Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dr. Mrs. S.D. Quddusi, Lecturer v. The Registrar,Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh And Another - WRIT - A No. 10022 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 139 (9 May 2003)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).





Dr. Mrs. S.D. Quddusi -----           Petitioner


The Registrar, Aligarh Muslim University,

Aligarh & Anr. -----        Respondents    


Hon'ble Dr.B.S.Chauhan,J.

Hon'ble Ghanshyam Dass, J.

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service in Department of Hindi against the temporary existing vacancy and to decide her representation dated 30.9.2002 (Annex.-13) and further to restrain the respondents to make any local arrangement against the existing vacancy in Hindi Department till petitioner is absorbed.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had applied against a temporary vacancy of Lecturer in the Hindi Department of respondent University and she was issued an interview letter dated 1.11.1999 to face the selection committee on 2nd November, 1999 (Annex.-2). She was offered the appointment as a Lecturer in Hindi vide letter dated 3rd January, 2000 (Annex.-3) for a period from 13.12.1999 to 31.1.2000 or till some other arrangement is made or until further orders whichever was earlier. After the expiry of the said period she was again called for interview to face the Selection committee on 18th January, 2000 and in pursuance thereof and in pursuance of the same she had been offered the appointment vide order dated 31st January, 2000 (Annex.-5). Again she was called to face the local Selection committee on 5th September, 2001 (Annex.-6) and in pursuance thereof she had been offered the appointment letter dated 26.9.2001 (Annex.-7). Now the vacancy is still available but instead of allowing the petitioner to continue till the regular selected candidate joined they being re-advertised the vacancy ignoring the scheme of the petitioner in contravention of the regulation of Executive Council of the University dated 8th November, 2000. Hence this petition.

Heard Shri Yogeshwar Prasad and Shri P.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocates with Shri M.A.Khan, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as she has faced three local Selection committees by virtue of the resolution of the Executive Council of the University dated 1.11.2000 (Annex.-8) she is entitled to continue till the regularly selected candidate is appointed and no fresh selection can be held on a temporary post. More so, respondents had adopted a hostile attitude towards the petitioner which is discriminatory, unwarranted and uncalled for as in  similar circumstances they have permitted other persons to continue on the post till the regular selection is made. Thus, the conduct of the respondents is violative of equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

On the contrary, Shri Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the first time when petitioner was called for to face the local selection committee, for one reason or the other the meeting could not beheld but she had been offered the appointment on the recommendation of the Chairman, i.e., Dean of the Hindi Department and Dean of Faculty of Arts and approved by the Vice Chancellor, and therefore, the first appointment cannot be treated to have been made on the recommendation of the local selection committee, and therefore, she is not eligible for the relief claimed here in this petition.

So far as the case of Reshma Begum is concerned, she had faced three local selection committees, and therefore, her case is entirely distinguishable form the petitioner.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The local selection committee consists of the Dean of Faculty Chairman of the Department, a nominee of Vice Chancellor and one Professor of the Department, and if there is no Professor, a Reader of the Department to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor as required under clause 29 (b) of the Aligarh Muslim  University Statute. It has vehemently been submitted by Shri Yogeshwar Prasad that selection committee was constituted and petitioner has faced the selection committee thrice and even when she had been offered appointment at the first time under the recommendation of the Dean/Chairman of the Hindi Department and Dean Faculty of Arts duly approved by the Vice Chancellor. Therefore, in view of the provisions of clause 29 (b) the constitution of the Selection committee was complete and even if there was any deficiency petitioner cannot be held responsible. Relevant part of the resolution of the academic council reads as under:-

".......temporary Lecturers who have already faced three local Selection committees or have worked continuously for at least three years after being appointed through a local Selection committee, may be permitted to continue on their posts till General Selection committee is held or till the vacancies exist or until further orders, whichever is earlier, in case the vacancies belong to the same Department....."

Initially she was called for to face the interview vide letter dated 1.11.1999 (Annex.-2) and was given extension offer of her service earlier vide letter dated 3.1.2000. Subsequently, the vacancy was advertised and she was called to face the interview vide letter dated 10.1.2000 (Annex.-4) and she faced the selection committee and she was offered appointment vide letter dated 31.1.2000 (Annex.-5). Again she was called to face the local selection committee vide letter dated 30.8.2001 (Annex.-6) and in pursuance thereof she had been offered the appointment vide letter dated 25.9.2001.

Now the question does arise as to whether in the circumstances, the petitioner has faced the three local selection committees. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had faced the Selection Committee twice. The dispute is with respect to the initial one when she was called for interview before the Committee but the contention is that the meeting of the Committee did not take place. However, the appointment was given to the petitioner on the recommendation made by Chairman, Dean of Hindi and Faculty of Arts vide Annex.-1. This appointment letter cannot be treated to meet out the requirement that the petitioner had faced the local selection committee and accordingly, had been appointed for the temporary post. The evidence is not explicit on record to conclude that the case of Reshma Begum is identical to that of the petitioner as contended by the petitioner and on that ground the discrimination is there. It has been contended by the respondents that the facts of Reshma Begum are distinguishable. That

being so, the petitioner cannot be given benefit for no violation of rules.

In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.