IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 376 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: September 27, 2011 Ms. Pratima Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents to appoint her to the post of Lecturer in English on the basis of merit prepared on 20.7.1991 by Selection Committee. The petitioner pleads that the post is available with respondent No.3. The petitioner claims that she has a brilliant academic record and was appointed as a part time Lecturer in English with respondent-College on 23.7.1990 and worked as such till 28.2.1991. As per the petitioner, her work and conduct was Civil Writ Petition No. 376 of 1992 -2- satisfactory. It is stated that the knowledge of the petitioner always received critical appreciation. The respondent-College had advertised one post of Lecturer in English in May, 1991 on regular basis. The petitioner was applicant for the said post. A Selection Committee consisting of Principal, Secretary to the Managing Committee, one subject Expert, one nominee of the University and one representative of respondent No.2, was constituted. The Committee prepared a select list and the petitioner was shortlisted at No.2 in order of merit. One Brijesh Sahni was placed at top in the order of merit. He (Brijesh Sahni), accordingly, was appointed by the College. The petitioner had then filed a civil suit to challenge the appointment on the ground that said Brijesh Sahni was not entitled to the appointment as the petitioner was wrongly ignored. As per the petitioner another vacancy of Lecturer in English became available and since she was already shortlisted on the basis of merit, she would seek appointment on the said post. The petitioner also points out that the respondent- Management has appointed three part time Lecturers in English against two regular posts and these part time Lectures have been allocated periods meant for more than two full time Lecturers, but still are being paid salary as part time Lecturers. The counsel, accordingly, pleads that this action of the respondent-College to ignore the claim of the petitioner, who had earlier worked with the College and employing other persons as part time lecturers, is nothing but arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondents have filed reply. The averments Civil Writ Petition No. 376 of 1992 -3- regarding the constitution of Selection Committee and selection of Brijesh Sahni is not disputed. The same selection is, however, justified on the ground that the petitioner was less meritorious. The assertion in the writ petition that some appointment has been made on part time basis on a sanctioned post is denied as stated. It is stated that there are only 7 sanctioned posts for Department of English and Brijesh Sahni has occupied 7th post. Accordingly, at the time of filing reply, there was no sanctioned post available in the Department of English. It is, thus, stated that the petitioner could not claim appointment against any post. The respondents would also dispute the averment made by the petitioner in regard to the part time appointment. It is conceded that some part time Lectures in English Department were appointed by taking into consideration the workload, but it is further stated that no part time Lecturer was working at the time of filing reply. It is also pointed out that such appointments were never made against regular sanctioned post. The regular sanctioned strength of Lecturers in the English Department is only seven. The writ petition was admitted and has now come up for hearing. Counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respondents in appointing lecturers on part time basis, ignoring the claim of the petitioner, who was found meritorious and shortlisted, is arbitrary. The counsel further contends that the respondents can still appoint the petitioner, if there is a job. After passage of 20 years, the appointment to a post, where part time Lecture was appointed, would not sound fair or Civil Writ Petition No. 376 of 1992 -4- reasonable. The petitioner duly competed for appointment to the post, but could not succeed. No doubt, the petitioner was found meritorious, but person higher in merit was appointed. The petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged that appointment by filing a civil suit. Now the limited prayer made in the petition is that the petitioner had a preferential right to be appointed on part time basis. This is purely an ad hoc arrangement. It is not known if there is any appointment still continued on part time basis or these had come to an end. As per the reply these posts were not occupied at the time of filing reply. Thus, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed. September 27, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE