AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner in this writ application has prayed to regularise the service
of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Tribal and
Regional Language "Ho" and pay salary in the regular scale.
Petitioner claims that she is teaching regional language "Ho" in the
Ranchi University since 1992. Petitioner claims that she is working against
vacant and sanctioned post. Petitioner''s claim is that in 1996 an advertisement
was issued by the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Services
Commission for appointment of Lecturer in different constituent colleges in
various subjects including that of tribal and regional languages. There were 5
(five) vacant posts for regional and tribal language ''HO''. Petitioner applied
pursuant to the said advertisement, but no regular appointment was made.
Petitioner preferred a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1728 of 2000(R).
The said writ application was disposed of on 03.01.2002 with a direction to the
Commission to send recommendation for the candidates, who have
participated in the interview, expeditiously and on receipt of such
recommendation, there was a direction to appoint successful candidate. It is
stated that nothing happened thereafter.
Again, an advertisement was published by the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission, inviting applications for appointment in different subjects
including that of regional language ''HO''. The said advertisement was
numbered as 1 of 2007. From perusal of the said advertisement, one can
understand that there are four vacant posts for lecturer in ''HO'' language.
Petitioner applied and was called for interview. As per the petitioner, the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission forwarded the merit list to the
Universities on 01.07.2008. Even inspite of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner
was not appointed. Petitioner''s claim that she was regularly assigned several
duties including that of evaluating the answer sheets and also functioned as
examiner and question paper setter for the language ''HO''. She claims to be
regularised in service and/or for a direction to issue appointment letter to the
petitioner pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2007.
University appeared and filed their counter affidavit. They admitted
that an advertisement was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service
Commission bearing advertisement No.1 of 2007, but, the same was
cancelled. Thereafter a second advertisement 2 of 2017 was published, but in
the second advertisement, the vacancy position was not mentioned and all the
9 regional languages were clubbed as one. As the advertisement was
defective, the entire documents were returned by the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission. It is stated that a panel / merit list was also prepared and
was sent by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 01.07.2008. The life
of the said panel was only for one year and the same lapsed on 01.07.2009.
No appointment was made from the said panel.
After hearing the parties, I find that admittedly a merit list was
prepared and a panel was sent to the University. The University did not
appoint any person from the said panel. The life of the panel lapsed on
01.07.2009 . Thus, at this stage, no direction can be given to the respondents
to appoint this petitioner or any person from a panel, which has lapsed way
back on 01.07.2009. Further since the advertisement No.1 of 2007 has been
cancelled, the respondents cannot be directed to make any appointment
pursuant to the said advertisement. So far as regularisation of the petitioner is
concerned, I find that as per the counter affidavit of the respondents, petitioner
was teaching on honorarium basis since 1992. It is admitted that the petitioner
was not appointed pursuant to any advertisement. Further, the appointment of
the petitioner was not on basis of any recommendations of the Universities
Service Commission. Thus, there can be no positive direction in favour of the
petitioner to regularise her. If in future, any advertisement is published seeking
for appointment of lecturers in the language of ''HO'', petitioner is at liberty to
apply against the said advertisement if she fulfills the eligibility criteria.
I find no merit in this application, the same is dismissed, but with the
aforesaid observation.