SHASHI BALA Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated November 21, 1988, of the learned Sing Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for issuance of a mandate to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint her as Lecturer in the Public Administration Department.

(2.) AN advertisement dated October 31, 1985, appeared in the Daily Tribune inviting applications for the posts of Lecturers in various departments including the Public Administration of respondent No. 1. We are only concerned with the post of a Lecturer in the Public Administration Department On February 20, 1986, another advertisement appeared in the Dauly Tribune inviting applications for various posts of Lecturers in different departments including for a post in Public Administration. On November, 1986, third advertisement appeared in the Daily Tribune inviting applications for the posts of Readers and Profressors in various departments including that of Public Administration The appellant applied for the posts of Lecturers Public Administration advertised on October 31, 1985 and February 20, 1986 respectively. Selection was held simultaneously for the two posts of Lecturers in Public Administration. Shri Baldev Singh was selected but appellant'was placed at No. 2. She contends that she will be deemed to have been selected against the second post of Lecturer which was advertised on February 20, 1986, and not filled in: She ought to have been issued the appointment letter against the second post of Lecturer Respondent No. 3 applied for the post of Reader pursuant to an advertisement dated November 10, 1986. fie was selected as a Lecturer not as a Reader. The post of a Reader was converted into a post of Lecturer and respondent No. 3 was appointed against the said post.

(3.) THE respondent-University admitted that Shri Baldev Singh was placed at No. 1 by the Selection Committee but the appellant was placed only on the waiting list and it conferred no right on her. Through the advertisement dated November 10, 1986, applications were invited for the post of Reader and the appellant did not apply for that post since she was not eligible. It justified the selection of respondent No. 3 as Lecturer pursuant to his application for the post of Reader.