Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who has been working for the past 17 years as Guest Lecturer in the department of Social Work in the respondent University, initially applied under a notification dated 22.04.2002 to be appointed as a Lecturer in a substantive vacancy. In Exhibit P6 rank list that came to be published pursuant to the notification, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.13. When a person who had secured eighth position was appointed, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 25071/2004 and invited Exhibit P7 judgment. By the time judgment was rendered, the person whose appointment was challenged put in four years service. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition with an observation, which is as follows:
“Considering the long period of experience of the petitioner as a Guest Lecturer in the same University and by virtue of the rank obtained by her in the interview, there will be direction to the University to consider her for appointment, if any vacancy arises in the near future. The W.P. is dismissed but with the above observation.”
3. Later, though the petitioner carried the matter in Intra Court Appeal, a learned Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal through a judgment dated 08.01.2009.
4. At any rate, since the petitioner has been continuing as Guest Lecturer in the respondent University, through Exhibit P8, the respondent University informed the petitioner that her request will be considered by the University in compliance with Exhibit P7 judgment. Presently, the respondent University desires to fill up two permanent vacancies, one of them being in the department of Social Work, issued Exhibit P11 notification dated 22.11.2014. Even before Exhibit P11 was issued, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P10 representation for consideration. At any rate, apprehending that the respondent University may proceed with recruitment process in terms of Exhibit P11 notification without considering the claim of the petitioner, she approached this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been working for the past 17 years and is presently aged 48 years. She is also said to belong to Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel has strenuously contended that in terms of observations made in Exhibit P7 judgment, the respondent University ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner before issuing Exhibit P11 notification. According to the learned counsel, even the claim of the petitioner was rejected in Exhibit P7 judgment as a matter of equity since the contesting respondents put in four years service by then. As such, there is no express rejection, contends the learned counsel, of the petitioner's claim by this Court. He has further alternatively submitted that if the University is not inclined to consider her claim exclusively, the petitioner is willing to contest in open category, if the University provides age relaxation.
6. The learned Standing Counsel on his part has submitted that the respondent University, notwithstanding its inclination, cannot provide any relaxation of age in favour of the petitioner, especially in the light of the ratio laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 17.08.2009 in Writ Appeal No. 2229/2006. According to the learned Standing Counsel, under identical circumstances, considering the case of a Guest Lecturer who put in considerable service, the learned Division Bench has held that so long as a Teacher has not been borne in the cadre of University, no leverage can be given, much less a benefit of relaxation in age.
7. At any rate, the learned Standing Counsel has agreed that the respondent University is willing to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of Exhibit P7 judgment before it can further proceed with recruitment under Exhibit P11.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, though the petitioner submitted Exhibit P10 representation prior to Exhibit P11 notification, it is necessary that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to file a comprehensive application in what is said to be the prescribed format of the University, so that the respondent authorities may consider the issue taking into account the directions given in Exhibit P7 judgment.
9. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent University to consider the representation to be filed by the petitioner concerning her claim to the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Social Work in accordance with law, taking into account the observations made by this Court in Exhibit P7 and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of the petitioner's submission of the application.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE