LAWS(RAJ)-1986-2-42

MANJU SAXENA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR

Decided On February 04, 1986
MANJU SAXENA Appellant
V/S
UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 1st November, 1983 and has prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Hindi.

(2.) THE petitioner applied in the University of Jodhpur for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The petitioner was intervewed on 16th October, 1980 and she was found suitable and the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner for appointment. The recommendations were placed before the Syndicate. The Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 94 approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee, subject to review the work load position. It was further observed that the appointment of persons from amongst the selected candidates will be made on the basis of work load position and as per the needs of the University. When the petitioner was not given the appointment on account of lack of work load in the University, she filed a writ petition challenging the action of the University by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1981. This Court by the order dated 14th July, 1983 directed the Vice Chancellor that he will consider the work load position and after objectively assessing the position he should consider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer. With these observations the writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of. In pursuance of this direction the Vice Chancellor considered the work load position and found that there was no work load at that time so as to absorb the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Hindi. He passed a detailed order (Annexure 1) dated 1st November, 1983. It is this order which has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) MR . Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition of work load is irrelevant. In similar department when work load was not there several persons were appointed, therefore, similar treatment should be given to the petitioner. The work load is available and for which he has referred number of documents.