MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY Vs. SHOBHA CHAUDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by M. D. University, Rohtak (herein after referred to as 'the University') against the Order dated 7. 6. 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak in Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1996. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal of respondent Shobha Chaudhary (herein after referred to as 'the plaintiff) and restrained the University from terminating the services of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that in the year 1991, the University advertised three posts of Lecturers in Statistics. Out of these three posts, two posts were regular posts. The third post was a leave vacancy post. Since the plaintiff who claims herself to be eligible for these posts, was not called for interview, she filed a civil suit in a Civil court and got an interim order from the Court directing the University to allow the plaintiff to appear for interview. It was pursuant to an order of the Civil Court that the plaintiff was interviewed by the Selection committee. It is also an admitted fact that after the plaintiff was interviewed by the Selection Committee, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE plaintiff whose name figured at S. No. 4 in the Selection list was also offered appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Economics against a leave vacancy for a period of six months vide letter dated 23. 1. 1992. In Para-6 of this letter, it was stated that if she accepted the offer she should report to the Head, Department of Economics of the University who would allow her to join duties after Sh. Rajinder Chaudhary Lecturer proceeds on leave. Vide letter dated 27. 3. 1992, the plaintiff was informed by the University that the panel from which her appointment had been made was duly approved by the executive counsel of the University vide resolution No. 28 dated 27. 11. 1991. On 25. 3. 1992, the plaintiff submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University requesting therein to regularise her appointment for the entire period of leave vacancy of lecturer in the Department of Economics. In reply to this representation, she was informed by the University vide letter dated 30. 3. 1992 that she had been allowed to continue as Lecturer in the Department of Economics on temporary basis (against the leave vacancy) till Sh. Rajinder Chaudhary Lecturer in Economics joins his duty. Vide letter dated 16. 12. 1992 (copy Annexure H) the office of Registrar of the University informed the Head, Department of Economics that the plaintiff who was working as Lecturer in the Department of Economics, may be allowed to continue in said department so long as any leave vacancy exists in the department. Vide letter dated 20. 2. 1993 (copy Annexure I) the office of the Registrar further informed the Head, Department of Economics that the Vice Chancellor had ordered that the plaintiff who was working as Lecturer in Economics department against the leave vacancy would be regularised as and when a regular post of Lecturer became available in the department of Economics.