Amin Zehra Rizvi vs Jamia Millia Lslamia
1996 Latest Caselaw 604 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this court 'in which she has prayed that she be regularised on the post of Lecturer and be given benefit of seniority and all other consequential benefits. She has also prayed that the respondent be restrained from terminating her services.

(2) On 19.12.1989, the petitioner has applied for the post of Lecturer in English in Jamia Millia Islamia University in pursuance to an advertisement. In the advertisement two vacancies were shown as permanent lecturers and one as temporary lecturer in English.

(3) Further, the case of the petitioner is that her application was scrutinised by a Screening Committee as per the procedure and after interview by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner was .recommended for the post of Lecturer in the said university. In pursuance of selection, the proceedings of the respondent university indicate "After interview the committee recommended seven candidates including the petitioner, who figured at serial no.4 in order of merit.

(4) On 23.10.1990, the petitioner was intimated that the Selection Committee had recommended her appointment as Lecturer in the Department of English and she was asked to meet the Assistant Registrar and complete the necessary formalities so that a proper letter could be issued to her for appointment. The letter dated 23.10.90 reads as under: "JAMIAMILLIA Islamia Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025 Dated: 23/10/90 Miss Amin Zebra Rizvi 6-D,'N' Block, Saket, New Delhi. Dear Madam, The Selection Committee, at its meeting held on 11.9.1990 has recommended your appointment as Lecturer in English in the Department of English, Faculty of Humanities & Languages, Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025. You are requested to contact the undersigned to complete the required formalities i.e. .verifications of certificate, degrees, diplomas and marks- sheets etc. as proof of your qualifications and date of birth. You are also required to complete the service book and medical examination etc. The terms and conditions of your aforesaid appointment are available with the undersigned. The appointment letter will be issued to you after completion of the above formalities. You are, therefore, advised to complete the above formalities within a week from the date of issue of this letter. sd/- ASSTT. Registrar (RECRUITMENT) Ends. One service agreement & two medical forms Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to the following:- 1. The Medical officer, Ansari Health Centre, Jamia 2. The Deputy Registrar, R.0" Jamia for service book sd/- ASSTT. Registrar (RECRUITMENT)"

(5) On the same day, the petitioner was given another letter in which it was mentioned that in pursuance of her application dated 19.12.89 for the post of Lecturer in English, the Selection Committee had offered the petitioner posting against the leave vacancy of Ms. Ayesha Habel. It was submitted that since the petitioner was in need of an appointment, therefore, she did not protest in writing about mentioning her appointment in the letter against the leave vacancy. It is further mentioned that orally she was assured that she would be given the letter of appointment on regular basis in due course but in fact the same was never given.

(6) It is the further case of the petitioner that since she was recommended by a duly constituted Selection Committee which had considered her for regular appointment, the petitioner immediately joined on 23.10.90 and right from the date of joining the first session in 1991, she was given full load of teaching and she taught for 16 to 20 periods per week comprising 7 to 10 papers. It is further mentioned that the petitioner has continuously taught for almost four years and she always had full load of teaching. At times, she was also asked to. take the classes of other lecturers. The petitioner also did the extra assignment given to her and some of these classes comprised of 90 or more students. Apart from the regular heavy load of teaching from time to time, the petitioner was also assigned invigilation duties and.she was also entrusted with the evaluation work as an examiner by the respondent University.

(7) The petitioner was also given the additional onerous responsibility of a Warden in girls hostel w.e.f. 2.1.1993. Even her work as the Warden of the hostel was highly appreciated by the Vice- Chancellor.

(8) On 1.9.1993, Ms. Ayesha Habel joined duties. Even then, the petitioner was allowed to continue as a lecturer in English. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent university authorities had assured her that she would be given appointment on regular basis.

(9) On 28.9.1993, one Mr. Pranab Khullal resigned w.e.f. 16.9.1993 and one. post of lecturer in English fell vacant. However, as an after- thought, the petition was issued another office order dated 28.9.1993 staling that her appointment was for a period of 180 days against the post vacated by Mr. Pranab Khullar.

(10) In October, 1993, the respondent asked the petitioner to apply for the post of lecturer. When she discussed the matter with the authorities of the respondent university and other senior faculty members and impressed upon them that she should not be subjected to another selection process, the petitioner was told that this selection was & mere formality. On 27.7.94, interviews three posts of lecturer were conducted. Since there were clear vacancies the posts of lecturers in English Department and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case the respondent ought to have given the letter of ointment to the petitioner appointing her on regular basis and then there they should have filled other vacancies but it was not done in this man- Immediately after the interview, the petitioner sent a letter to the resident stating that the petitioner had appeared in the interview without prejudice to her rights and contentions, and otherwise also the petitioner was entitled to be treated as a lecturer in English on a regular basis. But when she did not receive any response from the respondent university she had submitted another representation on 12.8.1994 giving the entire background to the visitors of the university and requested them to intervene in the matter so that formal orders could be issued in favour of the petitioner showing her as a regularly appointed lecturer and the petitioner could be given all consequential benefits. Despite a number of representations, when the petitioner did not receive any reply, the petitioner was ultimately left with no other option but to approach this court for getting justice by way of this writ petition.

(12) This court on 30.8.1994, issued Rule and directed that till the next date of hearing, status quo regarding the employment of the petitioner be maintained. The interim order passed by the Court is still continuing.

(13) In the writ petition, it is mentioned that from 23.10.90, the petitioner has been teaching in the respondent university without any break. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee for the post of lecturer (English) on a regular basis.

(14) It is also submitted that her performance had been found satisfactory which would be clear from the fact that apart from the class-room teaching which was her normal assignment, she had been actively associated with other activities including designing and development of special English proficiency courses, setting English papers, helping the weak students in their studies or even taking extra classes in the evenings. In addition, she even shouldered the responsibility of being the Warden of the girls hostel. It is also submitted that the petitioner was compelled to apply for the post of lecturer 'again in 1993. She was given to understand that the interview held on 27.7.1994 was a mere formality. In spite of the representation dated 4.8.1994 in which she had mentioned that because of bias and malice, she is not likely to be selected and also her services may be terminated. It is also alleged that as a matter of fact, the second interview was a trap to dispense with the services of the petitioner.

(15) It is mentioned in the petition that the petitioner has vast experience of teaching and despite this because of bias and malice, the petitioner was not confirmed. It is mentioned that even according to the petitioner's past experience, she ought to have been continued. Her past experiences are set out as under: A)The petitioner has worked as a tutor in English for 4 months in Ncert (a Government of India Undertaking). b) Worked as a Lecturer in English for four months in College of Nursing, Aiims - a Govt. of India Undertaking. c) Worked as a Lecturer in English at the Hamdard College of Pharmacy (affiliated to Delhi University) for one year. d) Worked as a Lecturer in English for two years at the Desh Bandhu College- (affiliated to Delhi University). e) Worked as a Lecturer in English for approx. three months at the Laxmi Bai College - (affiliated to Delhi University). f) In addition to the foregoing, the petitioner had been an Examiner and paper setter in English in Delhi University, and

(16) Thus, the petitioner was fully qualified and had a full load of teaching and in fact functioned as a full fledged Lecturer in English with the respondent from the very inception.

(17) It is also submitted that the petitioner received testimonials dated 26.10.92 from her Department commending her work and performance and testifying her ability. The same is set out as under: "DR.(Mrs.) Amin Zehra Rizvi is a conscientious hard working and intelligent teacher of English language and literature. She introduced a new course in English language last year in the Department. The course is gaining impetus and benefiting a number of students.

(18) Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee on a regular basis. Therefore, her services cannot be dispensed with and she must be treated as Lecturer on a regular basis. He further submitted that she is entitled to get benefit of seniority as well as other consequential reliefs. Mr. Dutta has drawn the attention of the court to the letter dated 23.10.90, Annexure P-2 to the petition, from the Assistant Registrar (Recruitment) to the petitioner in which it has been mentioned that the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 11.9.90 had recommended her appointment as Lecturer in English in the Faculty of English at the Jamia Millia Islamia university. Therefore, her services cannot be dispensed with. He further submitted that a letter which has been sent to the petitioner by the Registrar on 23.10.90 stating that her appointment as lecturer in English against the leave vacancy of Ms. Ayesha Habel is of no consequence in the light of earlier letter mentioned above.

(19) Mr. Dutta, further submitted that even according to this letter of appointment, the services of the petitioner could be terminated at any time with one month's notice given by the respondent. In' this case, one month's notice as stipulated was not given to the petitioner till date. Therefore, her services cannot be terminated. Mr. Dutta, submitted that the selections held on 27.7.1994 have been made in contravention of the. rules and regulations and are totally illegal and void. He further submitted that the selections made on 27.7.1994 were not made by a duly selected Selection Board. According to the requirements, the following 7 persons are required to be participated in the selection process.

(20) According to the rules, apart from the Vice- Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Head of Department, a Professor nominated by Vice- Chancellor, two outside experts, nominated by Executive council, as per the name recommended by academic council and one visitors' nominee have to sit in the Selection committee. In the instant case, the Pro Vice-Chancellor was not even invited to participate and he did not participate in the selection process. Therefore, the selections have not been made in accordance with the rules. Mr. Dutta also submitted that the Professor nominated by the Vice-Chancellor has to be professor of the concerned subject according to the note given in the Rules. In this case, the only professor of English could have participated in the selection process whereas in the selection held on 27.7.94, the Vice-Chancellor appointed .a Professor of Urdu in the selection committee and the selection made by the respondents are clearly in contravention of the Rules. Mr. Dutta also submitted that the nominee was also not approved according to the rules. Similarly, two outside experts have to be nominated by the Executive council as per the names recommended by the academic council. In the instant case, the outside experts were not the persons nominated by the Executive council. The academic council in its meeting on 25.8.1993 authorised the Vice-Chancellor to nominate two experts. The statutory function of the academic council could not be delegated to the Vice Chancellor according to the rules because rules do not envisage any provision of such delegation of power. According to the rules, the Vice- Chancellor ought to have consulted the Head of the Department, and Dean of the Faculty before nominating the professor for selection. In the instant case, the Vice Chancellor has not consulted the Head of the Department and the Dean of the Faculty before nominating the professor. Therefore, selections held on 27.7.94 are bad and are liable to be vitiated.

(21) MR.DUTTA, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected in pursuance to an advertisement no-3/1989-90 issued by Jamia Millia Islamia University. According to this advertisement, a large number of professors, readers and lecturers were to be selected in various subjects. In the advertisement itself, all the details were mentioned in the column of "Remarks". It is mentioned, whether the post is permanent, or temporary, or the appointment is to be made against a leave vacancy. In the remark column of the impugned advertisement a large number of vacancies, it is clearly mentioned that the appointments shall be made against the leave vacancies whereas in the remark column, against these three posts in the English Department, it is mentioned that two are permanent, and one post is temporary. It is not mentioned that the appointment shall be made against the leave vacancy in English Department. Therefore, the respondent university now cannot be permitted to say that the appointment of the petitioner was made against the leave vacancy and not in accordance with what has been incorporated in the said advertisement. It is submitted that even in the minutes of Selection Committee dated 11.9.1990, it is not mentioned that the petitioner's appointment is against the leave vacancy.

(22) Mr. Dutta, learned counsel submitted that the performance and the quality of the teachers of the petitioner was always appreciated by her Senior colleagues. Mr. M. Waseem of the Department of English has mentioned that Dr. Rizvi has been his colleague for quite some time and did her Ph.D. dissertation under his guidance. He mentioned in the letter of recommendation dated 26th October, 1993 (Annexure P-15) that she is an intelligent, hardworking and extremely conscientious. She has read widely and with discrimination. On 26th October, 1993, the head of the English Department, Mr. Anwar A. Siddiqui has mentioned about her performance in the following words: "IT gives me great pleasure to introduce Dr. (Miss) Amin Zehra Rizvi as a conscientious, hard working and intelligent teacher of English language and literature. Beside teaching M.A., B.A. (Hons.) and B.A. (Pass) classes on regular time-table. She introduced a new course in English for languages last year in the department for the beginners to .learn English. The course is gaining impetus and benefiting a number of students. She is also tagged up with the Hostle responsibilities, working as a warden."

(23) In his letter dated 24th August, 1993 the Professor and Head of the English Department Prof. Anwar A. Siddiqui mentioned to the Registrar that she was selected by Regular Selection committee. The letter is reproduced as under : Departmentof English Jamia Millia IS LAMlA Jamianagar, New DELHI-110025 PHONE: 6831717 Ext 350--GRAMS Jamia Anwar A. Siddiqui, 24.8.1993 Professor & Head The Registrar Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Sir, Dr. Miss Amin Zehra Rizvi was selected by a regular selection committee. She is eligible to continue her services till Mrs. Ayesha Heble rejoins. Kindly get her salary released. She has been coming regularly to the Department and participating in all activities. Besides she is working as a warden of G.P. Hostel at the same time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, sd/-

(24) He has sent similar letter to the Vice Chancellor on 10th May, 1993. The same is set out as under : Department of English Jamia Millia Islamia Jamia Nagar, New DELHI-110025. Prof. Anwar A. Siddiqui, 24.8.1993 Professor & Head The Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Sir, Dr. Amin Zehra Rizvi has been working as a lecturer in this Department against the leave vacancy of Ms Ayesha Heble. As Ms Ayesha has extended her leave till 1st September, 1993, it is recommended that the appointment of Dr. Amin Zehra Rizvi may be extended till the time the permanent incumbent joins. It may further be mentioned that Dr. Rizvi was appointed by a duly constituted selection committee. Yours faithfully, (Prof. Anwar A. Siddiqui)

(25) It may be pertinent to mention 'that along with the academic and regular teaching work, the petitioner was given onerous administrative responsibility as a Warden of the girls Hostel w.e.f. 2.1.1993 where she had continued for the sessions of 1992-93, 1993-94 and also continued for the academic session 1994-95. Her contribution has improved and streamlined the working of the Hostel. The Vice chancellor also quite appreciated the efforts put in by the petitioner in improving h6stle facilities for the girls of the respondent university in the letter dated 4th December, 1993 (Annexure P-10 to the writ petition).

(26) Mr. Dutta placed reliance on Dr. A.K. Jain and Others Vs Union of India and Others 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 497 the petitioners were appointed as 'ad hoc' Assistant Medical Officers in Indian Railways in 1983 for a period of six months. They were allowed to continue for a period of four years when services were being terminated for failure to avail three chances of selection through U.P.S.C. and the rest facing termination on joining Assistant Divisional Medical Assistant selected by U.P.S.C. .The Department contested their claim through regularisation. The Supreme Court directed regularisation of services of those appointed on ad hoc basis up to 1st October, 1984.

(27) In State of Bihar and others Vs The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinee Union 1986 and Others a person who was selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquires any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rule says to the contrary.

(28) Mr. Dutta cited the case of Dr. Triloki Nath Singh Vs Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra and Others 1990(4) Supreme Court Cases 530, to strengthen his arguments that in the selection committee, the expert nominated by the Vice-Chancellor should have been an expert in English subject otherwise the selections made were bad. In this case, the Supreme Court held as under: "HINDI Language and Literature and Linguistics are two different and separate subjects in the Department of Hindi of the Lucknow University. This is clearly borne out from Explanation I to sub-section (5)(a) of Section 31 of the Act of 1973: . Separate panel of experts was drawn for the subjects of Hindi and Linguistics. Separate courses of study are prescribed for M.A. Part I or Part Ii in respect of Hindi on the one hand and Linguistics on the other. Moreover, even graduates who have not passed the B.A. Examination with Hindi could be admitted and awarded the degree of M.A. in Linguistics. Merely because Linguistics is also a subject of study in one paper of Hindi, it cannot be said that Linguistics and Hindi Language and Literature fall under the same subject of study in the University. Advertisement nowhere provided that one reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was to be selected as common to more than one subject of study. Merely because the post of Reader in Linguistics was required in the Department of Hindi, it cannot be held that such Reader in Linguistics was to teach the subject of Linguistics as well as the subject of Hindi Language and Literature. For the post of Reader in Linguistics it was necessary to have an essential qualification of first or high second class master's degree and doctorate in the subject of Linguistics. Explanation Ii can apply in a case where one common teacher is to be selected for more than one subject of study and in that contingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study. In the present case the advertisement did not mention that the post of one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was common with any other subject of study. Thus the appointment of all the experts in the present case of subject of Hindi for the selection of one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was totally wrong and illegal."

(29) In Karnataka State Private College - Lecturers Association Vs State of Karnataka and others , the teachers appointed temporarily by privately managed degree colleges receiving cent percent grants- in-aid, controlled administratively and financially by the Education Department of the State of Karnataka, sought regularisation of their services. The court observed as under: "(1)Services of such temporary teachers who have worked as such for three years, including the break till today shall not be terminated. They shall be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arise. (2) If regular selections have been made the government shall create additional posts to accommodate such selected candidates. (3) The teachers who have undergone the process of selection under the directions of the High Court and have not been appointed because of the reservation policy of the Government be regularly appointed by creating additional posts. (4) From the date of judgment every temporary teacher shall be paid salary as is admissible to teachers appointed against permanent post. (5) Such teachers shall be continued in service even during vacations. For these reasons this petition succeeds and is allowed. The direction is issued to respondents in the term indicated above."

(30) The aforesaid case has been followed in a subsequent case, i.e., Baseruddin M. Madari and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Others 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases Iii in which a petition was filed by ad hoc teachers of University. The teachers were appointed for small periods and continued to work for three years with one day breaks, the Supreme Court has held that such teachers shall be absorbed in regular vacancies as and when arise and their services shall not be terminated. While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants who have worked for three years including break till today shall not be terminated and they shall be absorbed in regular vacancies as and when they arise.

(31) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision in G.Vidyasagar Vs The Director of Higher Education Hyderabad and another 1990(7) Vol. 70 Service Law Reporter 58. In this case the petitioner was temporarily appointed as a Lecturer against the leave vacancy. A duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of G.O. Ms No. 905 dated 21.9.1976 interviewed all the candidates and selected the petitioner. In the appointment order it was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was for a specific period, i.e., from 17th July, 1984 to 22nd August, 1985. While allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, the Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regularly appointed lecturer from 17th July, 1984.

(32) Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel appearing on behalf of "the University submitted that the selection held on 11th September, 1990 also considered the name of the petitioner and placed her at serial no.4 in e panel prepared. Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel refuted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that only the three posts in English subject were advertised, two permanent and one temporary. One Ms. Ayesha Habel, lecturer in English had gone on long leave. So apart from those three posts, one more post for the time being became available. The petitioner was no.4 in the merit list, therefore, she was appointed against the leave vacancy of Ms. Ayesha Habel.

(33) It is further submitted by Mr. Sawhney, that Mr. Pranab Khullar resigned w.e.f. 16th September, 1993 and one post of lecturer in English Department fell vacant. Therefore, vide office order dated 28th September, 1993, the petitioner was also given appointment for a period of 180 days against the post vacated by Mr. Pranab Khullar. Mr. Sawhney further submitted that on 27.7.94, interviews were held for three posts of lecturers in English Department. Along with others, the petitioner also appeared but was not selected.

(34) Immediately after the interview, sensing that she might not be selected, the petitioner had sent a letter stating that she had appeared in the interview without prejudice to her rights and contentions. Otherwise, she is entitled to be treated as the lecturer on regular basis.

(35) Mr. Sawhney stated that it is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears in the interview, and for any reason the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot be permitted to turn around and subsequently contend that process of interview was unfair and the Selection Committee not properly constituted.

(36) Mr. Sawhney learned counsel for the university also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal and others vs. State of J & K and Others, . This case was cited to show that, if requisition for recruitment is for Ii vacancies and the merit list prepared is for 20 candidates, the moment Ii vacancies are filled in from the merit list the list gets exhausted, or if during the span of one year from the date of publication (till validity of the list subsists) of such list all the 11 vacancies are not filled in, the moment the year is over the list gets exhausted. In either event, thereafter, if further vacancies are to be filled in or remaining vacancies are to be filled in after one year, a fresh process of recruitment is to be initiated giving a fresh opportunity to all the open market candidates to compete. Relying on this judgment, learned counsel submitted that the submission of the petitioner is devoid of any merit that out of that waiting list, she was entitled to be appointed as a regular lecturer when subsequently the vacancy arose in the English Department.

(37) Mr. Sawhney also placed reliance on J & K. Public Service Commission etc. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others, . In this case, the selection committee after selecting 11 candidates also kept 4 more candidates in the waiting list. The Supreme Court has held that keeping the candidates in the waiting list does not create any right in their favour in the post. It is further held that waiting list lapses after its validity period is over and thereafter no appointment can be made out of that list.

(38) Mr. Sawhney, the learned counsel also placed reliance on State of Bihar and others vs. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union and others, . After "Select list gets exhausted, thereafter the same cannot be kept subsisting for filling up other vacancies.

(39) In State of Bihar and another Vs Madan Mohan Singh and Others the State of Bihar questioning the judgment of the High Court in respect of selection of the Additional District and Sessions Judges. The High Court advertised f a particular number of posts thereafter written and viva voce examination was taken and a combined select list of candidates was prepared on the basis of ratio of 1:4, i.e., four candidates against each vacancy. Candidates were selected and recommended for appointment in order of merit against existing vacancies. The Court held that select list gets exhausted and thereafter and cannot be kept subsisting for filling up other vacancies also.

(40) In State of Haryana and others Vs Mahabir Prasad Sharma and others , the Supreme Court has held that ad hoc appointment and the candidates in the select list have no right in their favour. The high Court directed that in the event of any ad hoc appointments made de-hors rules, candidates in the waiting list should be considered. The Court held that in the event of the appellants' choosing to make appointments on ad hoc basis, then certainly the candidates in the waiting list, though it lapsed, must be considered for appointment de hors the Rules which may not confer any right on them for future- recruitment. It is only an enabling direction to make temporary appointment pending regular recruitment.-

(41) Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel also placed reliance on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat and others, 1994 Supp (2) Scc 591. In this case, the Supreme Court has held that waiting list cannot be construed as a merit list. Only during the period of its validity, eligible and qualified persons can be appointed, not thereafter.

(42) Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel also placed reliance on Dr. Uma Kant v. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur , in which the. Court has held as under: "THE procedure of making appointments from candidates included in reserve list is in vogue in all the universities of Rajasthan and reserve list is used for the appointment on a vacant post caused during the validity period of the reserve list, and numerous appointments had been made in the last decade from the reserve list. It is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the Courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities."

(43) Mr. Sawhney, the learned cousel further placed reliance on Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. us. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, . In this case, the Supreme Court has held that since appointment of the respondent was purely ad hoc and contractual for a limited period, right to remain in the post comes to an end after expiry of the time. In this case, the Supreme Court has set aside the direction of the High Court reinstating the respondent and regularising his services.

(44) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner cannot claim regularisation only on the ground that she has been working regularly for almost four years.

(45) Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel placed reliance on Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1994 Supp (3) Scc 380. In this case, the appellant having worked as lecturer without break for 9 years on the date of advertisement, the submission on her behalf was made that she should be deemed to have been regularised was not accepted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has held that eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long period, should not be permitted to over-reach the law. The requirements of rules of selection through commission cannot be substituted by humane considerations. Law must take its course. Consequently, the Supreme Court had held that the appellant was not entitled to claim that she should have been deemed to have been regularised as she had been working without break for 9 years.

(46) Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel also cited State of Punjab and others. vs. Surinder Kumar and others. . The Supreme Court, in that case, held as under:- "A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. Thus the temporary lecturers in a writ petition before High Court, would not be entitled to rely upon an order of the Supreme Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularised in his service without assigning reasons. It has to be presumed that for special grounds which must .have been available to the temporary employees in those cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a judgment of the Supreme Court, it cannot be understood to have been passed without an adequate legal basis therefor. On the question of the requirement to assign reasons -for an order, a distinction has to be kept in mind between a Court whose judgment is not subject to further appeal and other Courts. One of the main reasons for disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is to enable a higher Court to examine the same in case of a challenge. It is, of course, desirable to assign reasons for every order or judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case of Supreme Court. It is, therefore, not proper to suggest that if the Supreme Court has issued an order in the circumstances the similar order can also be issued by the High Court. There is still another reason why the High Court cannot be equated with the Supreme Court. The constitution has, by Art. 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary "for or doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it," which authority the High Court does not enjoy."

(47) This case was primarily cited for the purpose that powers under Article 142 of the Constitution are confined to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court under Article 142 can give directions for regularisation of service of an ad- hoc appointee in the peculiar facts of that case. The same could not be treated as a ratio or a precedent for reliance. It could not be said that the Supreme Court as a general rule, laid down that in every category of ad hoc appointment, if the ad hoc appointee continues for a long period, the rules of appointment should be relaxed and appointment be made regular.

(48) Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel for the university further cited Dr. (Mrs) Sushma Suri v. Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors., 1995 I Ad (Delhi) 841, to show that Section 25 of the University Act does not lay down any limitation on the powers of the Vice Chancellor to nominate any professor in the selection committee. Therefore, selection cannot be challenged by the petitioner on that ground.

(49) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. I have also perused the relevant Act and the Statute of the respondent University governing selection procedure of lecturers. I have also carefully examined the number of cases cited at the bar.

(50) In the selection held in October, 1990, the petitioner had figured at serial no.4 in the panel according to the merit. In the advertisement, three posts were advertised in English department, two permanent and one temporary. Since there were three candidates above the petitioner, so they were selected and given the three available posts. However, one post of lecturer in the English Department was made available because one of the lecturers, namely, Ms. Ayesha Habel had proceeded on a long leave, the petitioner being number fourth in the merit list was appointed against the leave vacancy of Ms. Ayesha Habel. Even after Ms. Ayesha Habel returned, the petitioner was continued because another vacancy became available because of the resignation of Dr. Pranab Khullar, a lecturer in English department. Therefore, on 28.9.93, the petitioner was given appointment for a fixed period of 180 days against the post vacated by Dr. Khullar. Since the petitioner's appointment was against the leave vacancies for a fixed period, therefore, after expiry of that period, the petitioner cannot legitimately claim any right on that post. I find no merit in this contention of the petitioner.

(51) It would be pertinent to mention that on 27.7.1994, interviews were held for three posts of lecturers in English Department. Along with others, the petitioner also appeared but she was not selected. Thereafter, her services were dispensed with. The respondent university cannot be faulted or blamed for riot continuing the petitioner after expiry of her fixed tenure against which she was appointed.

(52) The petitioners also challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee on various grounds. In the case of Madan Lal and others vs. State of J & K and others, (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down in very clear terms that having completed and taken her chance before the selection committee, the petitioner cannot subsequently challenge the constitution of the committee. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in this contention of the petitioner.

(53) As submitted by the respondent university that in the instant case, the academic council had authorised the Vice-Chancellor to finalise the panel in consultation with the Head of the Department. Since no change in suggested names was made, consultation with the Head of the Department, (who is the Chairman of the Board of Studies) was not required. The selection also could not be challenged on the ground that Pro- Vice Chancellor did not participate in the selection process. The presence of the Pro-Vice Chancellor is immaterial as the quorum was otherwise complete. In view of the judgment of this court in Cwp 593/75, Dr. A.S. Jawatkra vs. J.N.U., this proposition has been dealt in detail and the court laid down that absence of Pro-Vice Chancellor is immaterial in cases where quorum was otherwise complete. I agree with the reasoning given by Chadha, J. in the said matter. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner is also devoid of any merit.

(54) The petitioner also contended that the Vice-chancellor's nominee must be from the same discipline/subject for which selection is being made. The construction of Statute 25 Rule no.2 on which heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioner, on proper construction reveals that note 2 relates to the appointment of teachers and/or academic staff working in any other university for undertaking joint projects under Statute 25 (9) and not to other cases. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment reported as Dr. Sushma Suri vs. Jamia Millia Islamia and others. 1995 I A.D. (Delhi) 841 D.B. In view of this judgment, I do not find any merit in this submission of the petitioner.

(55) It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she was regularly selected in 1990 and continued to work for about 4 years on that basis, she submitted that she could not have been made to undergo another selection held in Delhi in 1994, and she was entitled to be appointed on a regular basis. From the appointment letter itself, it is clear that her appointment was made against the vacancy of Ms. Ayesha Habel and Mr. Pranab Khullar for a fixed period. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the petitioner that she ought to have been automatically regularised.

(56) The petitioner also cannot take the benefit that she had figured at no.4 in the merit list and three vacancies were filled - two against permanent vacancies and one against temporary. Therefore, for any subsequent vacancy she ought to have been automatically appointed on regular basis. This argument of the petitioner is also devoid of any merit: The validity of that panel was for six months and according to the law which has been crystallized by a number of Supreme Court judgments. In the case of Madan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court clearly stated that if the requisition for recruitment is for 11 vacancies and the merit list prepared is for 20 candidates, the moment 11 vacancies are filled, the panel gets automatically exhausted and no further appointment can be made out of that panel. Any further appointment thereafter would be both irregular and illegal. In view of the aforesaid dictum of the. Supreme Court, this submission of the petitioner is also devoid of any merit.

(57) The petitioner also challenged that before dispensing with her services, it was incumbent on the respondent to have given her one month's notice. This proposition has no application in the facts and circumstance of this case where the appointment of the petitioner itself was against the leave vacancy for a specified period meaning thereby, from the very day of appointment, the petitioner had known upto which date the appointment was going to last.

(58) The petitioner's main submission is that she has continuously worked for almost 4 years and that must be an important consideration in regularising her services. This argument of the petitioner has no merit in view of the judgment in the case Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1994 Supp.(3) Scc 380. In this case, the appellant had worked at lecturer without break for 9 years on the date of advertisement. The submission made on her behalf that she should be deemed to have been regularised was not accepted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had laid down that eligibility and continuous working howsoever long, should not be permitted to over-reach the law. The requirement of rules of selection through commission cannot be substituted by humane consideration. The law must take its course.

(59) In some exceptional cases, the Supreme Court had directed regularisation. The submission advanced by the petitioner is that why on the same principle, the High Court cannot direct regularisation. Apart from the other reasons which have been enumerated above, in the judgment of State of Punjab and others v. Surinder Kumar and others, , the Supreme Court has laid down that the High Court cannot be equated with the Supreme Court. The Court laid down as under. "THERE is still another reason why the High Court cannot be equated with the Supreme Court. The constitution has, by Art-142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary "for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it," which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge. It is true that the High Court is entitled to exercise its judicial discretion in deciding writ petitions or civil revisions applications but this discretion has to be confined in declining to entertain petitions and refusing to grant relief on such a consideration alone. Therefore, the High Court was not entitled to pass any order Which it thought fit in the interest of justice."

(60) Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances in this case, the Court certainly has sympathy for the petitioner who has worked for almost 4 years continuously with the respondent university and ordinarily, the petitioner's services ought to have been regularised but in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief by this court. However, I hope and trust that university authorities would consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against any existing vacancy or future vacancy in the university without getting prejudiced with the fact that the petitioner had approached this court forgetting justice or dragged the university in court.

(61) The petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.