that post on 10.9.1991 at a fixed honorarium of Rs. 1,000/- for taking 10 to 12 periods per week. Appointment of the petitioner was repeated on the same terms twice i. e. on 21.10.1992 and 16.8.1993. Thereafter on 26.11.1993, petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on an initial salary of Rs. 2,200/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 plus usual allowances admissible under the University rules subject to her being medically fit. Appointment was upto 31.3.1994 or till regular selection was made or the classes were over, whichever was earlier. Petitioner's services were terminated in terms of her letter of appointment. Thereafter, she was appointed as a Lecturer in D. A. V. College of Education, Abohar (Punjab), on 9.1.1995.

(3.) Kurukshetra University issued a fresh advertisement No. 6/94 in The Tribune dated 15.5.1994, advertising the post against which the petitioner had been working along with three other posts of Lecturers in different subjects. A total of 33 candidates applied for the posts out of which 23 candidates were found eligible after scrutiny and called for interview. On the date of interview i. e. 3.8.1995, only 13 candidates appeared before the Selection Committee. Petitioner was not selected, aggrieved against which, present writ petition has been filed. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 did not have the requisite qualification whereas the stand taken by the respondents is that respondent No. 4 had the requisite qualification.