Dr. Yojna Kalia vs The University Of Delhi And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3225 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

           Judgment reserved on: August 11, 2009
           Judgment delivered on: August18, 2009

+                    W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2009

       Dr. Yojna Kalia                      ...  Petitioner
                 Through: Dr. Anurag Kumar Aggarwal & Mr.
                          Umesh Mishra, Advocates.
                           versus

       The University of Delhi and Another ...  Respondents
                Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya and Mr. S.S.
                           Ahluwalia, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers may
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

*

1. Petitioner- Dr. Yogna Kalia, is a Doctorate in Hindi and

she seeks direction to respondent No. 2- Desh Bandhu

College (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-College')

to appoint her against permanent post of Lecturer in Hindi

Department. Petitioner claims to be eligible for the aforesaid

appointment on the basis of being on the top in the panel

said to have been drawn by the Selection Committee in July,

2008. Reliance has been placed upon Advertisement,

W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2009 Page 1 Annexure P-6, to point out that two permanent posts of

Lecturers in Hindi Department were advertised by

respondent-College and the College had reserved the right

to change the nature/ number of posts advertised. As per

Corrigendum, Annexure P-7, out of these two post of

Lecturers, one was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The date of

the Corrigendum is said to be 1st July, 2008, though it is not

so mentioned in the Corrigendum, Annexure P-7.

2. Petitioner claims that still there were two posts of

Lecturers in Hindi Department of respondent-College but

instead of selecting two lecturers from the panel drawn by

the Selection Committee, two guest Lecturers were

appointed for the purpose of teaching, which is against

Ordinance - XIII of the calendar of University of Delhi, which

provides that appointment of guest teachers should be kept

at barest minimum. According to the petitioner, despite

Representations, Annexure P-9 & P-10, the guest Lecturers

still continue in the Hindi Department of respondent No.2. In

this petition, a direction is sought to respondent No.2/College

to fill up the vacancy of two permanent post of Lecturers

existing in Hindi Department of respondent-College and the

same be done on the basis of the panel drawn by the

Selection Committee in July, 2008.

W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2009 Page 2

3. Stand of the respondent-College is that Selection

Committee had prepared a panel of candidates belonging to

General Category for consideration of filling up of any

vacancy which may arise within next six months. However, it

is denied by respondent-College that two more vacancies

arose after filling up the vacancies, as mentioned in the

Advertisement, Annexure P-6, and infact, one vacancy did

arise in the Department of Hindi, in the respondent-College

and teaching work load, as against this vacancy is being

shared by two guest Lecturers. Clause-3(1) of Ordinance-XII

of calendar of University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as

the 'respondent-University') , is referred to Communication

of 3rd November, 2008, Annexure R-1 of respondent-

University, whereby every College under the respondent-

University is required to follow Ordinance-XII while making

appointment of teachers.

4. The mandate of the respondent-University, as

contained in Annexure R-1, to the respondent-College,

deserves notice and it reads as under:-

"Your attention is invited to clause 3(1) of Ordinance XII of the

University on the subject cited above which provides as under:-

„All vacancies of teachers shall be filled after advertisement and by open recruitment, save in the cases of

W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2009 Page 3 vacancies, appointment to which may be required to be made urgently in the interest of organization of teaching in the College concerned for a period not exceeding four months or beyond the term in which it is made whichever is earlier.‟

Every College is required to follow the above provision

scrupulously while making appointment of teachers. Vacancies arising

after publication of an advertisement should be advertised either by

issuing a fresh advertisement or through corrigendum. In the latter

case, last date of receiving applications will be suitably extended

so that prospective candidates can have a notice of the additional

vacancies and may apply. This will not only meet the requirement of

Ordinances of the University, but will also help the Colleges in attracting

suitable candidates for teaching posts.

It may be noted that any violation in this regard would make the

appointments null and void."

5. In view of the aforesaid, the stand of the respondent-

College is that it is bound by the directions as contained in

Communication, Annexure- R-1, referred to above and these

directions override Note-3 of the Advertisement, Annexure P-

6, which permitted the respondent-College to increase the

number of posts advertised.

6. Respondent- University in its counter affidavit has also

maintained that there was only one vacancy of Lecturer in

Department of Hindi in respondent-College and respondent-

W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2009 Page 4 College was restrained by Communication, Annexure R-1, to

fill up any vacancy without advertising it. The stand of the

respondent-University is that the existing vacancy cannot be

filled up from the earlier panel as the said vacancy was not

advertised. Communication, Annexure R-1, is sought to be

justified by contending that once a post is advertised, it

gives an opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and

the respondent-College also gets a wider choice.

7. Although rejoinder to the counter of respondent No.2/

College has been filed by the petitioner, but no rejoinder to

the counter of respondent No.1/University of Delhi, has been

filed. Meaning thereby, there is no challenge to the

communication/ directions issued by respondent No.1 vide

letter, Annexure -R-1.

8. After having heard both the sides and upon perusal of

material on record, I find that the petitioner cannot rely upon

Advertisement, Annexure P-6, to claim appointment from

respondent No.2 on the basis of the panel/ select list, drawn

by the Selection Committee in July, 2008, because an

embargo has been put by respondent-University upon the

respondent-College vide Communication/direction, Annexure

R-1, which is not under challenge in these proceedings. This

W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2009 Page 5 Court is of the considered view that unless and until the

interpretation of Ordinance-XII, as made by the respondent-

University, in its Communication, Annexure- R-1, is

challenged by the petitioner by suitably amending the writ

petition, the relief prayed for cannot be granted to the

petitioner. No such liberty has been sought by the petitioner.

9. In the light of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed.

However, respondent-College is directed to advertise the

existing vacancy expeditiously as it cannot be permitted to

avail of the services of the guest/ part time Lecturers for an

indefinite period.

10. With aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed

of.

11. No costs.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

August 18, 2009
rs




W.P. (C) No. 226 of 2009                                     Page 6