Dr. Bal Kishan Dabas vs University Of Delhi
1998 Latest Caselaw 876 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in History in the second respondent college of the Delhi University. The petitioner had served as a Lecturer in History on ad-hoc basis as per following details: -

18.11.1993 to 17.03.1994 19.03.1994 to 30.04.1994 18.07.1994 to 17.11.1994 21.11.1994 to 20.03.1995 22.03.1995 to 30.04.1995 17.07.1995 to 16.11.1995 18.11.1995 to 17.03.1996 19.03.1996 to 30.04.1996 16.07.1996 to 15.11.1996 18.11.1996 to 17.03.1997 19.03.1997 to 30.04.1997

2. According to the petitioner, the University issued an advertisement in February, 1995 mentioning that the University intended to fill up three permanent posts of Lecturers in History. The petitioner had also appeared for interview. Ultimately, two Lecturers were appointed. The third post was not filled up. There was an advertisement again in 1996-97 and the third post had been reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.K.Rao, vehemently contended that in February, 1995 when the advertisement was issued, three posts had been mentioned. At that time, there was no reservation mentioned. It is only on the 15th of July, 1996 a policy of reservation mentioning the roster point had been introduced. Mr.V.K.Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to paragraph 6 of the policy which reads as under :-

"For the purpose of application of roster, in the case of the University Departments a department, and in the case of Colleges a subject in the college, will be treated as a unit. The date of creation/vacancy of the post in department/subject, as the case may be, shall determine the application of the roster point."

4. The respondent being public authorities ought to have followed what was shown in the advertisement in February, 1995. According to Mr.V.K.Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, with a view to depriving the petitioner of his right of regularisation in the second respondent college in which he had been working since 1993, the respondents are now seeking to apply this reservation policy. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.K.Rao, the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India have been infringed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.K.Rao, the petitioner had been working for more than five years, and, there was need for the college to have the services of the Lecturers and therefore, the services of the petitioner should have been regularised.

5. The petitioner having been appointed on ad-hoc basis, has no right to any post in the second respondent college. When the petitioner has no right, whatever that is done by the respondents to fill up the two posts out of three posts of Lecturers is none of the concern of the petitioner. In this view of the matter. I do not find any justification to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.