IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T)-5128/2008. Reserved on: 23.2.2010. Date of Decision : 3.3.2010 Meera Mahajan …Petitioner. Versus The Management Committee and others. ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the petitioner :Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate For the respondent-1 to 3 :Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. For the respondent- 4. Mr.R.R.Rahi, Advocate. _________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma ,J. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner claims that she was appointed as Lecturer in the subject of History by the respondent-College. The petitioner has, however, not placed on record her appointment letter. The Management has issued an advertisement on 11th February, 1998 for filling up the post of lecturer in the subject of History. She along with respondent No.4 applied for the same. The interview was held on 26th June, 1998. The result was declared on 7th July, 1998. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Respondent No.4 was selected and he joined his duties in the month of August, 1998. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 9th July, 1998. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that she was fully qualified and eligible to be considered for the post of lecturer in the subject of History and the respondents should not have initiated the fresh process of filling up the post vide advertisement dated 11.2.1998. The respondent-College i.e. Arya Girls College, Nurpur was taken over by the respondent-State on the basis of the Notification dated 25th June, 2002. The petitioner has moved an application bearing MA No. 2273 of 2002 seeking amendment to the Original Application after issuance of the Notification dated 25.6.2002 The application was dismissed by a reasoned order by the learned Tribunal on 17.6.2008. The case of the respondents in nutshell is that the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer was a temporary appointment and she was not eligible and qualified as per Rule 3 of the Appendix-A of Chapter-38 of the Volume-II of the Handbook of the H.P. University relating to the affiliated colleges. Mr. Virender Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Lecturer in the subject of History is illegal, 3 arbitrary, discriminatory and thus violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents have vehemently argued that the appointment of respondent No.4 was made in accordance with law. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner has not placed on record her appointment letter. It was incumbent for the petitioner to place on record her appointment letter to ascertain the exact status of her appointment. It has come in the reply that the petitioner was not possessing essential qualification i.e. M.Phil Degree and MA with a consistently good academic record. There is procedure prescribed for filling up the post of Lecturer as per Rule 3 of the Appendix-A of Chapter-38 of the Volume-II of the Handbook of the H.P. University. The petitioner was required to be interviewed as per Rule 3 to assess her suitability. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the petitioner to fulfill the essential qualification and to go through the selection process as per Rule 3 of the Appendix-A of Chapter-38 of the Volume-II of the Handbook of the H.P. University at the time of her initial appointment. The petitioner has also applied along with respondent No.4 for the post of Lecturer in the subject of 4 History. She was not found suitable and her services were terminated vide memorandum dated 9th July, 1998. It has come in the reply that the petitioner has refused to accept the same. However, the fact of the matter is that she knew through out the fact of her termination. Respondent No.4 was found suitable and was appointed to the post of Lecturer in the subject of History. There is no illegality in terminating the services of the petitioner after the selection of respondent No.4 by duly constituted a Selection Committee. Mr. Virender Singh Rathore has also argued that the services of the petitioner were liable to be taken over on the basis of the Notification dated 25th June, 2002 and 27th June, 2002. This plea has no merit. The services of only those teachers could be taken over who were in regular employment of the respondent- College. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 9.7.1998 and thus her services cannot be directed to be taken over. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking amendment to the writ petition after issuance of Notification dated 25th June, 2002, 27th June, 2002 on 17.6.2008. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 3, 2010(R) 5