LexTHE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, VASANTA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN versus TRIBHUWAN NATH TRIPATHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT,
VASANTA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN
v.
TRIBHUWAN NATH TRIPATHI AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 21, 1996
[N.P. SINGH AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.]
S e1vice Law:
C
Plivate College-Post of lecture1-Appointment of-Two extemal ex-
perts out o,{four member Selection Committee absent at il!te1view-Candidate
did not possess requisite Ph.D. degree-But assured he would get it shmt-
ly-Selection Committee recommended candidate for appointment and men-
tioned that his research work and publications were equivalem to
Ph.D.--However, candidate did not publish such work-Jn view of absence
D of expe1ts frqm Selection Committee, College appointed candidate only on ad
hoc basis ll!Zd made his further continuance subject to his completion of his
Ph.D.-Deipite extension of his ad hoc appointment candidate failed to get
his Ph.D. degree-Before expiry of said extended peliod advertisement issued
inviting application for said post but candidate did not apply for the
E same-Later on, he infonned College that he submitted his thesis for Ph.D.
but failed to appear for interview in response to interview cal/ letter issued by
College Pursual!t to infonnation given by him--<:andidate challenged said
adve1tisement but as there was no intelim order of court another person
appointed as lecturer and thereafter candidate obtained his Ph.D. de-
gree-However, sometimes later, the person so appointed resigned-Conse-
F quently College by another advertisement invited
applications
and
appointed a person in that post-Held: relief against a person appointed
could not be granted unless strong grounds made out-In the circumstances
of the case, the candidate could not be treated as Lecturer on pennanent
basis.
G
Ad hoc appointment-Expiry of peliod of-Continuation of service
of-Held: Such an appointee did not have any subsisting light for continua-
tion of service.
The Appellant-College issued an advertisement for the post of lec-
H turer in English. Two external expert members out of the four-member
56
COMMITTEEOFMANAGEMElffVASANTACOL!EGEFOR WOMEN,. T.N. TRIPATI!I 57
Selection Committee were absent at the time of interview. The respondent A
did not possess the requisite Ph.D. degree and assured that he would get
the same shortly. The Selection Committee had selected the respondent for
the post of Lecturer in English and mentioned that the respondent's
research work and publications were equivalent to Ph.D. However, since
no such work of the respondent had been published and in view of the
absence of the experts from the Selection Committee, the appellant-College
appointed the respondent on an ad hoc basis and made his further
continuance subject to completion of his Ph.D. Despite an extension of the
B
"
period of his ad hoc appointment, the respondent failed to get his Ph. D.
degree. Before the expiry of the said extended period, advertisement was
issued inviting applications for permanent Lecturers in English but the C
respondent did not apply for the same. Later, he informed the appellant-
College that he had submitted his thesis for Ph.D. but failed to appear for
the interview in response to the interview call letter issued by the appel-
lant-College pursuant to the information given by the respondent.
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challeng-
ing the said advertisement but in the absence of any interim order of the
court one M was appointed as lecturer in English and thereafter the
respondent obtained his Ph.D. Degree. However, sometimes later, M
resigned from the post of Lecturer after a period of three years. Conse-
quently, the appellant- College by another advertisement invited applica-
tions and appointed a person in the post lectnrer in English. In the
meantime, the High Court allowed the respondent's petition and directed
the appellant-College to appoint the respondent on a permanent basis.
Being aggrieved the appellant-College preferred the present appeal.
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Selection
Committee had considered that he did not have a Ph.D. degree but,
considering his published work as equivalent to Ph.D., recommended him
D
E
F
for appointment on a permanent basis; that if the appellant-College did G
not treat the Selection Committee as properly constituted one due to
absence of two members thereof, the appellant should not have acted on
the basis of the recommendation of that Committee and should have
arranged a proper mExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.