Archana Jain vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution challenges the resolution dated 09.03.1997 (Annexure P/2) and consequential order dated 24.06.2005 (Annexure P/1). By resolution Annexure P/2 a report produced by Professor Nair is accepted, pursuant to which, respondent No. 6 is shown senior to the petitioner. On the basis of said resolution, charge of Department of Economics is given to respondent No. 6.

Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed by order dated as Asstt. Professor Economics in the scale of 700-1300. Thereafter petitioner worked with utmost honesty, sincerity and devotion. Respondent No. 5 was appointed by order dated 06.11.1981 on temporary basis in the subject of Rural Banking and Agricultural Marketing. Respondent No. 5 was fully aware that she is not appointed in the Department of Economics and therefore, she preferred representation Annexure P/7 dated 15.05.1995 seeking her absorption/assimilation in the Department of Economics. Syllabus for Faculty of Arts & Social Science (Annexure P/6) is relied upon to submit that there are different subjects including Economics, Rural Banking and Agricultural Marketing. In nutshell, it is submitted that respondent No. 5 is appointed on a different subject which does not fall under the Department of Economics. She was appointed on temporary basis and therefore, by no stretch of imagination she can secure a march in the matter of seniority over and above the petitioner. In addition, recommendation of Principal dated 13.05.2005 (Annexure P/12) is relied upon to show that even institution was of the view that petitioner is senior to respondent No. 5.

Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the Barkatullah University, relied on Annexure R-2/1 the seniority list of Asstt. Professor for the year 2004-05. In the said seniority list, the name of respondent No. 5 is at number 181, whereas name of petitioner is at 742 position. Shri Sharma submits that it is a combined seniority list of all Asstt. Professors working in the aided institutions under the jurisdiction of Barkatullah University. He submits that there is no illegality in granting seniority to the respondent No. 5.

Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that respondent No. 6 submitted her candidature pursuant to advertisement dated 10th July, 1981. Advertisement shows that candidature were invited for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Economics. Respondent No. 6 was appointed for the post of Lecturer in Economics by order dated 23.09.1981. By order dated 06.11.1981 although she was shown as appointed temporarily in subject of Rural Marketing and Agricultural Marketing, facts remains that this Department falls under the Department of Economics. He submits that curtains are finally drawn on this controversy when after due consideration, the University decided that the Rural Banking and Agriculture Marketing will remain under the Department of Economics.

In the opinion of this Court, the University has dealt with this issue by order dated 25.08.1995. This order dated 25.08.1995 is not called in question in the present petition. The University was best suited to decide as to which subject will fall under which department. There is no palpable perversity in the said finding. Another aspect raised is that respondent No. 6 was appointed temporarily whereas petitioner is appointed on permanent basis. If advertisement and order of appointment of respondent No. 6 are read together, it will be clear that advertisement was for the subject of Economics. She was initially appointed as Lecturer Economics by order dated 23.09.1981. By order dated 05.11.1981 she was shown as temporarily appointed in the subject of Rural Banking and Agricultural Marketing. The said subject became part and parcel of the Department of Economics. The respondent No. 6 was confirmed on 15.06.1985.

This is settled in service jurisprudence that on confirmation the seniority relates back to the date of original appointment. This is also settled that confirmation is an unglorious uncertainity in service career of an employee. However, when an employee is confirmed, her seniority relates back to the date of his/her initial appointment (See: Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers'' Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, In this view of the matter, on confirmation of respondent No. 6 with effect from 15.06.1985 the seniority relates back to the date of her original appointment that is 23.09.1981. The University has also given seniority to respondent No. 6 from 1981 by Annexure R-2/1. There is no illegality in the aforesaid action. Petitioner has not refuted that the post of lecturer stood redesignated as Asstt. Professor.

In view of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, there is no illegality on which interference is warranted by this Court. Once it is held that respondent No. 6 is under the Department of Economics, no illegality can be found in action of respondents in giving charge to respondent No. 6 being senior to the petitioner.

Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.