IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.55703 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN PROF. ASHA YATHIRAJ W/O YATHIRAJ M.B AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT A01/17, 6TH MAIN, BOGADI II STAGE, MYSURU-570 026. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GOVINDARAJ.L, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110108 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING MANASAGANGOTHRI, MYSURU-570 006 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 3. DR. S.R.SAVITHRI FORMER DIRECTOR ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF SPEECH AND HEARING (AIISH) MANASAGANGOTHRI, MYSURU-570 006 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UNNI KRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICE ORDER DTD.16.10.2017 THE APPOINTMENT OF THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was appointed as Research Officer in the year 1988, in the 2nd respondent-Institution. The petitioner was promoted as professor and further she was placed as in- charge Director of the institution in the year 2006. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.3 herein joined the respondent institution as lecturer in the year 1986 and subsequently she was appointed as Professor by way of promotion by order dated 02.02.2009.
2. On 21.11.2016 an advertisement was issued by the respondent institution calling for application in the prescribed form for the post of Director, to be filled by direct recruitment. It is an admitted fact that the recruitment vide notification dated 21.11.2016 could not be proceeded with. Therefore, the respondent institution issued another advertisement for filing up the post of Director, by way of direct recruitment, as per the notification dated 27.09.2017. The respondent No.3 herein attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner herein was posted as in-charge Director by order dated 08.08.2017. It is also an admitted fact that the advertisement dated 27.09.2017, was infact issued by the petitioner herein while she was in-charge Director of the respondent institution.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 herein was once again appointed as Director, for a period of one year, pursuant to the impugned order dated 16.10.2017, at Annexure-G. The appointment of the respondent No.3 as Director, pursuant to Annexure-G is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections justifying the appointment of the respondent No.3, which was for a temporary period of one year, since the regular recruitment for the post of Director could not be completed even though two notifications were issued calling for applications to the post of Director. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that one year period for which respondent No.3 was appointed as Director to the 2nd respondent institution has come to an end on 17.10.2018. Thereafter by issuance of a circular dated 17.10.2018 one Dr.M.Pushpavathi has been appointed as Director of the 2nd respondent institution from the forenoon of 17.10.2018. The said circular has been issued pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No.1/Union of India. The order of the 1st respondent has been communicated vide letter dated 25.07.2018 to the 2nd respondent institution.
5. That being the position, the writ petition does not survive for consideration since the respondent No.3 is not serving as a Director any more in the 2nd respondent institution and a regular appointment to the post of Director of the 2nd respondent institution has also been made by the respondent. Therefore, petition is disposed of as nothing further survives for consideration in this writ petition.
SD/- JUDGE KLY/